Neither Claiming Nor Denying - 6th November 2018

Thanks together, because you see, let me say we say that music from the heart, which one of my... yeah, and it is not the content of it actually. It is more a sense of what does it seem to make out of us? So if I'm just waiting to see robots, I feel limited, makes us grasping. You can just give me... does it make... makes us in a rush? Content, can you see? I'm just looking to see through. I'm just warning, yeah, so from the heart. And oh Lord, speaking of longing and meeting, it is not under the... the data would be not doing worry about there. It is control because even this can be a spiritual... my chain is this. And what's been happening is that so many beauties for the last few weeks is one more good tonight, special concepts and a very good... is that can it be said that the sense of being a person or ego or the limited birth is only because of the conclusions we make about life for ourselves? But we know that you will get some presence. Yeah? So obviously after as I noticed this, so the first thought that comes is, 'So now I have to... I shouldn't make conclusions now.' So after noticing this, that maybe the sense of a point set significance of the conclusions, the thought that comes on the offer on the mind is to live either way who now doesn't make a conclusion. And the offer for this position is also based on the conclusion that if I do not make a conclusion then... yeah. And now the defense set of conclusions has been replaced by in satsang appropriate conclusions for an entire spectrum and everything in between. If you said, 'Son, don't move the left,' automatically the mind will doctors in conclusion saying, 'Go to the right.' That will not say it seems. And this is the nature of the mind, that if one assertion is false, then the opposite too is presumed, which... and we get into this sort of oscillation, oscillatory please between this and that. What is beyond this dualistic heart made it? This cannot really conceptualized this. I need description of that lobster game. And also like supposing Delos to look at the made-up distinction between inside/outside or anything. Yeah? So then I see a ring is that, yes, the distinction was later. So there's that scene, then there's that conclusion: the distinction was made. And then if I give too much assent to the conclusion, exactly, then the scene almost gets... not gets replaced, but more value is then given to the conclusion. And if I attach to the conclusion, I cannot attach to the seeing. I can only attach to the conclusions I make based upon the same. Yes. And only that will then create an illusion that really lives up to the seeing itself. It's not a substitute for this in exactly. Nor does it describe it in any true... not in Italy here, only in a provisional... in a provision, yes. And also in allegation, like the conclusion can be like, 'Yes, I see that there is no inside or outside me,' but it doesn't say anything about what is. It only describes what is not—that there is no inside or outside. But if you try to describe what is, when you see that words are not so eloquently even when we say unchanging, for example, it is...

The seeing itself, it's not a substitute for this exactly, and nor does it describe it in any true—not in reality, here only in a provisional, in a provision, yes. And also in negation. Like the conclusion can be like, 'Yes, I see that there is no inside or outside me,' but it doesn't say anything about what is. It only describes what is not: that there is no inside or outside. But if you try to describe what is, then you see that words are not so eloquent. Even when we say 'unchanging,' for example, it is not changing. But what is it doing? It's not changing, we can see. So we can put a lot of 'uns' or 'nons' to describe what it is not. But if you would plan to positively describe it with words, that's not straightforward because no description actually comes close to the surface. But the thing is that now if you see this and say, 'Okay, then...' If you felt that the mind is all that we have, then it would feel like just give up, there is no chance, because the mind cannot capture this in any way. But is the mind all that we have?

Yeah, in the mind all I can see is conclusions being made. Yes, yes. That which sees itself, is that mind? But because I cannot see that in an objective way, so I see the mind, but the 'I' that sees the mind, I cannot see that in an objective way. Then how do we claim that I see the mind? So is there a knowledge which is deeper than just that, or independent of our objective experience? I feel more comfortable in saying just that the mind is seen, but I don't feel like I see.

Yeah, you see, the mind is seen. Yeah, I say hold on on your behalf. I know this sort of dilemma because you can't say 'I see' because you have a perception of that. You can't say 'third party' also. So this is a beautiful explorative state. Like when we say—and you know that it's very popular to say—'it is seen' or 'it is just perceived.' And the intent there is to try and remove any sort of personal sense of either devotion or personal perception from that picture. But it is not in that sense that, 'Oh, it is seen but I'm not seeing it.' That's not what is meant. Because you can either—at this point we can either claim or deny the 'I.' You can neither claim nor deny that 'I am seeing.' So this is already very good. When we go beyond claim and denial and you see that it's not possible in that way, then we leave this dualistic territory. So on this aspect, as we look at all aspects of time and space, of disappearance as you call it, and we see that you can't actually claim or deny any of it, then dualistic thought doesn't really have a hook to grab a hold of. I mean, we cannot make a conclusion about that. Anything else we can make a conclusion about. And that which is not in appearance, which is neither coming and going nor perceived, see that we cannot make a conclusion about anyway.

It's like I'm so used to making objective reference. Yeah, so making the reference to myself as something which is not seen, this is a bit unusual.

Even that you don't have to do. The reference itself means limitations, exactly. In a way, it is like habit-breaking. When masters say, 'Look at that which is non-changing, you are that,' it is really to break this habit of making a reference to ourselves which is limited or just objective. But really, it is not so that you can continue to make even this distinction. It's that once you break the habit of making the reference which is objective of what self is, you don't have to make any reference. And this is the openness, openness that is spoken of so often. Sometimes this 'I' which we see can point anywhere in the entire spectrum of phenomenal to non-phenomenal. It can point in the entire of this. I can point, but what if it no longer pointed to anything? Like if it was arrested of its reference-making. Because many are stuck in notions, whether we are worldly or spiritual. Then there is just the sense of worldly individual or spiritual individual. Only limitation, or a spiritual limitation. But spiritually, who is one? Just that which is fed with all of these spiritual concepts, and then we make a boundary about the 'I,' thinking that only that which is spiritual applies to it. Spiritual conclusions. Spiritual conclusions are what it was made up of, this spiritual belief system. So any of this boundary-making is not really...

A timescale of not being able to see, catch, avoid, or anything, so that automatically leads to a story conclusion. If there is fear arising, that automatically leads to a conclusion very immediately, because what does that conclusion rest on? The idea that this is not good or this should not be what is happening.

Yes. Now the space which we pointed to, is that space... does spaciousness mean the absence of something? Like if fear is not there, then there is peace? Or even the space in which fear is coming? For the 'I,' I prefer to past when there was spaciousness because they don't call that spaciousness when fear is arising. Your space, and you see that this space is actually untouched. You call that spaciousness. This to happen and to be any term gets us in trouble. I mean, self-definition, any idea that 'this is what it should be' gets us caught up in limitation again.

Do something because again we go to the same unaffected by... it seems to be affected.

So it is not. It is that the space in which fear comes, when it comes next, you have to see how that is affected. Where does the fear come along with its... where does it come? Is it a different place compared to where joy comes? You don't have to see the fear comes, you can see how that was. You refer to the past, asking whether whatever the content of the experience might be—even what you're hearing now, what you're feeling, where your thoughts are—all of that is perceived where? Do you know that venue? The venue of those things that you experience? Besides this one, it's not there. Yeah, hard to...

It's like if a fear pulls up and he's like, 'What you doing? What you doing? Stop, stop.' Don't like the facts. In a way it was like whatever life is happening is happening, but it's fun to see now like, you know, you verbalize our judgment about that. If something is this punishment state, not very... something not very important technique. It's great specific value, not with any concern or like having parametric, but with all the good intention which might be in wellness on behalf of others. But sometimes it's like better projection that you should be moving such down, that you should make it yourself a little some is certainly something very upfront. What else? Like or relating is happening with whatever be good. I don't know, only you probably know what is that. But it's okay, it's okay, but it feels more of illness. Like I don't know what to say, but the 'I am' is it... it's like when God wanted help, which I don't know, I had not concluded about that. When I don't have anything to take any grandstands like the living or spiritual life or something, you know, this should be an immediate... liquid for a girl also, instead of our ideas about what is good for him or her, which is completely with a very good intention, but it's still in a room of our judgment and understanding about what's happening. But we don't know what it is and what is right for others also. We may be kind of hiding my own producers would be in a certain way, but that what it is.

Don't worry, because I feel like in this case at least most of them will be happy to admit that they don't know what's going on, isn't it? Yeah, I would have done the same if somebody comes and suggests. Still, our ideas... I suggest people not just about humans, not in my hand. It's fun today because we've not had this kind of satsang for a long time. If it was going on all sides, it's been too quiet around you. Every other day you're like, 'Should we like pause the podcast or keep it on?' You're not happy. This is also a good time for all of us to check on what you've been hearing in satsang. To remain in the motionless existence, do not make conclusions. I've said often that it's very easy in a cave—or even that is not really easy yet—but it can be very easy in a cave where there's no noise, no disturbance, everything is quiet. You can decide what you want to keep in your plate and what you want. But shamelessness when it is full of fires in my appearances with you, this would be something very beautiful. How our self-image, self-righteousness, our self-protecting tendencies, they all come to the fore in these kind of situations. It's getting a bit, you know, shaken up from all sides. Good exposition time. You must not shy away from this because life is just like this. This is in fact the thing. There are no visions of life. If you feel like you have some semblance of control over the satsang environment, then it's the same policy that we carry in levels. So it's good sometimes for that to get shaken up. 'I came thinking it's going to be like this, I am going to have a peaceful Diwali satsang,' and like he was saying, it's not. It's a good exploration for those parties who are having this kind of reaction also, because you are dealing with judgments which are coming already saying, 'Stop, stop, what are you doing? This is not right.' Are you just speaking? It is easier. All this will happen. And plus then you have to deal with all these ideas of what must others be thinking, you know? What will they think? What is Father thinking about this? So openness is not just tiptoes. This is also openness. Openness does not mean that sort of sheepishness. It is open like that. It is taking no position and allowing whatever has to unfold through this expression to unfold because it is going to an English... but without judgment. Oh, good, good. Because we get into a particularly... all of us get into a particularly... 'it has to be this way, this way,' you know what I mean? I'm saying to the James, the shakiness is good. If it just became like this every day, then that would need to be probably shaken up by some silence, you know, or something like that. I'm not saying that I'm not... what is good is the fact that we can't conclude that we can't settle that it has to be like this or like that. I am not making a conclusion that, 'Okay, this will happen every day,' is what I'm saying is good or something like that. I am not making a judgment of the content of the appearance. I am just saying that it's very good for it to keep changing so that we can't really conclude and say, 'This is how this is supposed to be.'

There can be a conclusion like suppose fear is arising, so then there can be self-defining, 'I am a fear,' and then it's a country. And then there can be a like blind, more blindly, but in conclusion that the sensation which arose was fear.

Exactly. That's our answer, because we've never experienced the same sensation twice. Then even the conclusion that we know what it is, is this an idea? This would be... we have some very broad terms like fear and joy, like anger, grief. These are very broad terms, or like millions of subtleties within them. As we leave it undefined, as we leave it unturned, then they are not hiding from what is. This is what I mean by open. Like you may say, and sometimes I say, don't feel the fear to start with. You see it for what it is. So once you make this conclusion that it is fear, then we're no longer dealing with what is appearing, but we are dealing with our concept of it. Because you bring your prior knowledge of, 'Okay, to deal with fear, this is what works for me, this is what doesn't work, you know, this is what you must do.' Fear, there is nothing, it is just like the absence of love or something. Like you bring these definitions into it. Whereas when you're just meeting it, it is just what was appearing, then it was empty of all this fear stuff. We try to deal with the labels, the labels in a conceptual way, just to get some good sense of control. Like what is it? The mind plays in a way that it is scared of losing control.

With fear, this is what works for me, this is what doesn't work, you know, this is what you must do. Fear—there is nothing. It is just like the absence of love or something like that. You bring these definitions into it, whereas when you're just meeting it, it is just what was appearing then. It was empty of all this field stuff. We try to deal with the labels, the labels in a conceptual way, just to get some good sense of control. Like, what is it? The mind plays in a way that it is scared of losing control. 'Okay, I know what this is; this is fear. I know what this is; this is joy. I know what this is; this is anger. And what works in my case with anger is like that.' So what happened to that which is arising? Gone in the background somewhere.

Some exploration of pain has been happening here in the last week, as most of you know. But the minute you label it 'pain,' then it's like, 'Okay, what is the best way for pain management?' This is easy. Then just the taste of that becomes stale in a way. Just to taste it for what it is, this very pristine limit—pain. And I've been making this point, but I feel like you are actually assimilating what I'm saying. I'm saying that to look at everything in this empty field completely is the best, most open way to meet it. To label it is an avoidance. And yet, day after day, almost every day, I get a complaint that we are sort of in avoidance—in avoidance of some experience by meeting it in this field.

Now, I wonder whether the message will get through this time. If what I was saying was that you run away from what is being experienced—so something is arising and I'm saying you run away from that experience and use some spiritual concept like 'nothing has ever happened, nothing has ever happened'—then that would be like an avoidance, like trying to force attention away from it and not look at it. But what I'm saying is: meet it completely head-on. It itself inherently does not have the label with it, you see? But when you define it, then you are not with it completely; you are with all your ideas about it and all your past experiences. And I started using this term a long time ago: don't equate it with 'tell it away.' It's very strange that I'm hearing it now, that we just 'tell it away.' But it is not like that.

To 'tell it away' means to use a concept like 'nothing has ever happened' to come into conceptual denial of what is being experienced. Stay with this experience, really. Don't run away from anything. But that presumption that 'I know what this is' is only bringing past baggage into it, which is the way in which you avoid the experience—by defining what you think it is. And I get it; meeting life in this way, completely open and naked, is somewhere contrary to our humanity, of our humanness. Is this strange? Because the most human of expressions is to meet life in this field. But if 'human' is another term for 'ego' or 'personality,' and we are just using terms so that we can make excuses for egotism, then I cannot tell you to bless that. If it is a term that is used as a guise for selfishness or arrogance or individuality, then true humanity must be to meet everything that is appearing in this manifest experience with openness, non-judgmentally.

But if the term 'I'm only human after all' actually is translated into 'I am an ego after all,' then I can't let you rest there, or 'I am a person after all.' So, as absolutely at the time I did this stuff, which has to be satisfied, the tendency to form conclusions, wherever we hear spiritual advice, we form a technique to solve my problems. And that is a limitation. And then we go the other way around saying, 'You should not talk to me.' Exactly. My mind only fathoms these opposites. And not forming a technique of 'superiority'—catch me very quickly. If I avoid both these ways, then I am same as I was before, that is, caught up with identification.

Now, this we can explore a bit. Like if you avoid 'I have to fix it, I can't fix it,' like 'I have to do this technique to become free' and 'there is no technique,' and that 'no technique' is my new ploy to fix it, or saying that there is no technique—now, empty of either of these positions, how are you caught up in identification? Because these are what you identify with. Without this spectrum of opposites, there is nothing to identify with. Everything that we are identified with has an opposite. Even these words, if you just identify with them literally, then it is just one of the identifications.

So how does one get out of this? It seems like there is no way out. There is only then, actually, without getting into this dualistic thinking, there is no way into the problem. The only way into the problem is through dualistic thinking. And this is because naturally you are out; you are not in. Naturally you are out of identification. If you presume it the other way around, then it can seem like trouble. If you presume that your natural state is that you are stuck in identification and now either technique or no technique is working, you see, then it will be trouble. Actually, where are you identified? Just now, in this present, it is so pristine. You're fresh as a baby. And you start thinking about this, and that might seem like it becomes stale.

And to expose the immense fear that the person here felt in the body, which concludes and doesn't know what will happen and what to do now, made the wrong decisions—like it is you. Devotion to the Master is beautiful because when you have the Master in your heart, there is no such thing as a wrong decision. And sometimes when it even feels like, 'Oh, I did not have the Master in my heart and I made these sort of mentally-grouped decisions and these were wrong decisions,' even to bring that to the Master is more than enough. The Master's grace is broad enough to take care of all of these so-called decisions to go left or right that we seem to make. This surrender is pristine, very, very beautifully innocent. You don't have to worry about what was possible. Yes, surrender it to Guruji.

But how to get over the urge to do something? How to get over the urge to do something? And consciously we always try to jump to some technique. How can one be free of that tendency?

Yes, this habit to always fix it, use a technique to come to where we want to come to, is habitual. Yes. And Satsang is the best antidote. As you just quietly sit in Satsang, follow along as much as you feel is natural, you will see that these tendencies, these conditions, these addictions to taking positions to try and fix things—if you come to Satsang with an attitude of openness, of letting go or surrendering, it will all be revealed. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai.