Natural Life Flows Intelligently - 12th November 2018

So now, don't exchange past concepts for new concepts. Don't exchange the ideas for, 'Yes, I used to think I'm a person, but now I know that I am the Self' or 'I am the Self and the person' or some new-found notion like this. Allow yourself to let go. Allow the truth to breathe in this way without again covering it up with conceptual dust. And if you need the reassurance, Master Bankei has said that all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn. All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn. So, can we not give it a chance, what he said? Let the Unborn deal with everything.

What is it when we quote very beautiful words? 'What a joy to be empty, but now God can live this life.' So, whether you call it Consciousness, you call it God, you call it the Unborn, or you call it the Self—various terms, they're not exactly synonymous, but I use them synonymously many times. And what is the other option? When we say, 'Let God lead this life,' what option do you have? Who else is there besides this one Consciousness, one Being? Show me that one, and then we will pick between God and your very being, which is the undeniable. Now we present the other option, then we will take an objective call. Okay, so the other one who is here—the lawyer in our head is representing which client? Who is the client of this lawyer who's objecting vehemently and pleading a case for this 'me'? Who is that?

You're here in satsang, presumably you want freedom, but we can't even find that one who wants freedom. Can you find the one who wants freedom? What freedom can you give to this body? It is not in chains; it is fine. Who else can you find? We are looking very simply, okay? Nothing special. Very objectively asked: there seems to be a voice which is representing a 'me'. Now, who is it actually representing? We just have to find that one present and say, 'This is the one that is representing.' I need to take care of this one now. You're taking care of this one also in your quest to find liberation. So, let's find that one and give liberation to it. Who wants it? And try to meet this question fresh, because otherwise the mind will keep saying, 'Yeah, I know who am I, it doesn't exist, I don't exist.' These are all stale answers. So, see if you can meet the question fresh. Who wants freedom? What is here that wants freedom?

So, what did you find? Me. I take myself to be the 'me'. I assume this one exists because when I see or when I feel touched, when I feel someone insults me, it hits me. When he sees me here, because I feel that there is a something, I'm physically okay.

It's a good one. Let's keep looking at that. So, I assume then because there is an emotion in this body, yes, that is assumed. Because this body also is assumed. Yes, it is. There are many emotions nearby. Presumably in this body, or you know to be me, because I think I'm in here. When I say something, I feel it. I feel that I exist, and there are many emotions in this body. Yes?

For instance, today I was feeling miserable and it felt very, very true then. Because when I was feeling miserable, the story was telling me, 'Oh, actually, this is how you are, do you know?' And I felt it would stay forever. Okay, now I see that it's just false, nothing. And emotions in the past, so it's not really where I am. Yeah, because you were still there. You're still here. The emotions, the quality and quantity of them changes, it comes and goes. The thoughts also change quality, quantity, it all just comes and goes. You are still there. Which one is this one?

This one is very light.

This one is very light. Light one, is it? Good, excellent. Okay, so this one is very light. If I give you heavy books to carry, does this one become heavy? Doesn't attention come mostly towards the weight? If attention went towards the weight, what is heavy? Right. The one that is light, is it impacted by the weight of the body? Is it? So, this one, what can we say about it which is true? Or what can we know about it for certain?

It has always been here.

Okay, we'll get into why we cannot even say that. But for now, it's here. So, it is not here in the same way that this thing is, this bottle. Because if it is here, then it has a particular shape, size, weight, everything. So, when you see this one which is very light, it has just always been here, and yet when you see, you don't know what you're seeing. Is it that I can't find any shape of it, size of it? Have you met anything in this world that doesn't have any attributes like shape or size? So, there is this one then. Can you miss it? Can't miss it and can't locate it. This is the paradox. The minute we go inside, the moment we go inside, it is apparent, and yet where is it? We cannot see. Where is this inside? We cannot see. Now, if this one came to you and said, 'I want freedom,' what do you tell to it?

This is freedom. But it's so heavy, full of this story.

Before, do we tell ourselves a different story? A different story. Now, obviously, it has stirred over the weekend also. So now, it just must be feeling like, 'No, but to give it up instantly would be quite a waste over the weekend.' Many times it happened on Mondays, the time that we come and like, 'I'm really going to talk about this.' It was so dear. The minute you start talking, you're like, 'Actually, I can't even find it so much now.' But it's just like so. And this is symptomatic of how we meet every moment, actually. Because we've built up a life story over so long that when this moment is just here, so fresh, this is not mine. But you have real problems, you know? Yeah, because you've tried to deal with them for so many years, they must be real. See, all circumstantial evidence. But what do you actually find?

For me, it doesn't stay on its own.

It doesn't stay on its own, but is it that it never goes anywhere? It's always here. Nothing else stays but it. But it doesn't feel like that sometimes. Is it dependent on something? No, it's not. But the feeling is much more pleasant when there are not those layers of story.

What if the truth did not feel good? Would you still want it? If the truth did not feel good, it didn't feel anything at all, it was just neutral—a glass of water, no flavor. Everyone likes it. So, we're not asking you to not like this. I'm saying if the truth, which is so neutral to you in life, because I see them more and more, and it's unbearable. This happiness itself is a liar because to find something too heavy, you have to consider yourself to be something which is an object, a heavy object. No? If you consider yourself to be a super heavy object, then all this heaviness would not seem like too much. Or these knockout punches that come, is it? You obviously would consider yourself to be a light object which gets overwhelmed by these other objects that come, these operations.

Now, yeah, I feel very light and sad at the same time.

Can you see these emotions? You can just let them play. Yes. Light, sad, this one, that one. If all of them were to go away, would you still be here? And as they come one by one, they come and something leaves, you see. Something else comes, sometimes two of them seem to dance. All these things that seem to happen, you are still there. It's just like you are the stage on which these actors come. Sometimes Mr. Joy comes, sometimes Miss Gratitude comes, Master Fear comes, sometimes Mr. Sadness comes. All of these things dance. But what happened to the stage? Who will be there? Scratch when they come? Who is it? See, all this effect on the body now. Who is it scratching? Who is it denting? And then the messaging: 'They should go. Pray, pray, Father, bring something else.' And who is affected by all this? Right now, that's all you're dealing with. If you let them play their part on the stage and they exit stage left, nothing stays on the stage forever. That's coming down. Temptation and some messaging, that's all.

Don't have any strategy about it. Yeah, don't try to push it away, don't try to love it to death. Nothing. These actors on the stage, they come on stage. The stage is not deciding to dance this way, they will go. It is not even saying, 'If I just stay as the stage, it'll go well.' That's what the position doesn't have to do anything at all. I've spoken about this many times, making tactics out of how to get rid of the actors they don't want by trying to use very so-called loving tactics, isn't it? Like, 'I will love my fear to death.' And we spoke about this: if your intent in your heart is to get rid of it, then the ploy is just that.

Regarding these actors on the stage: they come on stage. The stage is not deciding, 'This way they will go.' It is not even saying, 'If I just stay as the stage, it'll go well.' The position doesn't have to do anything at all. I have spoken about this many times—making tactics out of how to get rid of the actors they don't want by trying to use very so-called loving tactics, isn't it? Like, 'I will love my fear to death.' And you spoke about this: if your intent in your heart is to get rid of it, then the ploy is just fake love. 'I know I can't resist it because it grows if I resist it, so my way to handle it and get rid of it then is to love it.' It's the way popular New Age sort of philosophy seems like. In our heart, we want it to go, but you feel like we've heard 'what we resist persists,' so let me try the opposite tactic. 'I still want it to go, but I will fool it, actually, by loving my fear.' But actually, you cannot fool life like this with this kind of ploy. If in our heart that is still imitation, if it is still a concept, then we cannot fool our way through this.

So, this being empty of these positions, where does it come from? This emptiness comes from one: the true recognition that you are not in this play of objects. That is one. Or it comes from two: devotion to any form of the Divine. Any one of them is enough. So, when you have a true recognition, you see that 'I'm not even in this realm; only objects are here. I can't find any shape or size to myself.' The auxiliary aspect of myself seems to be here, which seemed so intimate. In fact, all of this is an auxiliary aspect of myself. It is that I was taught to define myself only as this, but I'm not even contained in this; this is contained in that. That is the recognition.

If this recognition seems alien, then tell me if we have some devotion in our heart. Devotion is only worthwhile to that holy presence which takes care of everything. That holy presence—and whatever form you might attach to it because you need a form just to relate—but actually, we are devoted to this Being ourselves. So, it is taking care of everything. That is the meaning of devotion. Then we don't have to bother over there. It is like, 'I am sitting on my Father's lap; I don't care. Dance as much as you want.' But the 'me' having to take care of it is unique to that situation where we're not in our true recognition and we are not in a surrender or a devotional state. This 'me' can only seem like it is alive and kicking when ideas are given value over your true insight, or the love in your heart, or the devotion.

Father, you talk about the stage and actors coming in here. No, there comes a point when one of the actors starts taking the center stage and starts making so much noise that entire attention shifts to that. In the moment, frequently we are able to observe that this is taking over, but sometimes it goes beyond our control and only later on we get to recognize it. So, how can we handle that?

What we're discussing there comes whenever fear, anger, all this would seem like the center stage. Actually, it never is, but it's just that. A very simple example: if I drew a black dot on this wall and I ask all of you, 'What do you see?' Not even 'What don't you see?' I see a big white wall. All of you will say, 'I see a black dot.' So, if this is our life and emotions, especially when these things come, it's like the dot's field is lacking; everybody starts looking only at that. Everything else is not seen. So, when these emotions take center stage, the difference between energy constructs which we call thoughts and energy constructs that we call emotions is that one has the specific language-oriented meaning—these thoughts just come and go, but they throw language-oriented meaning at you—and these emotions seem to have a quality of being real.

So, when they are lingering, let them linger, but don't hold on to any concept of them. Let them come. See if you can not even label them. Let attention be on it as much as it wants, but relax. Try to leave it empty of any labels. Because if I tell you one thing, you might be a bit surprised: you will never experience the exact same emotion twice. That which we call anger actually is a big spectrum; we've just given it a convenient name. So, when this thing is there, if you're not saying, 'I'm angry, I should not be angry, when will this end?'—all these conclusions, none of them are true. If you like, you can look at our sages. Great stories of Durvasa Muni—he has been very angry at times. We will say, 'You know, which person? He has destroyed two big dynasties of kings,' something like that. Don't even say that this has to go, this has to stay. Take no position about anything. Because no matter how long something might seem to be center stage, for infinity it is just a blip. Annihilate it, and you don't have to deal with it with your attention anyway. But if attention is fixated on it, then a little bit later on, you just become empty of any concepts about it.

The Zen master said, 'These thoughts are like visitors; they come and go. Allow them to come and go, just don't serve them tea.' What is this tea? The tea is our identification with them. And one more tip I'll give you is that you don't have to solve it for some past version of you or some future version of you. If I am sitting here in satsang and just trying to solve it—the one that was yesterday feeling so much something—how is it going to be when satsang is over and you're not here? You see, it's still trying to sort it for this person in that version instead of tasting ourselves in our reality right now. So, the mind will say, 'Keep quiet in satsang, it's fine. Further in satsang, it's fine.' You should like that. But actually, even in satsang it's not fine because we're still buying into notions of past and future. Any moment when you are empty of this, when you allow this unborn to be unborn, what is happening here is you're allowing yourself to taste your own presence.

So, what is here now? What can you say? Can I add a supplement to that list? What can you say about now without thinking about it? Nothing. Nothing is there to watch it. You know what I mean? Like, there's something wrong here. And the game is no-limit. This usually means something, but really doesn't. We stay ready. And this silence, which can be a little bit uncomfortable, is the naturalness of that. You could say, 'I want peace around.'

So, I had a related question here. I've been following the pointing of some type. I get a glimpse of it, but I'm rarely able to experience the presence, or whether it's a masquerade, you know, very subtle, very by the mind itself, which can be very clever.

What you have to do is you have to not be. Don't be. Come on. Is it 'don't be' now? Yeah. What? I get it. Admit that. No, it's not complicated. Okay, come here as if this is your first satsang. You don't know anything about anything. And I want you to stop being for a moment. Don't exist. Not existing. There's a sense of like, who is tasting this void? Is it possible for you to not be? The best way to use it is the one second. Excuse this void. Whose report am I making? Something within. Stop this one. Let that one not be. That which perceives even the void. Listen to this. It's still something within. It's that which perceives all of this. This is your presence. You can't miss it. In fact, you can never experience it not being there.

Okay, let me ask you about the best. Are you aware now? Yes. How did you confirm this? What did you see? I don't see anything. Like I felt it. Was it a feeling? Just an awareness. It's an awareness. What is the color of it? No color. Is it a light? No. Is it now? Isn't this unique? This discovery itself is so simple and yet so unique. Because everything else—do you see a green apple on this couch? Why am I saying no? You don't see the shape, you didn't see the size, you didn't see the color green. For awareness, you said yes. For green, absolutely no. You see what I'm getting at? That okay, nominal object, you have to get there. There are two routes. And where we come from for this 'I am-ness' itself, for this awareness itself, it is so primal that you cannot deny it, and yet you do not perceive it objectively. It is as simple as this.

They say, 'No, the Self is without attributes.' It does not have an age. Who is not happy? Are you aware? You said yes. I asked you about that. Is it same? No. I said, are you making that report conceptually? You say no. It is in experience, but it is not an object. Can you say such a thing? It is the only non-changing aspect, unmanifest aspect of you, which is ever-present but prior to presence. Now, get rid of it. Don't try to hold on to it. Don't even think about it. Get rid of it. Don't be aware. Throw it away. Push it out. Anyone can do it? And what is this trouble about if you can't leave it? Whatever you're trying to get, it doesn't leave. Attention shifts to the person. Where does attention report back to? No matter to what it goes, where does it report back to? So, this Self, it cannot leave. It's like a dog on a leash; it can go here, you know, but it cannot leave. You can't.

So, we get so obsessed with checking on what is on this side of attention, what is the content it is bringing back. But what is on that side of attention? Who is it bringing it back to? Is that also changing? How can I make that side of the attention permanent? I said, don't you try to get rid of it. Try to make it impermanent. This is a strange satsang you've come to. Okay, here we are not saying we want to make it permanent. I am saying you take this awareness and throw it. Make it impermanent. Like for one second, don't be. Come freely on this side of your attention, the content side. Be only that. Can you do it? The truth is always. It is not coming and going. This is just his idea. I just have to believe the idea. Where you want to leave the conversation? I'm going to keep time. Any time it can happen that we just leave the conversation. What if you're like, 'I still have to do, I still have to make sure that it happened like this'?

So, these are just ideas. And who's the 'I' that you are referring to in all of these ideas? But this awareness, is it doing the traditional way we think about like objectivity, which is it has no limbs? These limbs, in a way, they're doing all of this. So, every time we make the motion that 'I must do this' or 'not do that,' we are again coming up with a limited version of ourselves and buying into that. Now, not doing is another version of doing. See if you can follow this. When you make this intention that 'I am not going to do now because Ananta said I don't have to do anything, I'm just not going to do,' then you're doing the not-doing. You're taking the position of the non-dual, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying doing and not-doing is not applicable to your truth now. This the mind cannot. It will try to make a concept around it, a something, but it really comes from our neutrality. And I thought, 'I am doing, do it, not do.' If I see both or neither, how does it leave?

And let's say in a work situation, anything, you have to respond to someone. Either I intend to respond or intend not to respond.

No intention to remain. The response always follows these intentions. One evening I decided, 'Tomorrow morning when I go to work, I'll get lost' or something. So, full intention. Showed up at work, still carrying that intention. Came in front of my boss and you know what words came from this mouth? 'Good morning, what can I do for you today?' Many times it seems, many times different, different. And just like the arising of thoughts is unpredictable, this is coming. Both actions are the same way. No? Both are just aspects of consciousness. Both are just, if you want to call them something, energy constructs or the play of life, the play of the light of consciousness. It can play anyway. It's real.

I showed up at work still carrying that intention, came in front of my boss, and you know what words came from this mouth? 'Good morning, what can I do for you today?' Many times, it seems, in many times different, different. And just like the arising of thoughts is unpredictable, this is coming. Both actions are the same way, no? Both are just aspects of consciousness. Both are—if you want to call them something—energy constructs or the play of life, the play of the light of consciousness. It can play any role with any others. So this fallacy that there is cause and effect only leads to the concept of time; it only leads to the concept that you are an object stuck in time. If there is a cause, it is consciousness. They say not even a blade of grass moves except by the will of God. If this is true, then what do we mean by 'What should I do?'

So why does anything happen or not happen? How does anything happen or not happen? When does anything happen or not happen? The grace of consciousness, my dear. You guys, exactly. Let me tell you, you don't know how to move. Then how do we do anything at all? So then, the one who is doing it here now, it is grace. I don't know how to move a finger. How do I know that? Oh, so this—what happens is there are neurons in the brain and there is a nervous system, so the neurons get activated and then the nerves get activated and they say this happens. So I see. So how do you activate a neuron? Where is the instruction manual? And nobody knows how any of this is happening. It is just presumed that there is an individual doer of them.

I think we are not doing it consciously. It may be happening subconsciously.

Class, beyond about sub-consciousness... it is a popular concept in Western psychology. That stuff for me, there is just consciousness. All these 'sub-consciousness' terms are what ideas are about.

I was talking from a science perspective, not from—

Yeah, it's a psychology. Okay, thank you. Don't speak of the sub-consciousness because there's no sub or super. It is one. Much as one being. Just the same way as your heart is beating, millions of other cellular processes are undergoing in this one body. All of this universe has so much going on. Seemingly, life is all this happening. What is the light of your waking state? What is it without you? Because we actually cannot move until we know mentally. You cannot. So as long as you keep referring back to this device and saying, 'Okay, there's a concept which seems to encapsulate something, then I know it,' and if the concept is not there in this, 'I don't know it,' actually, that is preferable.

It's not in my experience, like living experience, but what makes a body sleep? All I know is that this body goes to sleep and it wakes up. That's how the body wakes up. What happens to you and the body itself?

What time did you wake up today?

From six.

Six. And what time did you sleep last night?

11:30.

So where were you between 11:30 and 6:00?

It's still there, but you're not perceiving anything at first.

Then who noticed that you woke up? So this 'you' which is the witness of the sleep state and the waking state itself is empty of all nominal criteria. What is that which remains unchanged through all these states? They come and go: waking, sleep, dream. What is that unchanging? It must be here now. Some of that one stubbornness, whether we call it awareness, the Self, business stops, and whatever we call it. Remember, the terms are never it. We get too attached to any term. Organically, without effort, what are you going to hold this awareness up with? What are you doing to hold this world up? Like nothing. It comes naturally, effortlessly. Awareness self-adjusting. Only now, once you make a boundary about yourself that 'I am really this,' then you attach all kinds of attributes to it. 'I want this,' so desire will come. 'What do I do or not do?' Doership will come. And essentially, the boundary-making itself is duality. Ego, duality, desire, and doership. None of it exists.

It's a fallacy. How do you exist in your hands? How do you exist in your hands such that you don't exist in the space between them? What is that? There is nobody like that. The fallacy that 'I am contained in my body.' So what is here in my hand that is not in the space between these hands? What am I, some sort of ghost in the body shape? Yeah, exactly.

I'm sorry, this may sound strange. I've been working on not believing thoughts, but how about evidence that supports the thought? I have a thought that says 'I ate a chocolate,' but how can I not believe this is true?

I'm glad you asked. Now, I'm not saying that you believe the opposite thought. I'm not saying that you believe, 'Oh, I did not eat a chocolate.' I don't know anything. Leave yourself open from these conceptual concepts because they are not true. You do not need the concept 'I ate a chocolate' to eat the chocolate. Just like I don't need the concept of 'breathing' to breathe. It doesn't mean concepts are not relevant today. So while this functioning can happen, we don't need the concept about it. Because in all our letters and terms, there's only life. 'I ate a chocolate'—which 'I' is this? Which 'I'? It is reasoning that will limit itself mostly. And again, even if you tell me what might sound like very phenomenal terms, like some practical example of what to do with these, they are just representative of phenomena. Thoughts like 'the coconut is green.' Firstly, the perception of the so-called greenness of coconut-ness of any object does not need the concept 'the coconut is green.' Secondly, it will not rest in that concept. If you could, you say, 'Okay, I like coconuts. Coconuts are sweet at this time of the year. You see, I was born in Kerala.' You know, this kind of thing quickly comes at the tail of these very harmless-seeming concepts.

But for the perception of phenomena, we don't need the concept. In fact, the concept is the opposite of it. By looking at the flowers, now the perception of it, just the pure perception of it—do I need to be repeating to myself, 'This is the perception of the flower'? No. The minute we put it in the basket of the idea of a flower, we are mixing time into it, history into it, what it means for us into it. So on top of this just pure perception, we are mixing all the ideas. Now this example, this one, this one—we don't meet anyone. We meet them only in this photocopy version of the model which is in our labels. 'This is like this, this is like that.' The minute you start putting labels, 'Oh, I like red better,' it will be all this comparison, all of that. But if you like to come play with what an experience it is, as I see there, that's a flower for the first time. After meeting my Master, I don't feel like I saw truly before that. I was meeting the version of it in my mind. I'll quickly take some things from here, something from here, and put it there. And very quickly, we are away from just the perception of it and go to our version of it, saying, 'Okay, I got this. It's a clock.'

So this is so just what is appearing, or this what is the content of our perception, using an idea of what it is. If you think, you will quickly see that you are this peace. And with the eyes, the minute you attach a knowing of what it is, the conception of what it is, which is too much—it is as if you have like a heavy weight, then it is loaded with every single instance that you've stored up in your memory. When you will look at it, it is already too much dealing with it. I am so pretty right now, you see? If you are just testing what does appear in this for what it is. But once we identify it as that, it is not just that we create a mental concept of it; it is also that it is loaded with all that we think about that concept, all our past experiences and everything that we will attach to that notion. And what is actually appearing is gone because we are living in our mind now. So it is not that we take one position and replace it for a new position which is the opposite end of that. We just go beyond our conception. Like these concepts can come, we can create, all this is fine, but I'm saying don't attach meaning to them. Don't give them too much value. And we are not taking a new position of being in denial of them, or believing the opposite position.

For me, subconscious means that it's just the rest of the week, instantaneously desires and feelings that just in the witness to do that.

It's okay. If you want to use the term, that is fine. It's not... we just don't make too many side projects, 'my subconscious nature' or something. I thank you for this simple, straightforward, natural, sahaja existence. All the cleanup that needs to happen apparently was also taken care of. There is no actual thing like the world. There's no actual thing like the world, the body, 'I am,' even consciousness, awareness. There's no actual thing like that. It's just that we take from our existence, being a certain boundary, then we say, 'This is world.' This set of sensations, 'This is body.' Visual perceptions and some sensations, we label them together in a basket and say, 'This is body.' Then another set of energy constructs which carry this language or meaning, we say, 'This is mind.' And then the very just present sensations, these are different sensations, we call emotional this and that, we feel this is joy. But the terms are not inherent in the sensations or the perception of them. This is just only used for communication. There is no distinction ever between anything.

But I feel lockdown. Good to see you, my dear. She says, 'Dear Ananta, the pointing at the beginning: what do you know when you don't know anything?' Now, this is the first—nobody has ever told me, 'I love this most.' She played this one, said to me when you are first sharing this kind of pointing, like, 'What is this crazy stuff?' Then I have to convince myself, 'Don't talk like that, he's your Master,' you know, just a mission. I'm glad to you. Somebody seems like another, another name for me. Yes, I don't know. Now, what is it to say 'I don't know'? Is it to know something, that 'I don't know'? Then where does that leave us? And all of you might feel like this is some sort of terrible place, but this which is beyond even 'I don't know,' I think we said this is where all the finding is for. So if I was to say that even to know that I don't know is to know too much, whatever. And what is still apparent to you? Thank you, Beast. I'm very happy to hear from you, my dear. Feels like it's been two years. We can Google Hangout or something. Within field, support.

Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Jai Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Jai Satguru Ki Jai. Guruprapatti.