Meet Your Self for What You Are (Video distorted at times) - 6th May 2019

Then he said, 'Stillness or peace is realization. There is no moment when the Self is not. So long as there is doubt or the feeling of non-realization, the attempt should be made to rid oneself of these thoughts. They are due to the identification of the Self with the not-self. When the not-self disappears, the Self alone remains. To make room, it is enough that objects be removed; room is not brought in from elsewhere.' This is beautiful. He says that all that is needed to find yourself is to stop identifying with the not-self.

So what is this identifying with the not-self? Identifying with one who is not the Self is what is the ego, is what is not. What do we take ourselves to be? You don't have to take yourself to be the Self, you see. The room does not, the space does not have to be created in the room; just the garbage has to be emptied out. So truly, what you take yourself to be—a seeker trying to find themselves—is not yet it. So when we say, 'How does realization come?', how you take yourself to be that, in a strange way, all the attention focuses on that. In a way, it's kind of forgetting; it's like being pulled into it and then it's just that. So in a way, it's a strange thing. Try doing that. You have to hear me today, okay? Because I've given you this answer before. So you feel that just with your attention going on the sensation, you become that. And this is what I'm questioning. So can we try?

If there's a sensation like that right now, yes.

Yes, but are you referring to the thought as the sensation or what? So let's for a moment make one distinction, which is that there's perceptually all this sensation going on, perception going on: visual perception, audio perception, all sensory perception, and even that which we may call inner perception, isn't it? Which is something, some emotions or sensations and something you see. It could be pain, it could be pleasure, various things. Now, all these are fine. There's one type of perception, there's a particular type of perception which seems to carry a message with it, like an interpretation, a judgment. This type of sensation is what we caught on, like a message. Some hear it like audio, some just see images, some see the words coming on the screen. In whatever way you may be perceiving these forms, there is no other perception which is inherently sending you a message, you see that?

So let's for a moment call that pure perception, unmixed with judgment or interpretation. So this pure perception, like you said, is attention. Attention is there, goes fully, fully, fully. But unless you use that interpretive voice and use the interpretation of that to convince you of something, you do not identify with the sensation yet. And this is what you have to check. Because as long as you feel that just with the appearance of so-called sensation and attention going to it, identification has happened, you see, then the struggle will become just to try and control attention. If that is the cause, then the only solution is to prevent that from happening. That means attention should not go there. Now, I am offering to you that you cannot truly identify with any perception nor sensation unless you buy into the story that one particular perception is telling you, which is at all like, just check.

Because the one sensation that I buy somehow to be me, it's the being, you know? I don't know what I mean, but it's just, you know, this vibration of being just focuses and I'm just... so it's not necessarily a story, but it so inherently feels like me. But it's still in a way, it's not without any quality also. In a way it is, because it doesn't have any quality, but it also has a kind of vibration.

Okay, to feel a quality. So being, you have license to identify, you know, with the being, unless you're calling something else being. Now, being is, if you're just identifying with being, this is 'I am', this is what I am, it is what I am, I am as I am, 'I am' is what I am. You have license to identify with that, go in. So it is not identifying with the sense of being which causes any trouble.

So okay, let's do this then. So there's a sense of being. What do you mean when I say try to stop being? That don't be, don't think about this, don't be. It's the same and a bit different. You can also focus on that one then. Don't be, try not to be, or has to be aware, right?

No, just don't be. Don't exist.

Stop. Because what you found...

I just am. I can't stop.

So this 'just am', is it, are you making this up? Did you find it?

No, in a way that you just are.

So this sense of being, is it the same as what you were saying? Same or not same? Or the same body and same in a way like 'stop being'? Stop being, it's just like, just stop, be aware.

Okay, so this is the same part. And the not same part has a kind of vibration to it, a kind of quality.

What if I say just don't be? Not just don't be aware. If I didn't say don't be aware, which I also say sometimes, right now I'm saying stop being for a moment. Don't exist.

I don't know why, I just can't. I can't stop being me.

So this that you can't stop being, this being is what we refer to as being, existence, the presence of existence. All of these words we use for that. This is what you mean by 'be', this presence. So then no trouble. This is the sense of 'I am'. My am-ness is this. This is 'I am'. That's now. It in itself contains the sense—it's not the idea, but the sense—of 'I am'. So it doesn't need to be identified with; it naturally is that sense itself. Now, this sense 'I am', if you attach it to any idea, that is what is called identification.

So if, for example, a sensation comes like something like that and you say, 'I am experiencing contraction or pain' or 'I am in contraction and getting stuck in a contraction' or something like that, you see, then that is the i-am-ness, which is without any boundary, identifying with just an appearance, an aspect of itself, and limiting itself to that. So when you say 'I am body', 'I am mind', 'I am this person', this is the same 'I am', but 'I am' taking itself to be something that it truly is not, or not just at least. So that's identification.

Now, this is what, so all that Bhagavan is saying is that don't identify with anything after this i-am-ness. You said many times that till 'I am' it is fine; the minute you take it to be 'I am something', that's where the trouble starts.

That's when I started speaking, that was what I tried to say. Like in anything that I perceive, thing or whatever, there is somehow something which is there, which is this beingness in it too, you know? So this is where the identification with that comes from because I see something, but also something just, it gives life to even the person, you know? They see something and this is where...

Okay, let's take an example. Okay.

I feel any sensation, let's say sensation here in the chest, very like, I can feel it's just sensation. Okay, so I don't know if I'm making a concept out of it, I hope not, but these are the words I can say now. Is that there is this noticing of a sensation, but by noticing it, somehow—that's not satsang terminology—I give it life, you know? And this life is what I feel is me. So just by seeing it, I already inject this kind of 'me' sense in it because this is where...

Okay, good. Okay, not bad. So then whatever, when you see this hand, how's it different?

It is different.

How?

I don't know. I create a separation, like I just see it as a neutral thing, like that's just nothing. I just see, I guess, like... but it is not giving life for your perception. I know what you mean, I know what I've just said, yeah, but I just observed that this is not happening here.

Yeah. Now make it happen with something else like that which you call inner, inward perception. I want to make it happen with your hand, for example.

Then I would just, I would have to focus more inwards, you know, like...

So focus on the sense of being then. Okay, so don't try to do anything with it, but don't try to do anything with anything at all and see if something is different from this. Something inherently is more you than something else.

Just, I heard do this, look, there's a difference in, like, now focus on this region and it's like, you know, there's a 'me' vibration in there and there is like, not...

Okay, so but if I would just, what do you mean by 'feels like there's a me vibration'?

It just feels like this, I don't know, you know?

Talk about your sense of being. 'I am'. That you're allowed to feel like it is you. But anything which is making a 'something' out of it... so the hand is the comparison. If some sensation is there in the body, some other sensation is there, what decides that that is more you than this hand that is also perceived? It's interesting. I don't know what decides. I can just...

If I would just—what do you mean by 'feels like there's a me'? Thank you. It just feels like this. I don't know, you know, talk about your sense of being. Hmm. I am that. You allowed to feel like it is you, but anything which is making a 'something' out of it... so the hand is the comparison. If some sensation is there in the body, some other sensation is there, what decides that that is more you than this hand that is also perceived? It's interesting. I don't know what decides. I can just...

So, if it is like this, you know, in your observation, is it like this? What is your interpretation? It is like this.

Well, in my observation, it's just like this and that. It seems that in my observation it's like that.

So then I can make me see and look. So what does it make? What does it make? Yeah, this 'me,' this is me, you see. What makes it more? I don't know.

Because I don't want to answer just for the contrary, you guys. So if I pinch it, that's you and this is—no, yes. The funny thing is you pinched it and then I said... so I don't know. It's just the sensation and you said 'that's you' and I said 'oh yeah, that's you.' Self again.

I'm doing is torturing people inside. What makes that dividing line between you and outside you? So try to answer that.

It's very easy for me to apply what I've, you know, some knowledge and stuff, so I don't want to answer from that. So then how I would proceed—and please correct me, you know—I would just sit with that and just be with the sensation of me and this attachment that happens to this. So just be with that and just look at it, you know, and see how it... yeah, that's not homework.

Yeah, well, I would do it now. But then, the sensation of your nose now?

Yes. Yeah, so you can use that. How? What makes it you? Actually, it's better because my nose... I don't know. It can't be cut off. That being, you already have license to consider it to be identified as me. That's fine. I'm saying, is there anything beyond that? Okay. And if you want to explore that, can you tell me where it starts and where it ends? When you say 'here,' is it a local in the physical heart? I don't know where it starts and what ends because then I would have to go like to every everything and just check it out. How? If the attachment happens or not. And to go step by step, it's a bit more like a system of the mind, means like, you know, I have to check, check, check. But something is more, you know, just more naturally feels like that, you know, without me thinking 'is that me or not?' You know, it also comes, but it comes a bit later. Beside the sense of being, it feels like that more like you and everything.

I was wanted indeed this body, indeed this body, indeed yes. Verily, verily thou art indeed this body. Thank you. So how is that body different from this perception or this voice? Use this voice so that you can use it even when your eyes are closed. So you are perceiving this one. How is this not you and the body is more you? Is it in the same spiritual physical sense, same space?

So in that spirit, what divides between that sensation and the sensation in the physical? The sensation to attach, saying for example that itself is what we according sensation.

Yeah, so that's the sensation, like this voice is not so sensational now. What divides into space? If the space is the same, then if there are two, there must be something that divides one from another, isn't it?

Space is the same, but in this space just... I know. So there's like, okay, perception. Yeah, visual perception, hearing, but some kind of perception like this, like the perception of top chef for example, or it seemed to be bound to the study and matches with a physical, with the perception of visual things with it. Noise, what this...

So what am I going to see? You're going to say no. Forgot you look and he said, 'Yeah, but how do you know that this sensation is coming from this body?' Oh, you know, it just always happened. Always what happened? And that when I see something touching this, some object... qualitative lose consciousness touching this thing, then colliding tonight. So the day we do that, our beloved experimental disorder is that you experience the sensation but it is not your physical hand. Dude, we sorted some question mark. That's true. That is happening. It should be noise. That is what all that is left now. It is this physical sensation of the body which is more you than everything else, right?

That's showing it on the left. It's quite some... that's quite something else. And that's quite... that's really something. Because if I can think about this and like, like say, does it not appear all in the same space? That, as you said it for the first time maybe a year back, one half, I don't know when I heard it the first time and it really was like, I'm like, whoa, this is... I can't deny this. So, and at the same time something in me, it keeps convincing that it says like, 'Yeah, but it's I know it's like looking at...' So, space is that money then all this is happening. You say it happens in the same space. Now, that space is separate from you? There's only this space where you are sitting, you know, just a part of that space. It seems like all the sensations, whatever appear in that viewing, are sitting only in a part of that space. The rest of the space is not, is different from that. But you are not hitting with his warriors.

Yes, I am. How can you be? Well, there's if you are limited despite about body sensational boundary.

I'm not just that.

Okay, you're more depth.

Yes, but you are retreat with everything as also like what else? Like this voice, like everything else that you perceive. I don't know if I am this voice, I wouldn't say so, but it does... there's something indescribable about what I call me, whatever, which is just like perceiving all of this. And the day I can't describe it because it's like, I mean it's like, I don't know, it's like crazy.

No, I was coming to that. But for now we're just looking at... you say that there is a space. Within this space all the perceptions are perceived. I'm just asking whether you occupy just a part of that space and the rest of the space of the partially more. How is it?

I don't know if that's just... I hope I can just see an answer as I see and I don't want like to answer from a mental understanding, so please catch me there. Obviously there's a something. Okay, let's just even not call it 'me' that where everything is even felt and seen. Sounds strange of this, but everything appears. I don't know, everything is registered. I don't know how to say it.

Where are you located in this?

This is... I've just had already too many concepts over the years, that's why I cannot just say 'me' and mean it like this, you know. And that's a bit the difficulty with it because there's, you see, just simply what you see. There are, you know, I mean apparently I cannot be different from it, but at the same time this is something you heard you say.

No, I... at the same time there's this first it, but this based on work. Then you say apparently I cannot be separate. Is it just apparently because I've heard this? Because it's just like this and intelligence which that's all there is in a way. What I can say now, is it something... okay let me make it multiple. Is it something that you heard? No. Something that you thought? I'm not sure. Or something that you saw? Also 53 minutes right from inside but mixed with some concept.

Yeah, okay. What is just the inside has been Emile just for communication conceptual use? Is it just from the seeing? What can you say? Okay, putting what said is strange, but it's just some something receiving or intelligent. What is it? Perceive everything in what? Everything which is not you? Is it like that? Like there's a you which is perceiving everything, but in that which it is perceiving, it is not. It's turned off by itself. Okay, you say that there is no gist of perceiving which is perceiving everything. Now that which it is perceiving, it is not in that, all right? It is perceiving even your sense of being, isn't it? This is what we started with. Now that which is perceiving the sense of being is not what makes up the sense of being. I don't know. No, this we can check. Like where did that perceiving end and the object starts? In the perceiving stops like you, then the will momentarily, if we call it that, stops, you know, the source. I don't know if it's the source for everything springs from, I don't know. But this is the without this, this like, like this is one of you or three or do you just same sweet the same? You're seeing it down like this. So that which perceives, is that you want?

I am very difficult. Is this you and miss me is so loaded with concept with that already like I just aim at three which is that from your own inside. Can you deny that you are perceiving the world?

So that's what I mean by you. I'm not defining you in any way. I'm just asking if you are perceiving the world and whether that is deniable or not. You see, even when all the senses are closed, you see you are perceiving the lack of perception, isn't it? So that is undeniable. Now what we are saying is that all this perception that is happening, you say it happens in one space. Man is asking whether this space in which all the perception is happening is separate from that perceiving itself. One, two, or three?

It's fake.

So you see that there is a perceiving which is perceiving everything, and you also seeing that that so-called space of perception in which all perception is happening is not separate from the perceiving. Yes. Now the third aspect of what you said, which was that yet even though one and two are true, it seems like something in that space of perception is more what I am than everything else there. There's a little, there's a... it's not going smooth area, a little bridge between negative energy. No scene, just stay with the tree which is seeing or the great because the seeing itself has just no quality. It doesn't even have the quality of being or me or what. It's just like nothing like this. And this quality thing of its being, it's me, or it's being, it has a kind of quality. This is three, one, three, three. Okay, this is what you see. This is what you see what you're saying now I see.

You say that there is a... and all that is perceived is also not separate from the perceiving, and yet there is a dividing line in all that is perceived where this something is me and something is not me, and that separation is qualitative. What is that quality?

I can't pinpoint. It's something I call me, the quality of me.

What is this quality of me? Hearing something? It's not possible to explain that, but you must have it yourself. You're falling to the same sense of being itself. Yes, yes. Okay, so in that space where all of this perception is happening, that is not acceptable, you know. I know, and I should check on this. So let's see. So now what you're saying is there's a completely quality-less, attribute-less awareness. There's a sense of being. And external to this sense of being is a space of perception. Hmm. I'm saying that, yeah, because you see it is not the same. That's right. But maybe I'm meaning different things. So how can you say what you say? What you stood all of this, you walk together. There's an awareness completely empty of any quality, not touch binding. There's a sense of being which is this presence like you say, like some quality would actually quality-less. It's just so so much me, I am, I just have like that. Now using that separate from this sense of existence of being, there's another space in which perception is happening? Is that... that is not the same. I don't know on the same watch it. What do you mean by that actually? I don't know.

So this sound only being, I'm saying is this sound you're hearing, what is the relationship of this sound with your sense of being? You don't see any, yet it has not the relationship, but maybe good to explore. This is very good exploitation is what I can say about that. It... the only kind of commonality there, yeah, is that it has a somehow a kind of quality or vibration to it. Okay, both. And that's what is kind of, you know, putting them. That vibration, is it... or is it a whole police in vibration mode? Is it like located somewhere, this vibration that you speak more? Does it have location?

The relationship of this sound with your sense of being... you don't see any yet? It has not the relationship, but maybe it's good to explore. This is very good exploration is what I can say about that. The only kind of commonality there is that it has somehow a quality or vibration to it, okay? Both. And that's what is kind of, you know, putting them... that vibration.

Is it, or is it a whole pervasive vibration mode? Is it like located somewhere, this vibration that you speak of? Does it have locations or is it all-pervasive?

It does not have something like a location. A location is only when I'm in a room, for instance. You know, in a room, and then I say this is a location in the southern part. Actually, it does not, because it appears... it just appears. And it doesn't feel like... but it appears in the way that in the space of wherever it appears, it appears only in a part of that.

No, no, no, no. It's just the mind then putting it into a room, okay? Yeah, it's not. It is where actually, when you see, it's just everywhere. There's nothing like it being here, yes, and not there. There's no 'there' or 'here' there. No. Is it now? If I were to propose to you—and this maybe could be homework—but if I was to propose to you that every vibration, every sensation, every perception is just the same one, the same I-am-ness, could we check on that? In fact, this is now we started. You said that it gets its light from this, whatever I perceive. So we are checking on whether this which you feel like is so easily identifiable with this very sense of existence, whether that itself is not pure, all-pervasive, or manifest nature.

Because what I can say is, again, saying that what combines... like, what was it like? The sense of me and like... it's just that it has both a kind of... even if very subtle, the quality about that something is like vibration. That's what I can... but the seeing of this does not have that. Just the seeing has no... it's just the seeing. It has no vibration or something at all that we talk of in like a sensational quality, which is like a touch or a feeling that you're calling vibration. No. Even sense of being, yeah, which is... let's call that the primary vibration, yes.

So that is the primary. Now, it only applies to that which is like feeling vibration? It does not apply to the other sensory perception? Is that how it is?

I don't... like this, like this, that is okay. Sense of being, you can apply that to it like that. No, it's very independent from that. It can be independent, but when something is felt in some way, then there is a fusion. But it's very confident, like it can just be by itself. Even if I have my eyes closed, everything is shut, I'm like... yeah, I don't know. Yeah, this is very...

Okay, first let's do this. Let's find out whether this being, which we agreed upon, is separated from the space in which all these perceptions and sensations are happening. Is it the same space? If the being itself is the space in which all perception is happening, then what is left? You say what you said. If it's the same space where like the other perceptions, you know, whatever, and I said they all are in that same space, is there... what is it?

Yeah, there's a sense of being in that space and there are those sensations. Yeah, yeah, it's the same. But the space, I'm calling it just the pure perception without any vibration. It's just like... just anything like... and it's very clear. This is very... like, there's nothing.

So it still is this... this pure perception has a space-like quality to it. Now, it is... you said that that is your perception, that space. Well, I have to call it something. Just call it your perception then. But without this position, what you see... what are you seeing in yourself about?

Yeah, this is pure perception. So that which is aware of being and being itself... can you speak a little about that? And if any visualization is happening, just ask what... what is aware of that? There's nothing I can say about that. I know that sometimes you say, 'Oh, your mind might picture like a big black something.' It's not what my mind is doing. Like, there's just nothing like... no imagination about that.

Oh, good. What does it actually... I don't know, because it itself is not perceivable in a phenomenal way or any way I could describe it. That's why 'space' is maybe like just something I use. Albeit it has a vibration, yes, but is it local? Is it... no, it is a bridge from every other side, you know? It isn't. Okay, it's good to look.

I'm just trying to answer the question which came, like, is it local? Like here? Because somehow I can feel it's local and at the same time I'm questioning if it's really local because... very good. What is happening is like it is... there's just one, this space. Okay, let's call it like this for this. Okay. So, and in this, there is nothing like here or there. Yeah, there is just nothing local. Yeah, okay. For something local to be, there needs to be a 'there' too. So, very well. If there is no here and there in this space, then can there be any separation?

I can't even press this question. You said that just now. You say that it is impossible to say whether something is local or not because in this space, these boundaries of space like here and there, they fall away. But what I am saying is that you are saying exactly what I am saying: that there is no separation because this notion of here and there doesn't exist in this. Yeah, there is no separation. There is no separation. So then how can something be more you and something else be less you? This is where I started the satsang. Now things are thinking. Okay, you're good. You're looking very well. So you saw that that which we are talking about is not in this spatial boundary. You can't say this is here, that is there. Actually, that will just be imagination from the mind, is it? Now you say, 'But there is something here which is more me and something is less me.' How can this be? What is there dividing if there is no space itself? And what divides? See, so let me take it even further and you can... I can tell you what divides. So I have to kind of get onto this, this vibration of me, okay? What does it mean, vibration of me? It's really not conceptual or hopefully what I'm speaking today because there's just this... you made that disclaimer like 20 times now. Yeah, let's take it to be a given model, correct? Okay, thank you. And everybody does it. A sense of being and there's another vibrational entity, 'me'. Now, it's the same, the same. But that is... you cannot find a location to that because in this space of perception, in the space of seeing all of this, there is no here or there. In both, it's true. But you can keep using this voice to check. If there is no here or there, is this voice not as much here or there as the being? If something has to be outside of you now, it has to be 'there', isn't it? Then here and there would come into play. But what you are finding is that here there is no here or there. Is this like this material Snickers? Not good. Already I feel, and very well, because you came to this beautiful discovery. Could this happen? How can something be separate because there is no spatial separation here? That's all I've seen, actually. If everything is perceived in the same space then, and in that space there is nothing that really divides spatially, can we then really say this part is more 'me' than another part?

I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out because I feel I would have to like go into this translation of 'me' then, trying to figure that out, unlike normal action that we can try to... the sensation of me that you were calling, what, the same as a sense of being? Yeah, that's how I thought. This sense of being then, you cannot be... I asked to check how it is separate from everything else. You said how to check, because here there is no here or there. Now there is no here or there. Everything is just this without the spatial boundary. Beautiful.

So for there to be a dividing line, there must be a spatial boundary, you see, which you are not finding. So, you know, and this is pretty good. This is the right way to do things. Why? Because I give three options, isn't it? The options were: first, to do our work. What you're reporting, did you just hear about it? Therefore it must be true? That's how Advaita can also become this conceptual thing. 'Of course, it's all one, nothing like that.' It is because we heard about it. Second is, is this something that you're thinking, that it has to be this way, it must be like that, so let me see it? Third is whether it is your direct insight, whether you are actually seeing it that way. It is not this perceptual cinema, but a direct insight, you see, which you can say, 'This is how I'm seeing it.' And if you start restricting yourself for a bit to this third one and reporting on what you're actually just seeing, then what is being pointed to is very, very simple, very straightforward. Because these boundaries start collapsing very fast. The boundaries of time will squeeze. But if you mix one, two, and three and try to make that dish, it will not be very palatable. And in fact, it takes a great openness to just stick to three. It takes a great openness to stick to three. If you hear in satsang, I'll say stay with what you see and don't mix it up with the thoughts about what it should be, what it must be. And also you don't mix it up with your knowledge, your conceptual ideas about things that you heard. Then very, very straightforward. You start thinking again, of course, you go to the mind and say, 'Oh, easier said than done,' this kind of thing. And you don't even have to see anything visually like through your senses. This is during that insight, which is a very good insight. I do feel it's supportive, though, like to keep the eyes shut because this is such a strong conditioning, this soaking up a temple for white... yeah. Oh no, it came already. Very good. I thought I was saying that something is being organized. It was already here. I think this is a surprise. So we are on... you kids get frozen. Oh, good intention. Tell me, cousin. You know what we probably have to do is we have to get one... after somebody technically and to get an Ethernet card for this, an Ethernet adapter, and put the connection straight into the computer so it doesn't even have to go through the router. We'll just beam into it directly. And it is... we need to create an internet seva group to find out the problems. He's just fooling. Which exact order now? Is it moving? That is... we call our intuitive insight is not something that we have heard, read, picked up from somewhere else, and it is not something which just comes as a concept from the mind. It is a deeper seeing which you cannot actually doubt. So this idea of separation can be... 'this is me and other.' And the mind can try to convince you that there is a line around your being which separates you from the rest of it. See if you can find such a line in your being. Is there even such a thing? She said very beautifully when she was checking that, 'But here I can't find the here or there, so how can I find a separation? How can I say whether it's local or everywhere?' These concepts just vanish. This is a very good exchange because we went through all of these things. Are you imagining it? Are you thinking about it? Have you just heard it? She said, 'No, no, no, I'm actually checking.' And the point is not like we must immediately come to a conclusion. Yes, it is something that goes into a deeper looking, which is enough. She's talking about the video of the inquiry. Support the slow medicine properly consumed can actually save a lot of time. Does anything that you jump over conceptually, that will become like the tail of the elephant which then goes through, seems to be becoming like that? Like the whole concept of individualized consciousness, it can get left behind if you go with that presumed idea of boundaries separating my being and everything else. Then this inquiry... and I noticed that the space, when you say let's see some... any perception is seen, it is one space, the space of all perception.

Properly consumed, it can actually save a lot of time. Anything that you jump over conceptually will become like the tail of the elephant which then goes through. It seems to be becoming like that. Like the whole concept of individualized consciousness, it can get left behind if you go with that presumed idea of a boundary separating my being and everything else.

Then this inquiry—and I noticed that the space, when you say 'let's see,' some perception is seen. This is one space. The space of all perception is one. Yeah, but is it separate from you? So this feels sometimes it's either this—it's not that space, it's just like you are aware of that space and that awareness remains untouched by all of it in a way like that.

And that is where the being comes in. You see, like this awareness does not have being or not being; it does not have even that primary set of opposites. See, it is the same—sleep state, waking state—no matter what, it is the same. But within itself arises the motion of being. The 'I' remains the same, but now 'I am.' The sense of being comes and can feel like, as you were saying, a very primordial vibration, like what she was calling a sensation. Even a very, very primal vibration. And in India, it is very popularly referred to as Om. That is the primordial vibration.

So this vibration, Atma, is all-encompassing. But this we have to check for ourselves in what way, because otherwise, if you give it to a mind and it says it's all-encompassing, then it'll just imagine that there is actually a lot of space out there and within every aspect of that space it is vibrating like that, you see? But what you check is that here, space collapses. There is no such thing as space left. So although for communication we can say it is happening in the same space, it is not a space of dimension. It is beyond dimensions. You cannot say front, back, left, right, up, down. You cannot see these things here. So the concept of space collides, and they just use it for communication—that it is happening in the same something we have to see.

So we see this Atma, this being dance, is beyond any constraints of dimensions. Therefore, the idea of saturation does not apply, because for saturation there would need to be time and there would need to be space. Does it make sense?

Beyond... and I know that's what I kind of said too, and just sure it's beyond. Not good, yeah, like it's beyond because somehow this space which perceives everything—let's just put it like this, okay, there's no space, like there's nothing like that. No space can be applied. It's just, you know, it's just this. So everything good. Okay, so let's go in. It's okay, you know what I want to say in a way because again I feel like without the interview which is being, there is no space. Not space, it's just this awareness is just so untouched that we can't really actually say anything about it. And yet qualitatively it seems like—it is not true, but it only seems like—we experience sleep state and waking state, you see? And what is the distinction between the two? The distinction is this what you were calling this very primal vibration, yeah. Just like when we said just try to stop being and all of that.

Distinction, I'm saying, not between Self and being. I'm saying the distinction between sleep state and waking state.

And I don't know what wakes up in the morning. You don't. Somebody else wakes up, maybe just kind of a concept framework, you know? I took it would be so, yeah, this kind of play, concept setting and different, everything you lost. And I'm saying that you... but that's the only thing I could say then in that case. The 'I am' itself with the primary concept is in that wave of a mirage, to say the only truth I can ever speak is that I am. But ultimately even that is not so. But I wanted to say, maybe you got... maybe I don't know me. So what you've said, even this is like this, just no space applicable or whatever, there's nothing. And then there's this being, 'I am,' this whatever. It's not so there's nothing like nothing and something in that. No, no, no, like this, but it has a kind of experientially, there's a quality.

Yeah, of the waking state. Okay.

No, just okay. So and just, I just want to clarify you. Okay, so what how it feels here is that then there is this a bit of quality coming up which is not spatial because that quality already came up. No, you said, yeah, sense of being and yeah, then so another corner ticking. No, no, it's just the quality. Okay, whatever, let's just call it quality here, okay? And in itself there's nothing like space, like here in there is space, because the quality itself just appears and something basic so they cannot, you know, it's not just the logical thing. Okay, I'm just saying like, I'm just trying to... so there's this quality of being and then what somehow happened is it's just a... it's really just a framework applied. Like, okay, we have space here, this is there, this is there, and then this with being in it versus being itself is also has no space except because it just appears in space. And this is a framework, like it just so funny.

If this is it, and what we call framework is what I call notions. Yeah, okay. The same conceptual framework in which we filter this reality through. And is that the special which is temple of all these which is idea? Well, my satisfy ourselves even this process of ninety, eighteen, eighty is finite and it's so frustrating to find infinite in the finite wave illusion. Yes, I can understand this concern. Frustrating. How do I get over this quantification syndrome as the real misery only you with Guru Kripa Kevalam? See, now if you apply the solution 'Guru Kripa Kevalam,' then there is no such thing as misery, frustration, something to get finite and finite. It is only will propagate. So 'Guru Kripa Kevalam' is not the solution. When you have Guru Kripa Kevalam, there is no problem. There is a big difference. Otherwise, we keep trying to use Guru Kripa Kevalam as if it is the solution to something, and then will I get to it? That means it's not Guru Kripa Kevalam. That means the problem is.

So when we say only the Master's grace is, Guru Kripa Kevalam, we do the Master's grace is nothing else is, which is all the Master's things. So in a way you are right that the path of the devotee seems much easier at times because you don't have to go through the struggle of this is checking on this, checking on that. So everything is the Master's problem. But not with the Gulen mind, not with some other end in mind, not with something specific. Okay, if I hold Guru Kripa Kevalam, then it will lead me to the end and that will not be frustrating out of any of that because I'm shadow to our mission miss before a lot of Jeremy's before intensity of the sensation which captures attention fully at one particular point divides it from of the sensation which is in value to form.

Maybe now we looked at that together. Father, for the past week the strongest fear is there, even small occurrences. My car battery went flat, oh this is not fear, and it scares and steals awareness. Was supposed to lessen the impact to the mind attacked for we had very similar conversation. You see, as long as this... I mean, who is saying awareness is there for me and fear is there for me? That 'me' will never be happy. So it is awareness is not there for you; awareness is you. Now the fear is for me. So awareness was supposed to lessen the impact of mind attacks? No. As long as there is a 'me,' the mind will attack because only the 'me' can be attacked by the mind. So if there is a 'me' trying to use awareness of the 'I' thought that this you were supposed to help me, 'Ma awareness, what do you do? You're not doing a good job of helping me.' No, no, that was not awareness at all, you see?

You are to see that you are this awareness that is most likely to be helped. And many, many, many in Advaita get stuck with this, and that's why I push you so that you don't get stuck in this. Awareness is not here to help you; awareness is you. Who's what exactly what I mean when I say truthful to say this? It is true. It is enough because it is true. It does not need to have any benefit for you. Then you say that, 'Can you talk about the dark night of the soul?' It's a thing. All this will apply to all 'me' use. And as long as there's a 'me' who's trying to double between their worldly existence and awareness, it will seem like you're going through this spiritual struggle. The most intense version of that is called the dark night of the soul. What is the same? It's a spiritual struggle or somebody trying to balance their worldly nature with their true Self which they have insight about. But nobody can do it. It is a dissolution of that doer idea.

I like very much the way you expressed today because many are actually feeling this and this gives me an opportunity to speak about this. If you have the idea that awareness is going to help you, forget about it. It's not here to help you. It is you. The 'you' that you think needs to be helped doesn't exist. That is the whole point. Not that you will come to the discovery of this nectar of immortality and you will never die; it is that you will discover that this immortality is you. I hope you can understand a little bit what I'm saying. It is not there to benefit you. The Self is not there to benefit you. The Self you will recognize is yourself. Now, what benefit does awareness need? What is lacking for it? Only when we identify as the limited, then all this struggle will come. You see, that's what the one is saying: just stop identifying with the non-self. The Self is apparent. But if you feel like the Self should have non-sense, then that is the mind convolution and it just makes it so convoluted.

This 'I discovered that I am not the person, I am awareness.' Okay, hearing me discovery. Now how does that help the person? This is... and that is why in Advaita we can suffer more than everybody else because the mind can be full of this kind of content. 'I discover I am not the person, I am awareness. Now how does it help me, the person?' Impossible. If there is a person left, then what was the discovery? So try to juggle the meaning and the supreme service is spiritual suffering. 'Dear Father, please accept me as a disciple at the feet of your heart. Take me as your child.' Made this beautiful request that you have made just now. Be the same root or you knew and not just a Guru-disciple relationship, a recognition of the one reality that we are. But I completely appreciate the spirit of this request and there is full acceptance, and there is full acceptance of you in my heart.

We were talking earlier, so there was the response which said what the pointer does is it shifts our attention from body, thought, emotion to that which is conscious of all this, there to consciousness itself and its origin. Attention. Attention is an important role. It appears this never three pounds which is to look within like this, to move our attention through all these layers of our existence to the very source of it and to see what is that unchanged, the unchanging substratum. Other, it sounds like there is a problem of the quality will be as it should not be. But this forest quality as such, there is no problem with that. But there is no problem with the quality of people just being. Being is just me. But in being itself, it has created for itself the sort of points which has 'this could have been,' 'this should have been,' 'this may happen'—these kind of ideas which in a way being with resisting, playing the game of resisting itself in this way. So you play the game of resisting ourselves in these ways, and now you play the game of Satsang which is stopping the resistance to ourself.

It's the kind of help easements made. His helplessness evolved into complete openness. Fooled the many times though we'll feel that we are helpless, we also defending the 'me' that is helpless. So he said we have become a fool letting go, and then you will find that that which is real, nothing has ever happened to that. A book called A Course in Miracles, it says: 'Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.' How to come to this recognition just...

Regarding the resistance to ourself, it's the kind of helplessness that has evolved into complete openness. Many times, though we'll feel that we are helpless, we are also defending the 'me' that is helpless. So, he said we have become a fool. Letting go, and then you will find that which is real—nothing has ever happened to that. A book called A Course in Miracles says, 'Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.' How to come to this recognition? Just when you become open, then you drop all your defenses. It is apparent that is the quickest way to remain unborn. You don't even have to go layer by layer into all the layers of your resistance. Everything becomes clear and you're empty and you're open, and you're not defending 'me' and I'm not asking 'what's in it for me?'

They didn't connect one, two, or three. One was: have you heard about it? The second was: have you thought about it? Third was: is it your direct insight? Here is what fear—a fear has been completely talking that that case might need you. I can feel that even when we get complete kind of non-resisted meaning of being completely, completely...

Let's take it one by one. So, the fear, for it to arise, it is very, very natural. It arises for most when you see yourself, that will come to an insight about yourself. It is natural because we have been conditioned with the false for so long that this fear of the unknown or fear of death, whatever you call it, will come. Now, the messaging behind this fear will be very different; like for each of you, we could have a different message. But the point is that it is just resisting your own self-discovery. It is just trying to resist that. Now, don't be opposed to this fear. Don't take rest—if you don't take any position with it—but if you have to take a position, take a welcoming position instead of running away or fighting or trying to operate. Position yourself and say, 'Okay, I'm here. My Master's blessings are with me. My divine presence is here. What are you going to do?'

And even if, because I show you, I show you water, you know, this kind of completely that very strong this...

Then let it play out and take my advice when I say to all of you many times: your language keeps you stuck. So, instead of saying 'fear is coming,' say 'fear is going.' Everything that is coming is going anyway. So, while it waits for coming all the way here, it is going. Then you're open. This will be moved. If you can see it is coming, then you're like, 'Okay, what defense should I build? How do I protect myself?' This kind of thing is going now. Like I was saying, everyone will have a different messaging about it. On one hand, you have to face all of this fear, and even after facing all of it, what am I getting? I am getting something which is so bland, like tasteless. You see? 'Where is my onion?' And another version of the same thing: 'Where is the bliss? It's so tasteless.' So, you are fighting all this fear and being open to it and all the spiritual subtle, and then what? Does this tasteless one, who doesn't even have this, is that full of money? It can seem like it is true, but the mind who can seem like it is true, it is in business. But all those who taste this tasteless one, all those who have tasted this tasteless one, have found contentment, have found peace. To taste that one for the mind, that one which is business and other days will compare, and it is good that now many times the stories of the Masters, they can also put benchmarks which are very difficult for us. But sometimes it is good to have these stories because you see that they came to the same recognition and their lives are full of contentment and things.

That joy to be in your presence, Father. So much love. Thank you for this. As yesterday we were remembering you because we had a friend and we just got to talking about Canada and immigrants, and I was wondering... very fortunately, of course, they said that in Toronto there are like buildings and buildings, the tunnels are connected and the basements are connected through tunnels, so you could actually go to your place of work without ever having to step into the cold and things like this. And as much as I know, being in BC was not one in some, so I didn't say this out loud, and it just felt like you described in satsang this company, satsang every day, and you don't have to get caught up in all the rigmarole of life and you're there. But I still often have the samples that I am not really appreciating truth for what it is, truth for truth's sake.

You have to see if this was true, then you would be able to say, 'Actually, this is what I want from it.' See, if you don't know what you want from it, then it is truth for truth's sake. Because you cannot be in satsang this long and not be clear about what you want from it. So, if you don't know, then that much is enough for me because that is you're in it for the truth. Now, when I say truth for truth's sake, it is not so that you can come to this perfect clarity, 'Yes, I just want the truth for truth's sake.' It is just so that we can do a check and say, 'What are my benchmarks? What am I judging myself on? Is it on the amount of bliss I'm facing, I am getting? Amount of peace I'm getting?' Using all these benchmarks on it. Or just that I'm in this because I don't want to live a lie. And if the person is a lie, then I don't want to pretend as if I am a person. If there is no ego, I don't want to spend this life posing as if I have one.

That's what I am. It is same symptoms, but I'm quite clear that I wanted to end my suffering there. This will work against my dream to end my suffering, to come to the truth so that I will come to the end of myself.

Okay, we will love this one. They locked in at least is not so that I can have a lot of bliss and joy and to that effect this truth. Now, where is the suffering? Truth we can point to like this: suffering has to be thought about. Because this is completely opposite to what the mind will tell you. Why? Because suffering is here, truth has to be found. I'm saying the opposite. It just is. Suffering needs work. Nobody is suffering effortlessly, even though you might think you are. There's a lot of work. If you feel your system as in the one effortless, how are you? 'Oh, I'm suffering so much.' Live it, and you see the ones who are suffering, they're working very hard in their heads. 'I mean, when will this end?' There's so much effort, so much energy expended into trying to solve something which is just made up, it's just an idea. Those remaining in so many ways up, there's like a maze and there's a person stuck in the middle over there. As a very perceptive one, I hear the connection is really good now. If the connection is tired of satsang, yeah, disable the blame you. I was feeling like we finished chapter two and provided one answer, that one sentence for Merlin's. I mean, why not? This one is a classic one. Okay, we'll just end with this. It's a really short answer which I love very much. The question was: 'Since realization is not possible without the destruction of mental tendencies, how am I to realize that state in which the tendencies are effectively destroyed?' Good question. Since realization is not possible without the destruction of mental tendencies, how am I to realize that state in which the tendencies are effectively destroyed? But once it results, you are in that state now. As almost brilliant exchanges everliving, how to become, how to come to the end of all this karmic conditioning, vasanas, destruction of my mental tendencies? She said, 'Be as you are.' Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Guru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Guru Purnima.