Left Without Anything to Hold on To. Let Go. - 2nd February 2019

Look at this for a moment. Truth is unlimited. That is the one you are after, no? You're not after limited truth. So how can truth be this way and not that way? Then it would be limiting the truth, you see? But concepts are only limiting by nature. Any concept is what they define, and to define is to limit, you see? So anything that you can define about yourselves is to limit yourself. Anything that you can define about yourself is to make a conceptual box around yourself or a limit about yourselves, you see? But you are looking for the truth which is unlimited.

So a belief is nothing but a concept that you feel represents reality, isn't it? If you feel it represents reality, that's why you say, 'This is the truth.' But then in that, what you're doing is you're confining the truth into a small box of this way or that way. Now, the truth is much, much, much, much simpler than that. What is, or is-ness, is much simpler than that. It cannot be captured through these notions. This simplicity is ever-apparent. So ever-apparent, but never understood, you see? This is the difference. When we try to make that what is apparent into an understanding or knowledge, see, that is the struggle of the spiritual seeker. In fact, that is the so-called struggle of life itself, you see? To try to give a box to what is, is the struggle of life.

If you throw away these boxes, first recognize that you don't know anything. You see, this can seem like a bit of a struggle because if you're holding on to a belief, you're not holding on to it with the sense that 'Oh, this is nonsense' or 'This is garbage.' It has value. So although all of us can agree, the point is that we can still hold on to it. Now, life has a very defined system in a way that if you are holding on to a notion, a concept, it is going to pinch you. It is going to pinch you. So when that pinching comes, then see that. Just check: 'What is the nonsense I'm holding on to?' So pinching equals acceptance of some nonsense or some limiting idea about yourself, you see? Then pinching comes. Just check and throw it away. That is inquiry, no? Very simple to inquire into what is true.

You will see that if it has the ability to push buttons, if it has the ability to make you believe something about yourself in a limited way, you see, then it is just a version of the truth that you have, which you claim to be truly representative of what is true. So what you realize is like the Zen master saying that one explosive notion which blasts a lot of other notions is 'No.' Like, look at whatever you're holding on to and see that it is not it. Whether you call it 'Neti Neti' or whatever you call it, it's fine. It is not that. It does not truly represent anything. So come to 'No,' but also don't make 'No' into a lifestyle. I loved it when he said that also, because then we can become from 'knowers' (K-N-O-W-E-R) to 'No-ers' who know everything is 'No.' That is also too strong an opposition. We don't know even that, you see?

So now I feel like I have the same satsang every day. So when it is said like this, all these words have been spoken, it can feel like I have a task to do, you see? 'I have this to do, I have this to do, and then I will come to this sort of emptiness.' But I have good news for you. This emptiness, this conceptual nakedness, you see, is ever-present. It is here now. Which notion did you start with now? Right now? Right now? Okay, now think of a notion. Think of a notion. Tell me when you've got one. Got one? Okay. Now hold on to that and bring it into now. Can't do it. Because the now is so fresh, it is so natural, it is so original that you cannot bring your conditions, your baggage, you see? So you have to reinvigorate them, you have to revitalize them again and again and again. So it is just like the garden has to be watered every day; in the same way, our conditions have to be watered, nurtured with our belief over and over and over again for them to survive.

Now, the thing is that you cannot pick and choose. The thing is that you cannot pick and choose because if you pick one idea, it's like I was saying, that one idea or ten thousand ideas are in the container, and in those ten thousand ideas, another ten thousand each are contained. Therefore, the whole notional representation of the universe is there in one idea, you see? So that's why even the big negation idea has to be dropped also, you see? Which is useful provisionally, but also then has to go, you see? Because even as I say 'No,' what does 'No' mean? It is 'not' or something. 'This is not.' Then each of those terms mean so many other terms, and each of those terms mean so many other terms. So even the negation of it is useful only to a particular point, until you see that even that is too limiting a representation of what is, or the is-ness.

So now if you have to do the job of picking up what is garbage—'I have to pull it out, I have to throw it away'—then it can seem like it may take lifetimes. Because once you start looking like that, in that expedition you find more and more and more, you see? So you don't have to undertake that expedition also. You are empty now. You are empty now. That is the best shortcut we know. Before now. Before the concept of now. Now. Before the sound of the tape. Now. Like this, all gone. Fresher. The innocence of the baby that you are looking for is here now. Here now.

But you see, the thought will come and say, 'But me?' The only part is 'But me.' Actually, it is, 'But what about me? But what's in it for me?' See, so that's why this game of satsang goes on. I am saying I cannot tell you the truth, I cannot perceptually show you the truth, but I'm showing it to you just by pointing like this, you see? And you are seeing it, actually. Not with these eyes, but you are seeing it. You cannot miss it. It is unmissable, you see? But it has nothing for 'me.' Yeah? So when this 'me,' which has been nurtured for so long, says, 'But what did I get?' Nothing. It is true. It is true because nothing got nothing. Itself is nothing, so how will it get something? It can only get nothing. So this imaginary 'me' got nothing because it itself is imaginary, you see? But because we pledged our allegiance, in a way, to that one, then you can just be like, 'I don't get it. What's happening here? I can't find anything, really.' So this is the game of satsang. I am showing you simple, super, super simple, super, super natural, without having to be supernaturally supernatural. But nothing for you. So this voice will come: 'But me, but me, but me, but me.' And then the Sages said, of course, said okay, in response to this 'But me,' ask yourself, 'Who is this that you're representing as me?' So that is the path of self-inquiry.

You can just be like, 'I don't get it. What's happening here? I can't find anything really.' So this is the game of satsang. I am showing you simple, super-super simple, super-super natural—without having to be supernaturally supernatural—but nothing for you. So this 'but me, but me, but me, but me' will come. And then the sage said, of course, in response to this 'but me,' ask yourself, 'Who is this that you're representing as me?' So that is the path of self-inquiry. Bhagavan said there are two methods. First is self-inquiry: even when this 'but me' comes, say, 'Who am I?' Find out if there is such a me. Find out who am I. Second is the path of surrender, which means don't bother with this me; leave everything to the Divine or to the Satguru present. Surrender it. It's simple. It is just a counter to this 'but me, but what about me?'

So you can also be like, 'Okay, now that I know that there is nothing in it for me, now what about me?' You nourished it with so much momentum, you see. So it's almost like—Bhagavan gave a very good metaphor for this—he said the fan, the energy, the power is turned off, but it still can go around for a bit. So you might still be struggling that way to say, 'Okay, now I'm really understanding what he's saying, that there is really nothing here for me. Now, have I got it?' You see, this is another way of saying 'me.' Is this still the 'but me' thing? So this is the habit. That was the game. Just the thorn is very useful because as you shine this light on this play of the mind and notice that it is nothing, you see, 'Have I got it?' is just a thought. 'Have I missed it again?' is just a thought. 'I can't get it' is just a thought. 'It's so difficult' is just a thought. 'It's so simple' is just a thought. 'What do I do?' is just a thought. 'I have to stop believing' is just a thought.

None of these—these are the notions I'm talking about—none of them are valid representations of what is, as true as they may seem. So either in the positive or in the negation, it is not the truth. Either an up-vote or a down-vote on an idea is not the truth. 'I did it this way, not that way'—actually, both ways an idea is it. So you become really comfortable with not having to judge. You can have two completely opposite ideas and both can have the same truth value for you. It doesn't matter, because you let go of trying to define yourself in these mental waves. And the sages have been saying this for a long, long time in very, very simple ways. My words can seem a bit abstract and intellectual or difficult at times. I appreciate, in a way, that to suffer you need something; to be happy you need nothing.

So what is it? Nobody picks up suffering; you pick up something thinking that that is going to be me. You pick up something because you think that that is useful. It is this valid representation, you see. So that is why it is good to see: what is our version of reality? What is your version of reality now? And if you have one, throw it away, because it is not going to give any benefit. It is only going to make you suffer because reality is so unlimited that it will contradict that version, no matter how broad you might feel that version is. Reality, or even the apparent or the manifest play of reality, is also so broad that it will end up contradicting whatever version you might think is true.

So this is when you are left without a branch to hang on to. This is when you are left without anything to hold on to. That is the meaning of 'let go.' Guru Ji says, 'Let go.' So these ideas of yes, no, good, bad, true, false—they just need to make versions out of you, but they're never going to truly represent what is. So this whole game, in a way, is actually undefinable. But you have to say something about the play, you know? It is that which is unlimited playing as if it is limited using these ideas. It is like the beach making tiny circles on itself in its own sand and saying, 'I'm limited by that circle.' And what are these circles? They are limiting ideas about ourselves. Now, this primary foundation of the circle is the idea of 'I am me.' The 'I' thought has gone cold. So to not refer to 'I' as anything is to let go of the 'I' thought anytime you hear this in strange ways.

So it can feel like, 'Okay, once I've done that, then I've done this, then I will encounter the I-thought and we will have a battle and then the I-thought will go and I will be free,' you see. But it is just a thought. Even 'I' is just a thought. It is the I-thought. It is just a thought, which means that any reference you make to 'I' which you feel is valid—even if you say 'I am Brahman,' the greatest, broadest, most absolute reference you can make—is still the possibility to limit yourself based on that. Otherwise, why would there be a need to assert if it could not be negated? Like any simple thing—you don't have to assert 'I have a mouth.' You can say, 'You're crazy. I have a mouth, obviously. Why do you have to assert it?' Isn't it? So in the assertion is contained the possibility of it not being true. That is why you need to assert it, you see.

So sometimes when you buy into the assertions, as glorious and as broad-seeming as they might be, we don't recognize that this is just pointing me to a greater reality; it itself does not represent it, you see. So even the Mahavakyas, the greatest pointers, are just pointers. They are not valid representations of what is, because what is is not so small that it can be represented in these ways. So whatever we consider to be true, whatever our belief system is, whatever we think we know—whether it is pride or whether it is humility, which is both the same entity—it doesn't matter. Let's move to a bigger playground. I've already had enough of this playground. 'They like me now,' 'Why am I like this?' You know, like this. We are tired of this small playground, the kids' pool. Let's just dive into the bigger pool.

So if you're done with this play of 'me,' let's let go of this and see what beauty lies beyond. If you're done with this play of concept and percept, let's see what non-perceptual beauty lies beyond. That is my invitation or provocation: to let go of this very limited idea of 'my kingdom' and 'my bondage,' because there is no such 'me.' You've looked enough now; you've not found it. And yet you, with your belief, pledge allegiance to it. Everything that we believe is actually a pledge of allegiance to the mind.

Yeah, I just want to say, you know, I don't know how to put it in words, but there was such a long time where I was not realizing that I was understanding with the mind. And the real understanding is so different. You don't need to know anything. I mean, you don't really need to know anything. And this—it was last week we had the topic, or I don't know anymore, I can't remember—but this thing about how we need to learn to discern what is mind and to realize what mind is. And this is such a crucial point, I feel, because when you see it, it is done. You just cannot go on playing in the sphere of what the mind is. And even when we say, 'Oh, this is a thought,' yeah, even when I say it, I still... you know, I can still... yes, the mind says, 'Of course, this is the...' oh yeah. And it's then the understanding of the mind. It is not the seeing which is just here, which does not need the mind as such. It does not need the understanding of the mind. So it is so, so different and so free and true light. Yeah.

This is a very good report, and everyone must hear this report because it is coming from someone who has done so much seva over the years. She's done so many highlights, hundreds and hundreds of highlights, so many videos, you see. So she's heard everything and she's saying that for a long time it can seem like 'I'm understanding it,' but what we don't realize is still how much we still know. Like I've been saying, you see, it's still like a conceptual understanding and we feel like, 'Oh, now I got this, now I've got this, and now it is this way,' you see. So this is very, very good, and I feel like everyone should hear this report because it's coming from a space of great credibility, of someone who's watched more satsang probably than any of us because she's gone through so many videos, so many highlights. Maybe the transcript team and the others as well, but she was a one-man army of the video team for a long, long time. So she's seen so much video and she says that it is important to see really what is the mind, you see, because that escapes us.

We can keep on building more and more knowledge based on what we're hearing in satsang also. It will become, 'See, but this is what the mind is. Recognize what the mind is.' And she's right. And she says that even that claim that 'now this is what the mind is' is also mind, you see. Or to say 'it's just a thought' is also just a thought. It's just a thought is also just a thought. It is not not a thought. It can seem very obvious, but something just has to be seen in that way—the simplicity of it. Otherwise, on top of satsang, we can build a huge mental framework which can feel like, 'But now I got it,' you see. 'I must have got it because I really looked at this over and over again.' But just the simple, simple recognition that this is what the mind is can break the shackle. It can break the shackles because many times we still collect; we have so many mental concepts about the mind itself. It's like, 'Yeah, we have a good understanding of the mind.' But it's a great trick. Yes, it's a great trick. You have a bundle of information and knowledge about the mind itself and then it becomes like a distinct class. Okay, how much do you know? How much do you know?

So really value a report like that, for somebody to say, 'But I see that something is just here, something so innocent, so simple that I cannot put it in words. I cannot verbalize it. I cannot say this or that.' And so all the clues are here in satsang, saying that anything that has an opposite is not it. Anything that has an opposite, that can be asserted or negated, is not it. It is just a thought. It is just a belief. So if you are taking a position this way or that way—and these positions are very compelling because what positions are on offer here in Advaita? It's really funny because it's no distinction, but great positions are on offer still, like 'I am the Absolute' and 'the Self.' These kind of positions, when they get fully mental and they get fully deeply ingrained, you will become so closed. Many times you can see how closed you are because it is like, 'Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Whatever I invite you to look at, you see, huh, I know this. What's the deal with that?'

So these kind of houses can be built, egoic houses can be built on spiritual knowledge. And that is why we must be everything that's ever born. When the thorn is very useful, because this thorn is a big thorn to remove all these, but if you embed that as the medicine or something, then now you need a bigger thorn to come and remove that thorn. So it's just a sword, but it's a double-edged sword, you see. All pointers themselves, if they are taken to be the final truth, can become deeply embedded as limitations, as suffering, as the ego. That is called the spiritual ego. And what is that ego made up of? That circle is made up of a spiritual belief system. That is the spiritual ego. How not to make that circle is not to have this way or that way, not to have even the distinction of Advaita. In spiritual Advaita, it is 'no duality.' So no duality does not mean we have some clarified idea of the 'one.' That is it. So that's why it is not 'it.' It's not duality, but it doesn't really affirm really like, 'Oh, pick one' or something like that, because that is also a notion which does not encapsulate reality.

So please drop the thorns, drop the separation. As I love the term Advaita, non-duality, the negating term is better because it is not asserting the validity of any notion but negating the notion of separation. Do not want it. Now we will see that all our notions are limiting or separating. All definitions are limiting. That's how they define even. It says it is all there is and...

Really affirm, really like, "Oh, pick one" or something like that, because that is also a notion which does not encapsulate reality. So please drop the notions, drop the separation. I love the term Advaita; a non-duality negating term is better because it is not asserting the validity of any notion but negating the notion of separation. We do not want it now. We will see that all our notions are limiting or separating. All definitions are limiting; that's how they define. Even if it says it is all there is, and yet in some way asserts the possibility you could not be in that, so throw it. Whatever you're thinking is so true, totally, and you can do what I call the internal audit. You just do an internal audit and see: What am I still believing to be true? All right, what do I have? What do I know? And I can tell you what you can throw away. Whatever you say, "What do I know?" you can throw this. If you find that which you want to guard and not throw, just to yourself, expose it to yourself. What is it that you want to guard and not follow through? You know, if you feel like it is helping you, but it will actually be the infection itself. You might think it's the medicine, but it is so. If you're open to your most deeply held beliefs being so, now that is openness.

And if you like, openness means, "Yeah, I'm listening, I'm listening," and they're happy together more, but that is not the openness that I'm talking about. In the world, of course, that is what is called openness, of course. But I'm saying true openness is willing to let go of our most deeply held belief system, not open to building on that. That is why that simple, simple game is just at all: set fire to your most glorious version. You can do pious. I don't think you set fire to your most glorious room, you see, because in fires any of something, what we end up doing is like, "Oh, I don't like this about myself, so I give that up. I don't like this." So maybe you should have a fire anyways, like whatever version you like now, you throw that. "I like this about myself." No, if it is true, you cannot go. If something is true, then you don't need to have the representation of it, isn't it? If something is just here, do you need a roadmap to it? So do you need a picture of it? If the Sun is here, then will you stare at the picture of the Sun and say, "I'm going to the picture"? So in the same way, if you feel like there's a fear to throw away the picture because the truth might go with it, you see, that itself is a clue that the truth is not that easy. Because if it can go by throwing away the map, if it can go by throwing away the picture, then what value would that have? Nothing. The rest is a notion, exists as an idea.

And as you go hunting for this duality, as you go hunting for the notion, you will see, like she said the other day, everything has to go. Everything has to go. And what is left that you cannot say? It is unspeakable. Even to say it is unspeakable in a way is to speak about it. It is like eating, is it? What actually is, it's beyond even being unspeakable, which is also cheating. That's why I keep saying that I cannot speak the truth. Nobody can speak the truth. And I cannot show it to you as a painting, as an audio sound, as a smelling, as a tasting, but I can show it to you with a different style, a different set of eyes. What I'm attempting to do is to show it to you, but not show it to you this way. That's why that story is narrated of this very, very super advanced seeker who was sent to have numerous cows and then said to the sage, "I have been sent by my master to you because you will tell me the ultimate truth." And the sage is sitting quietly. He tries many times before getting angry, as is natural for all of us to do it. Now we hit for getting angry, but "You are not telling me anything! You must be super out, then maybe you need to work on your ego thing." And the sage said, "But I am telling you. I have been. Every time you have asked, I have told you."

There's a lot. It is more obvious than listening with these ears. More obvious than not, not obscure. Thank you. Sometimes you can feel like it is more obscure or something like that, more secret. No, more obvious than what can be perceived through the senses. What is more obvious than that? You find that that is what I mean by the apparent core. This is what they meant when they said Buddha nature is never concealed. When the Binghamton said the truth always is. So the integrity, it is what Kabir Ji speaks about, is the integrity of being honest with yourselves and saying, "What is it I really want? What is it that I really want?" And if your answer is something that you will taste, you will experience in phenomenally, perceptually, then realize that that is not what is on offer here. If these come as byproducts naturally on their own, that's fine. But it is not about that. If the answer is that I am going to find that I come to know the ultimate concept, I can have this super knowledge or something, you see, then realize that it is not this. In fact, if my words are not completely contradicting themselves and canceling themselves into neutrality, then I'm not doing a good job.

So you feel like, "I can hold on to this or this as the ultimate truth," and it is not that. And if you hold on to that in that way, when it is contradicted, then you might feel that, "But come on, then what am I getting?" You see, exactly, exactly. So I cannot tell you that something, I cannot tell you, and I cannot show it to you as a perception, but I can show it to you as a non-perceptual experience. Don't try to understand it. And when I say I can, I can show it to you, you're like, "Ah, okay, now you open it up here." It's not that I am showing you; I'm pointing to it constantly, showing you in the way I just did the teacher with the pointer thing. Look here, look here. Become empty and see what then. Become empty, see, see, you just see. So this way, I'm not like, "Oh, once you're worthy enough, I will open some metaphysical box." I'm pointing constantly to it. Not hidden. In fact, just I'm forcing you to see. Oh, don't go there, don't go there, don't go there. And what is obvious to you when you don't go there and you don't go there? What is obvious to you? Yeah, exactly. Like you, before you, here with you. But there's nothing in it for me, in the sense of nothing in it for you, that one expecting that you will one day hear that click metaphysically and some special appearance will be found. This is what it was, hiding under the click or something like that. It is not that. It is simpler than that, simpler than that, and then that.

You can leave loose this man if you want, but it is not represented, it will not conform to any representation that you have. Oh, whatever. See, whatever you think is true is worthless. Sorry if that sounds rough. Whatever you think that you have found in the past is also worthless. Whatever you think you have found in the past, because now you just have a photo of it, you see? And you keep staring at the photo. If you made a great search, you took a photo and you are just so devoted to the photo. Some more time with this heat will come and say hello, just like that. The truth is like punching you in the face. "I'm here, I'm here, I'm here!" "No, I want it for me, I want it my way." This "me" and any which way is just staring into a photo of it other than meeting it fresh. Because many times it's connecting. These are all the pitfalls of the spiritual seeker, you see. I'm making light of them, but these are common afflictions that all of us have because you might have had a superb experience three days ago and we take a photo of that and say, "See, that was it." But you keep staring at that, and so we get attached to certain some experience, something, and you say, "Well, that is attending now. The truth must live up to that." No, the truth will not live up to any such version that you have of it.

If the truth has to conform to your falsity, then the false will be the truth. If the truth has to conform to your limited ideas of what it should be—"The one that I saw three days ago, it has to be only that"—then what kind of truth would it be? Very limiting, no? Is it truth if it does not include already what this is, even what table weight might be manifesting as, you see? If it does not include that, then it is a very tiny truth, you see. So there is no reason to hold on to anything from the past, any idea, even the greatest experiences from the past. There's no reason to, because if it is not alive and fresh now, then this is just a photo album, you see. This one Instagram, that was a great... so all your pictures, all your representational paintings, thoughts, great discoveries, great insights, everything with what you have found, what you have lost, what you think you know, everything: empty, empty, empty. Open, open, open, open and empty. Open and empty.

They may finish if it was that way and all the song I would ever wish in here or there, then you know what happened the day I sat in front of Guruji. Every day I would just come and see it at time, you see. It was in that experience, then I would say that it was in that experience and I just want to point to that experience, but I don't do that. In fact, I rarely do that because then these kind of things become benchmarks and you feel like that is exclusive of this. So I am saying this, I am not saying that which happened, that it will happen. What is most natural, most obvious, that simple here and now. So don't build any houses around anything that has happened in the past that you feel that you want to make happen in the future. All of this, burn it down, okay? Nothing is a thing, nothing. Don't be anything like this. It is done for you. When you signed up for this life, you subscribed to the God package. So God is here, is now, something now.

How do you do that? It's because your... it's a false question because it implies that it is at a distance. Doing implies distance. So I've been saying that this concept of doing itself is flawed. There is no such thing as doing. So we don't have to come to a conclusion about who is doing, whether I am doing or the greater force is doing or something is doing. You don't have to, because there is no doing. It's like saying, "Oh, is it some obscure super bright thumbs?" There is no such thing like that. But do you feel like that is how you interpret the word? "Ah, this one is doing super great damn, sorry, them not so." What is that super great down? I don't know. I was taught that there is this thing called doing, you see. So we take what is just a movement and you call that a doing and label that as doing well, doing badly, doing, and you got so stuck in this idea of doing, doing, doing that it becomes so pervasive that it becomes such a big burden.

So we have to put that somewhere else because it's too restricting, too much with guilt and pride for me. So I'm going to say that, "Okay, I am not doing, that one is." So helpful for devotion, but maybe we can now come to a point where we throw away the idea of doing itself. What is doing? It's very deeply ingrained, you see. And I'm so pretty sure that birds don't have this idea of doing, you see, and yet the flapping of the wings happens, the migration to very intelligent-seeming movements seem to happen. Trees, I'm sure, don't have that idea of doing, you see. Babies, I'm sure, don't have the idea of doing, and yet all the movement seems to, activity seems to happen, you see. So we have confused activity to be doing, and with doing we've invented so much suffering. What is suffering? There is no such thing as suffering except a big word for these tiny things called pride and guilt. All of this is only suffering, you see, and doing is very central to all of this. So throw it away. There is no doing and not doing. No, see, that's why I said when we start hunting for this duality, you will see that even these notions like doing... you feel like a whole life is built up of all this doing, not doing, doing things badly, all these different interpretations. There is no doing. Then good, then you will see also that that is something we make doing out of activity. There is no activity even. Even movement is a notion, but let me not force these ideas.

This is very central to all of this, so throw it away. There is no doing and not doing. No, see, that's why I said when we start hunting for this duality, you will see that even these notions like 'doing'—if you like, a whole life is built up of all this doing, not doing, doing things badly, all these different interpretations. There is no doing them. Good. Then you will see also that that is something we make 'doing' out of: activity. There is no activity of the—even movement is a notion. But let me not force these insights on you. You have to look and see. What do I mean by activity? See, what do I mean by perception? These are all clues, though. One day, then, you will have this insight and you will see, like Papaji, either nothing has ever happened... but there's no point beginning with that. 'Oh, nothing has ever happened' conceptually, and the mind will really agree with you about it. 'Oh, really, nothing has ever happened.' Then what is movement? What is perception? What is attention? So I'm saying all of these latest notions as well—even attention itself is a form of motion, but a motion. So look like this very, very openly and don't be scared, because nothing worthwhile can go.

What is it that tells in the Course in Miracles? 'Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal has ever existed. Herein lies the peace of God.' Real can't be taken in the same way you don't have to hold on to it if it is given, because everything that you're holding on to, you feel like there is a threat of it being taken away from you. So nothing real can be threatened. So don't be worried about losing the concepts of faith, emotions of things, because if it is real, it is not going. Nothing unreal ever exists. Nothing unreal—that's why it's unreal. Herein lies the peace of God. And this peace is the peace in which truth is apparent. God is apparent. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.

Why do we invoke this so much? You see, because in the noise of our mind, in the noise of our belief system, you see, this which is so obvious and apparent seems to get obscured and missed. It only seems to. Now your seeing will become that inclusive that you will see that nothing obscures this. This is a great way of saying: nothing real can be threatened. So whatever you feel like you have to defend, leave it. Leave yourself defenseless, open. And if you look at the last ten things you defended—look at the last five, ten things that you defended—you will see that most of the time it was just blah, blah, blah, something came from your mouth, you know? And many times you're not even so attached to it. It is just because we identified it as this body and it escaped this mouth, then you have to take a stand and say, 'Okay, this is what I see.' Nothing. All of this is showing you our attachment to this elementary body, attachment to just floating energies that we call thoughts and we call it the mind. This is causing so much seeming suffering.

As the case is, it's so simple, it's so obvious, and it's easy to just operate or stop. But you cannot stop and leave the game. But what about me? 'Stop' means playing the game of stopping the game of 'what about me.' Start to see your own tricks of the mind and say, 'But when I like it in here...' Who is it? Who is it representing? Take these things, the ones pointed, very, very literally. Who is witnessing these thoughts? Who are you? All this facade will fall away very quickly if you let all this selfishness—this selfishness for this meaning—who do you want freedom for? What do you want freedom for? And if that blank has an answer, then know that that one cannot have it. And to see this is to see that actually there is no bondage. Mukti exactly is just another term, another term which gives assent to bondage. When we seek freedom, what are we doing? We are giving acceptance to the notion of bondage. Just these opposites have caught us by the neck. Opposite: am I bound, am I free? Am I good, am I bad? Am I right, am I wrong? Is this true, is this false? Is this up, is this down? Is this yesterday, is this tomorrow?

And in the computer, you see, we know nothing. And we don't even know that we have no way of saying that this is not a dream, this is not a memory. We don't know what a dream is or memory is. Maybe memory is more real than this. What do we know really? What are we so caught up in this knowledge like? What is it that you see? This could be like a very, very vivid memory of 50 million years ago. You might be hunting for this knowledge, always like looking out the window so fast. Because what is it? For example, that example of a saying of the king saying, 'Am I the king who had the dream that he was a butterfly?' Only as long as you're stooping for the 'I' actually can't—no, I can't. Even that is not as—yeah. And then it's also not true to say like, 'I don't like that.' Just like, what would it even mean? What would it even mean to know? To have a concept of it is to know? To have the labels of it is to know? What would it mean to know? Who did it and who did it? Yeah, who fell in love also? We don't. Ego is also a continuity in time. That's still a perception. And actually, like, where is the perception or who is perception? This feels mostly when we say appearance, disappearance, manifest, unmanifest, being, not being—all of these terms, they came, some going. But what to be doing? Lots of stuff. But in the Rubies, Milkovich thing is all nonsense, unknown.

So, you know, we need to remind me of the author who writes things and then crosses them out and sees this value, seeming value, to still writing them now. But don't take it too literally, because the atoms which we crossed out can take any position. Right? Maybe there's something to do, nothing to do. 'Do' itself—what we looked at—the foundation of the 'I' itself, the 'I-thought.' The 'I-thought' is the root of the foundation of all of this. To prove you, if you don't divert, why is anything? What is there? That is why sometimes I'm very insistent when we do the inquiry today together that you inquire. As many times we're using the question, 'Who am I?' Say that's a beautiful state that is coming. 'Oh, this is what the mind is saying now when I do the inquiry, it keeps existing.' But who are you? 'I see what you're doing now, my mind is very still.' No, no, no. Who are you? Just like ask, find: who are you really? Not what you're doing. Who are you? What is the state of mind? Not what you discovered about something. Who are you?

It was a bit of a shock, actually. And then you just like the other day, a few weeks ago, and you know that hardly anyone is doing the inquiry when they're doing the inquiry. 'Okay, now this heart is coming, now this mind is saying that...' What happened to very quietly seeing what you know? So the inquiry is to just honestly, simply ask yourself what I did. Not 'I see what the mind is doing now, I see that the state is coming.' This is so helpful, like this all this kind of stuff. And then one of the first things she says like, 'Yeah, you know, I need to see now that, you know, I just need to like leave a bit more space in my life and like not plan so much. So, you know, I'm probably not going to keep a list of all the things I need to do anymore.' And that was like the number one insight that had come from the retreat. And it was kind of like, 'Yeah, thank you.' Like, what I think I don't know you, which is taking on some hints and tips. This is how it helps me, this is how it helped me, this is how it helps me. Is what? Mean thing. 'If I do the inquiry now, it'll help me. If I find out who I am, it will help me.' This kind of thing. So cohesive. All the tools are co-opted. All the tools are co-opted in that shameless thing. So now I'm using the inquiry to bring myself to a particular state. Is it? So it helps me this way. Still 'me.' So who 'me'? Who are you? Is it that? So egregiously Rama question: can the perceiver be perceived and caught after everyone? Can it be? Although we can it also be denied? So just forcing you to look sometimes, just like the sightseeing adventures. Look at the partners, look at that elephant, look at green grass, like a safari. Your inquiry became like a safari. 'Oh, let me do the inquiry, let's see what...'

Onto the mind before we close today, that and tomorrow's also Sunday, no satsang. So sometimes the mind uses the opportunity of this so-called ending of satsang also as an opportunity to like fall into the groove of individuality again. Because the type of words you will use now, the type of interactions you will have, will be more worldly in a way. But you're just witnessing all this interaction happening in the same way that you witness all this interaction happening. But now don't use that as a reason to fall back into the groove. 'Okay, now I can just believe what the mind is saying about me and this satsang is over.' That satsang is not over. Like, change it. The other unit I want only a little bit of her time is 24 hours a day. Sleep state, you don't have to worry about this, it is completely silent. Because it can become like this, this cause of some sort of dichotomy that in satsang it is like this, but then as soon as satsang is over, time to conduct, time to conduct me, time to buy into the idea of 'the world expects me to be this way, the world expects me to be that way, my family expects...' It is nothing. I think that all this plays out, you see. Whatever has to play out plays out in the light of your own Self. There's nothing that you have to identify with the limited aspect of yourself to be able to do something here. It isn't so. Not like that anyway.

So all that trade, relationships, parenting, being a son, being a daughter—all these relationships, all of these peer out in a natural way unless we take a position that 'I have to be this way or that way.' So I'm not saying that as you do satsang, be the 'satsang way' or something like that. You see? So there is no way that I must need to be this way. Open, empty as much as possible, and we see that whatever has to play out is playing. The mind will sell you this duality thing: 'Okay, satsang time or some family time.' And in a way, that's why I left my so-called family time also completely open for all of you. My family comes into that naturally. Nobody doing this, nobody doing this. These words are appearing, then I get children, not even those words are appearing. What is there to decide to be this way or that way? Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Pranam.