Let's Play the Game of True Recognition - 14th May 2021
Saar (Essence)
Ananta guides the seeker to recognize that the 'un-enlightened person' is a fictional idea rather than a tangible entity. He emphasizes discarding all concepts to reveal the ever-present, complete nature of Being.
The person we are trying to make enlightened is neither unmanifest nor manifest; it is just a fictional idea.
In your being there is no such thing as a problem; nothing is left incomplete or separate.
Don't make tattoos out of my words; they are meant for the cleanup of ignorance, not construction of knowledge.
intimate
Transcript
This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
Now there is a bit of a mind game here, and I think I've been suffering through most of this Satsang because I'm not self-realized.
You've been suffering from that, yeah? How do you know you're not? I think that's it, that's the right answer. Before you think, before you think you are as a sage, as the greatest sage who has ever lived. Before you think, and even if you think but you don't believe what you think, then you continue to be as sage-like as the greatest sage who has ever lived. So the only question is to take this interpretation of what is to be real or to not take it to be real. Ultimately that is the only thing, you see? Are you taking these ideas, these limiting notions to be true about you, or are you not taking them to be true, you see? And towards that, the best thing that can help is like an experiment that we did in the beginning to find out that your true nature is awareness itself, you see? As you see that more and more, you will realize that all these ideas are not about my reality; they are not even about this body. They are about some mythical person who wants certain things and has a particular story which has nothing to do with either the unmanifest or the manifest. And that is so strange, isn't it? Like this person that we are trying to make even enlightened is neither part of the unmanifest nor is it part of the manifest. It is just a fictional idea.
Can you help me to see that really?
Yes, you can see it clearly. Where is this person? Where is this one? It's not this body, because this body is not concerned about self-realization. The body is just simple innocence sitting here, you see. Who is the one that wants it?
The mind.
Read more (17 more paragraphs) ↓Show less ↑
The mind, you see, is not an entity. No. When this message called a thought appears, we call that mind. When it is not there, we call that no-mind, you see? So that is not a tangible entity that we can give something to. Enlightenment is not something you can give to anyone or to an entity. There is no such one. Like, I would give it to that one, but there should be someone like that. Yeah, okay, show me the one I'm supposed to give it to. Suppose I had that ability, who are we supposed to make enlightened?
Uh, let's assume this guy who thinks it's the body-mind.
The thing is, we can't assume it. We can't give enlightenment to an assumption. It has to be a little more tangible than that. The assumption has an ID document; I have a passport, for example. We say, okay, can we give my enlightenment to this coaster? Can we give it to this mic? Can we give it to this couch? At least it is tangible that way; you can point to it and say, 'Okay, that one has to become enlightened.' Now, what is the phenomenal evidence to your individuality? It seems to be this body, but if you truly inquire into that, you will see that this body—you see, the bodies of the enlightened masters are all of different varieties. Some are very healthy, some are quite unhealthy. It doesn't really matter, you see. Bodies can be in whichever way. So enlightenment doesn't seem to have much to do with the body. So then who does it have to do with? So, okay, so just to go along with your statement about a passport, you see, who is the owner of the passport? Who's the owner of the body? Who's the owner of their life? Who is that one? And just because there is a passport with the name, does it make it real?
God is the owner of the life, yes. And God is never unenlightened, so God has no trouble. Who else am I? I don't see... there is a separation here between...
Where is the separation? When I say God is the owner of the life, I see God as... okay, let me give you a tip which will make this journey a lot simpler. I'll give you a tip, and if you invite that, it will make it a lot simpler. The mind will propose some problem to you. The mind will propose various types of resolution to those problems as well. You stop playing that game of finding problems from the mind and to resolve them in the mind. In your being, there is no such thing as a problem. In your being, there is nothing left incomplete. There is no lack of anything. There is no separation of anything. And the best part is, it's not difficult. How far under the ground do you have to dig to be able to breathe?
I don't have to dig.
Exactly. If you dig and you try to go underground, your breathing will become seemingly more difficult. Just the same way, how can you be your full being, fully enlightened, full of light? Digging is not going to help you.
Why do I get so constrained when you ask if I'm aware?
So I often advise that the better question to ask instead of 'why' is 'who,' because there's no real answer to 'why' because there is no such thing as cause and effect ultimately. If you find a reason, you can only put that reason in your head, no? So I want to stop playing that game of reason. Let's play the game of true recognition. Who are you? Not why, but who? And you can approach it like we were approaching earlier as well, you see? You can say, 'Okay, I'm suffering because I'm not realized.' Who is the one that is not realized? Just inquire into that. That is more than enough. Let's produce the one that's—like Guruji says—bring that one in the witness box.
I'm relying on a concept when I bring that into the witness box. I'm relying that what can be seen is not...
Don't rely on the content. Don't rely on a concept. If you go digging... so the original example was that if you want tomatoes, you see, don't go digging for potatoes. If you want the truth and if you rely on concept, the both can't go together. What is true when you are not relying on any concept?
My mind listened to much Satsang, I think, and there is... it's impossible, honestly.
It's not a rare problem. It's not a rare problem. It can... and that's why I am attacking all concepts, including spiritual concepts, you see? I'm going after every concept. It's just...
But that's the first Advaita principle. But Papaji said that... but what she says that... you said that... it's just clinging.
Throw everything out. Throw everything out. Guruji said very clearly: don't make tattoos out of my words. They're meant to do the cleanup job, you see? They're meant to do the cleanup job, not the construction job. Not the construction of knowledge, but the cleanup of ignorance. I feel it'll be nice if you can hear this recording again, this part of it at least. And it may not be such a bad idea if you do a transcript of our conversation, because I've given many tips to you today and that may be helpful for many to hear, actually.
I will. I feel like saying that, yeah, without this concept nothing is...
But that's also a concept, you see? You see that? That's also a concept. That 'nothing' which is beyond the conceptual nothing, where 'everything' and 'nothing' don't apply. Okay, well thank you, this one.