Open and Empty: Empty of Even the Notion of Empty, Empty of Even the Notion of Open – 24th May 2023

But what is your discovery when you open and empty? You see, so I'm going to exaggerate and say my fear is that all of you will feel like open and empty is a life hack. You see, it's a life hack. 'Where is this life? Any problems? All things are perfectly resolved.' Perfect life hack. It's not for that. The life hacking is the byproduct, and see if at all. Because what are you discovering when you open and empty? And that is the whole point of me for God or God for me. Because as long as there is belief in the identity of me, then at best this will seem like a spiritual tactic to make my life better and will have nothing to do with the true discovery, really.

So if you forget about improving your life or making it better for a moment—and that is the only way to be open and empty anyway—then what do you discover? And I don't need a rationale for your answers because the answer will not have a rationale. Like my answers don't have a rationale. If I say you discover the ultimate and you say, 'Tell me how, because you're open and empty and you're saying it's beyond perception, what do you mean you discover the ultimate?' I can't tell you. Is it somewhat clear? It's quite extraordinary and subtle at the same time, so the mind may be struggling. So don't try to understand too much of what I'm saying. Just with the innocence of a child, just follow along. When you are open and empty, do you discover something which is beyond perception?

The report I just wanted to give was that in open and empty, what's happening is that the is-ness, this space in which the field in which everything is being felt, is feeling like it's solid. It is feeling like what I took to be—you know, what I was not aware of, there's nothing here—it's just solid and filled with a kind of vibrating energy. But solid, not perceptually, but it just feels like there's so much energy, there's so much there, that it's not perceived through the senses, but there's an acknowledgment that all space is sort of filled with something which is of a substance beyond perception.

Yes. And you know, the term 'energy' for communication purposes, or does it seem energetic because I can't put a tag to it? It's not like a pulse or something like that.

It's just, you know, the thing is I also just wanted to add on to that because you can feel the contours of the body and everything like that as something that's on a surface of something which is infinite. So you can feel all that, and then sometimes it feels like the body itself is expanding, but still with the infinite part.

Yeah, you know, so stay with the infinite part. Where it seems like—how do I stay with it? Because it's very difficult to talk about, but yeah, I'll get the ineloquence as well. But it is important to stay with that because I want to take the conversation away from the byproducts or the elements of perception that we can use to sort of provide evidence to our insight, and to stick with the inexplicable insight itself. No? So is open and empty a way to be peaceful alone, in the sense that is that its only purpose? 'Oh, I'm open and empty, nothing can bother me.' Sorry, life is all because nothing can bother you. It's true as you open and empty, but that is not the main point. The main point is the insight, the Atma Gyan.

After being open and empty, what is action? Right? So if I'm lost in my product, we can get stuck on the byproduct, and that many times is used as a card, like the opponent. Okay, I forget my tomorrow's problem, today's problem, and so on. But then there is, as you said, there is a discovery there. And if I want to use words, it's like I lose the center. There is no center after that, right?

Yeah, but what is discovered? What are we discovering?

Everywhere. Yes, but everywhere in this has a like a perceptual sense, like a space which is everywhere. Isn't it more like nowhere and everywhere? Or awareness is not relevant anymore?

Yes, but is the everythingness or the awareness still relevant in that? So is open and empty just a way to lead a peaceful life? How many feel that way? Nice way to lead a peaceful life. Now the way I framed it, nobody else. Okay, what else is it? What else is it?

Nothing else. Self-knowledge, self-discovery, any of that? No, like those questions, all these automatically serious questions on purpose, meaning—all of that is just dropped here. If I can say I have like knowledge, it's just like those topics are becoming more interesting. It's more like a dropping for me at least.

So knowledge, not of the conceptual variety, but a knowledge of God, a knowledge of the Absolute, and beginning to see God and my dog also. I really feel it; I never felt it before. But that which is beyond perception, the unchanging reality, the Self—is that our discovery?

So it brings us back to that very old question: What do you know when you know nothing? You know, this you have to know nothing first, and it is not any knowledge that you can then hold on to. See? 'Yeah, I know this now. Okay, I am back to believing in the hypnosis of the mind, and yet, yes, yes, few minutes back I had an experience of the Self.' Irrelevant. Such a claim can only be made—so even then it is dubious—but only be made when you are empty. Your experiences of yesterday do not matter here. Your experiences of joy, bliss, peace, although you may not be averse to them in any way—you can enjoy them—but remember that they are the prasad to the insight of the Self.

So satsang is a strange place where you give up all control over your life for this new thing which you can't do, which you can never understand or see. That's why Guruji said you have to be a bit crazy to be free, because only someone crazy can make that call: 'I'm going to give up my life, and I'm not going to get anything that the mind can understand in return.' I am not seeking anything, I will not think anything special, I'm going to be a nobody, I'm not going to become an enlightened person, nothing at all. No experience is relevant, no taste is relevant; they all can come and go.

And to be nothing and to know nothing is actually the same thing, because to be something you have to know something. Okay, so what do you know when you are nobody is the same question as saying: What do you know when you know nothing? The many scriptures say that you know Self is the light, is the bliss, it's the light, light, yes, the bliss, yeah, it's joy, all of that. Never look at the light of the sun? Yeah, because you can indirectly, but when you look at the sun you have to turn away, you know, turn away. So even when you encounter the light of the sun, you have to turn away because your eyes cannot handle it. The light of the Self is that way; it is too bright, too bright for us to—in fact, we don't have an instrument to perceive it. You see, it is too bright for any instrument that we have to perceive it. It can only be known intuitively.

Okay, so it is absolutely true that it is the ultimate light, but that light can only be known intuitively as light and not through perception as light. Is it? Because we cannot even stare at the light of the sun. If there was a very bright spotlight in this room, you could not even look at that, see? So it is impossible to meet the light which is the Self in any sort of perceptual way. And yet, is it the light in which this light is born? In fact, the light of Consciousness, the light of being, is born first; within that, this light comes. It is said, 'In whose light do we see the light of the sun?' In whose light do we see the light of the sun? In your light, you see. So that light, can you perceive? The light in which the light of the sun shines, then we perceive it? We cannot perceive it. Even the light of the sun we cannot perceive directly; we only have to meet it indirectly through reflection.

So Father, when you feel that—I know you can't perceive it, but you feel it?

Yes, but is it a feeling-feeling? No, it's not a feeling-feeling. It's being. Yeah, inexplainable. It's not explainable. In fact, the being is also recognized there. The being is also recognized there.

Is it the same as Atma, Father, or do we always have to have those attributes?

In open and empty, self-knowledge is not possible unless you open and empty, because what is the opposite of it that you're holding on to? Concept of something. Okay, as you hold on to the concept of something, it is not possible that you hold on to avidya and the presence of Vidya is apparent. It is—the presence is obviously there, but it is never apparent, you see. So at best we can then be conceptual about it and say, 'Oh, absolute reality does not come and go, it is the unchanging, therefore it doesn't matter if I'm open and empty or if I'm caught up in thought.' How does it matter to the intellect? We can make that argument. But the fact is that the taste of the Self, the tasteless taste of the Self, is only apparent when we are free from the hypnosis of the mind, hypnosis of the limited identity. Just not possible. So whatever else we may do that we may call spirituality, if it doesn't make us open and empty, then it is not true spirituality. If it is a process of constructing something, creating new thought patterns, belief systems, ideas that we take to be true.

How does it matter to the intellect? We can make that argument, but the fact is that the taste of the Self, the tasteless taste of the Self, is only apparent when we are free from the hypnosis of the mind, the hypnosis of the limited identity. It's just not possible otherwise. So, whatever else we may do that we may call spirituality, if it doesn't make us open and empty, then it is not true spirituality. If it is a process of constructing something, creating new thought patterns, belief systems, or ideas that we take to be true, then it is not really spirituality. Because to meet the Spirit in reality, we have to be empty of ourselves. And we cannot be empty of ourselves unless we are first empty of ideas. Because what is 'ourselves'? The limited self is just belief in the limited persona, belief in the limited belief system. So we have to be empty of that. Only then can we claim to be dead to ourselves, and then in that clearing up of the lane or the room for God's presence, only in that can we find God, can we find the reality, you see.

So when the saint said the lane is too narrow for both God and me, he was being completely literal about it. It is completely literal and it's completely moment to moment. It is not a romantic statement, you see, that 'I have to go, my beloved will come.' Not like that. See, it's sweet that way, but the fact is it's just an instruction which is moment to moment: be empty of yourself. And that is the only way in which God can come, because the lane is too narrow for both. It's very literal. That's why 'God for me' just cannot work if we have individual belief in individual will. 'I want something.' If we have self-concern, or 'What about me? What about me?' then forget it. There's no open and empty. Yeah, there's no open and empty at all. Only when you're empty and headless does your heart shine.

So, I think you also mentioned last time about our job is to set the table. Yes, and I think the same metaphor of being open and empty and setting the table. And after setting a table and before you realize, what is that? What do I have to do? Or what if setting a table itself is a place? And we set the table now, is there after? It's nothing, nothing there. That's it.

No, no, no, wait, wait. But no, that's not what I was saying. You are open and empty, and it's true I have said that this is just to set the table, and whether God comes or not is up to God's grace. Now, let's go a step further than that. Go open and empty. Show me time. Show me space.

And you recognize it instantly, but when you want to go for confirmation, is it then? If you go to the wrong instrument, then again you misunderstand, you see. So to the mind, it will all sound like a bunch of hocus pocus, you see. But you can be reassured that all the books back there, all the sages have said the same thing. So unless they were a bit like tricksters or something and they all ganged up together—and this is like lineages of tricksters from generation to generation all selling the same false nonsense—there must be something there. So really, I feel like it is time as a Sangha to come to this point now where we let go of reliance on conceptual knowledge and any attachment to perceptual experience.

Yeah, so like you say that in that instant you know. I mean, in that very instant you... but it's... I know it sounds horrible, but that is instantly like you answer that. If I go to check, then I've already left, because with what will it be checked? No, I ask because the experience is that you've left. I don't buy that belief. I mean, you know what I'm saying? I don't know how to say it.

No, no. So again, so it's in... you say that in the instant, in the presumed instant, yeah, as you open and empty, that's the end of time. Yeah. So, but let's use that. So in the instant that you are open and empty, what is known?

Oh, okay. I mean, I know my... then you know nothing.

What do you know?

I know that I'm like... I'm referenceless. Also done. Referenceless, is that what you say? Yeah, absenceless. I know God's presence.

Yes. And the 'I' that knows there's even God's presence? So there's no separation between God and me. Yes. But that which witnesses God's presence, is it dependent on presence or absence?

No.

Who is that one? In the sense that if the presence was to go away, the witnessing would also go, you know? Or 'I witness the presence' or 'Does the presence witness me?' And remember that I'm using 'I' and 'me' not in the egoic sense at all. This witnessing is me. I mean, this is the unchanging.

Yeah, yes.

So this is that. What do you know when you know nothing? You say, 'I know that God's presence is here.' You see, I'm asking now that this 'I' that knows even presence or absence, is it dependent on the presence? So who is that, that's not even dependent on God's presence? If God is the light of all things—and of course it depends on our definition of God—so in this case I'm talking about the Saguna, the being, and not the pure awareness itself. So one step back.

So step back, open and empty. And when... and it's as I can, I can see there's no reference. Right now I am using my mind to frame that being open and empty and knowing myself or knowing 'Who am I?' There's two things. So I am... so when you said set up a table and wait, yes, I'm expecting be open and empty and eventually you will know who am I or you will get the... I mean, set the table, but I don't know if I said wait.

No, no. That is our job. Yeah, yeah. You never celebrate your... but yeah, it's okay. No, the remaining is likewise. So is there, I think, more than being open and empty? So I am stuck there again.

But I am asking, before we can say 'more,' what is already there? So we already... you walked us through the absence of time and space there. Of course, to talk I have to come back again. But it's that, it's absence of everything or maybe presence of everything. There's this pretty much had no reference, no center, noisiness. That's what I would... would any limitation, if at all, it's very faint. I don't see any boundaries there.

No boundaries, because we said no time, no space. So you don't need those things. What about you?

So off again, I'm using 'after' and 'before,' but yeah, being in open and empty and I can still see a space where there is a witness.

Being open and empty, or at least see that there's this space where there is a witness. You are not that witness? Someone is seeing that. Someone is witnessing it. Someone, something is witnessing. Or whether it's... is it good to find out these things? You better find out. Is there somebody sitting in that room? We'd want to find out his name. Is somebody inside us? But we find them. So to find that out, yeah, how do you know it is there? In the same way, find out who it is, not in any other way. You see what I'm saying? Like you found out intuitively that someone is there. Let's say someone. But I'm saying enough of this 'someone' business. No, it's about time we find out. How long will you rely on that? So there is someone with me. Who is that someone?

So let me put this one more time. I'm still on... so let's say there is one milligram, one gram of effort to be open and empty, because I have to put some effort. Yeah. Now after that, again before and after, okay, open and empty, I... when I put further efforts to find out who am I, or I'm just there waiting?

Yeah, just... so in a way the question is like, 'Okay, if I'm open and empty, then why are you prodding with all these questions? Because how am I supposed to answer them?' Okay, because the questions are meant to only make you fully open and empty. Okay. It's like... it's going to use, not in the engineering I studied, you know where your one line is approaching the line, but every time you're still not approached it and then you can keep looking and it keeps going. Yeah, it feels like that. Like, and speech starts dropping off and then yeah. And this is it. Is it like that? And that's how it feels. Yeah, like that. And still if someone says, 'Have you met the depth of it?' No. Every time I go deeper, it gets deeper.

Every time I go deeper into my own Self, I also realize how foolish my expression is in terms of even the attempt to try and communicate any of this, or even generally in life. So it is like that.

So what do you find when you're empty? And I am proposing to you that nothing else is worthwhile. Everything else is worthwhile only if it leads to this. Let me say it that way. So guys that say, 'What about humility?' Very helpful, because they lead to this. Who is that? Because you still see it as you say, 'Some guy, just some guy sitting inside you.' Are you? Yes, yes. So one of this 'you' is real and the other one is not real. You can... real by 'real' itself is a very strange term, but let's say real by Vedantic, spiritual standard.

Father, when you ask what you find when you are open and empty, um, earlier I felt there was a lot of hesitation to openly say that I meet myself. Because somewhere the little me was trying to, 'Oh, now what does it make me?' you know? Some... yes, yes. And sometimes it's just like, you sound so proud. Yeah, you know? 'Are you trying to show off or are you trying to convince yourself?' in a lot of things. But now I feel completely okay and very simple and direct. I can feel to say I meet myself fully. As you said, it's just deepening. I can't say I can never meet the depth in that way, but it's deepening every moment, every day. And um, I feel I meet that permanence. I don't have words to say, and there is nothing more than that or, you know, less than that. It is complete in that way. Thank you.

And when we say that it is about ourselves, a real Self, a reality, does that sound like she's making it up? Not making it up. So what is this strange business? No thing. You don't have to see anything, and yet some are reporting that they are meeting ourselves. We cannot see anything if you're not thinking anything.

Maybe you've spoken about this before, but um, for a child that is, let's say, a year, year and a half, that is still not formed these conceptual frameworks, identity, and the joy and bewilderment with which we look into our child's eyes that is so magnetic. And there's no way to know, but I'm asking you, do you think they are in that?

Yes, yes. And yet in a way, like Nelson Mandela would not be Nelson Mandela unless he was in jail for so many years, right? Right. So that's the definition that 'I am awake' after being in prison. To be free, there is something to be said for that. Yeah. Thank you.

Show me. Let's be open and empty together. Where is space? There's a laptop to your left hand, this thing to your right. What is left? What is right? Up, down, yesterday, tomorrow, here, there, before, after. Inside, outside. What remains? Empty of conceptual knowledge. Are they one, two, or zero? Is it Advaita or zero-ta? You have to go far, huh? Not him.

This is what I'm saying, that I want to sound urgent about it without lying. So I'm concerned that that pointing which is meant to bring us to the highest discovery will be misunderstood as just something to... as just words to make a better life out of. It's not a bad thing in the world. Even to find words that we can make a better life out of is good enough. But I feel like it's under-celebrated, and in a huge way. And you bought a three-bedroom house, it's nice and comfortable, but you decide to sleep in the kitchen because you haven't explored the rest of the house. So you're just sleeping in the kitchen every night. It's okay, you can sleep then, it's fine. It's better than sleeping in a forest or something, but something more to it.

And you said that twelve years has been deepening. Yeah, you said that from the heart. And that has time also. You can't talk of time when you're open and empty, but it's there. So that's perceptions are ordered in space and time, arranged. Everything is fine. Logic at that point has been left far behind. It can't be bothered. Can it be this and that and neither? Just for curiosity. But the question of time and space... I was listening to Einstein this coincidentally yesterday and he said the same things of there is no time, there is no space.

Yeah, you said that from the heart, and that has time also. You can't talk of time when you're open and empty, but it's there. So that's perceptions are ordered in space and time, arranged. Everything is fine. Logic at that point has been left far behind. It's not going to be bothered. Can it be this and that and neither? Just for curiosity. But the question of time and space—I was listening to Einstein this coincidentally yesterday, and he said the same things of there is no time, there is no space. It's just a utility to operate, but in essence, there is no such thing. I'll share that with you. Yeah, it's pretty cool.

Yeah, yeah. It's always easier to believe those who are dead.

For Einstein, actually, my experience has been the opposite. I've read all this stuff before that Einstein said, but when I read it, it was like, 'What's wrong with him?' You know, what is he... had something to drink today? Or maybe he's just not in it today. But after coming here and having those tastes—I can only say taste—those things are making intuitive sense. Oh, that's what he was saying. You know, it's very different, very... and then as who is feeling this here? Who's here? And there's a difference between 'I' and those feelings, and the 'I' that was watching. You know, the distance between the feelings and the 'I' that was witnessing the feelings. There was a separation. It is not possible.

Yeah, tell me more about the 'I' that is watching. Just yes, now let's go to it. Now, that which witnesses the feeling is also witnessing these perceptions, presumably. Tell me about that one.

It's just...

Don't let the absence of worldly quality fool you. This is what can happen: very quickly the mind can say, 'You see, there's nothing there. It's just sitting witnessing.' So don't let its absence of perceivable qualities fool you. It deserves everything that we have. If you think we have time, then time. You know, attention, then attention. If you think we are love, then love. Whatever. Everything must be given to that, you see? And that takes faith. It takes faith because it is non-perceptual and it's completely irrational. What is being said, what is being proposed, is to give your love, your life, everything that you think you have to that presence and that which is aware of even presence, without expecting anything in return. That means trust, faith, devotion.

Because to be that empty of selfishness, to be that empty of grasping and desire in what we see of the human condition, is very rare. So if you are the real one... because in a world of seven billion, how many are in satsang like this? What you think you know is the enemy of true knowledge. Forget about it. But you know, but you know... forget about it. Nothing. What do you know? What do you know? Forget about it.

Father, is witness and presence the same thing? Father, is witness and presence the same thing?

Let's see, though. Presence is witness to perception, and the Self is witness to even the presence. That presence is witnessed independent of perception, or at least the immensity of the presence is realized beyond the perceptual taste of the vibration of the presence. Yeah, and the immensity of the being whose presence it is is not recognized through some seeing-like perceptual thing, or hearing, tasting, touching. So if you mean by witnessing to perceive, then we can say we can apply that to presence. The presence or the being perceives. That which is aware even of presence is what we usually refer to as witnessing. So witness is Nirguna and presence is Saguna. Okay? Do not know here, and know here. No, K-N-O-W here, and no. Then you will know here.

So when you say being is boundless, that also has nothing to do with space, does it? Or not the space in which space is born? That is boundless.

Okay, well, so it doesn't sound like a Zen riddle or something. When was this space born? Were you there before you woke up? Yeah, no, you were there. You were there before you woke up. Yeah. So that space which is still there before this space was created in your... in the presence of your being, that is truly boundless.

Like, I've had trouble with that, you know? Like, big time trouble.

In which aspect of your being?

In just the being. No, then some knowledge... like, no knowledge I'm getting. Yeah, it's not even even hard knowledge. I'm not here.

If the mind wasn't troubled by it, then I'd be troubled. But is the 'know' troubled by it? Trust your 'know' more. Then can we do without fixing it?

And I have, yes. That is really into this. So if I told you it will never be fixed in the head...

Yes, that's what I've discovered. It doesn't matter, you know, that it is fixed or not fixed because it has nothing to do...

No, I'm saying that's my discovery, that it can go. That's a discovery. I heard discomfort. Discovery doesn't matter. Yeah, a little bit. It can just go. It makes... if it was never fixed, nothing would really change at all. This would mean nothing. Oops. Anyone fully lost today? You know, to honest people. And then which part you want to say? Everything. Like starting with open and empty. To be open and empty is clear. What is to be open and empty? If that means not changing the thoughts and letting them come and go, yeah, just be empty here. So empty of conceptual beliefs, let's put it that way. So now, you're still there? No, no, no, don't go back. Just remain empty. Don't go back. Are you still there?

Okay, the mind is of course proposing that you can't answer this question without me.

Now, of course the mind will propose that. Okay, then all the masters are sharing satsang without the mind, or are you here to listen to the mind? It is possible for the instrument of the body to be used by the heart directly as well, you see? So don't rush it. Just be open and empty. Whenever it feels just natural from the heart to confirm if you're still here, you can do that, but don't go to the mind. Reminded of the scene from a movie, Revolver, elevator scene. I'm sure I've caused all of you to see. I'll put it on somewhere. But in that, the mind says, when the mind is found out, the mind says, 'Do you know life without me? Do you know life without me?' Okay, so that is what it proposes. He's saying be open and empty, then he's asking, 'Are you still here?' How to answer that without the mind? Okay, then the master must be really... he had no idea what he's talking about because I can't speak without the mind. Or can we? We all met some people who feel like the whole universe revolves around them. That is the mind. Seemed like nothing can move without me. I am only perceiving. So many of you asked me this question in the past because this is the mind that perceives. No, the mind is just a bundle of thoughts, and that bundle only one at a time. And the thought has never perceived anything, but it loves to take all the importance. But we are here to find out what we are without the mind. If there is a no-mind, does no-mind equal to vegetative? That would be the end of Zen. If no-mind equals vegetative, then who would go to Zen? It will remain in the unborn and no words can never be spoken. Okay, then how is Master Bankei speaking and he's answering questions from the audience? How was he answering? So either all of them were frauds, just saying stuff, but we didn't look at things deeply. But all things are perfectly resolved and unborn. How is he answering questions? Fraud. But who tells us these things? The mind itself. So when a question is asked, when a thought appears... ask a question without a thought.

No way. No way. No way. No way.

Yes way. Yes way. Yes way. Yes way.

Okay, okay. But wanted to know, who are you using the mind? Good one. Yeah, to pull out the big one, big guns for that. That was not the question.

Okay, okay. So let's say a question arises. The problem is not in the question itself because as you say, you know, a question can arise and and it's fine. Finally, so the problem is that there is a construction of a limited entity like a character that that solidifies in this. There's a relationship between the thoughts. Try to believe a thought without that construction. Let me talk. Try to believe a thought and don't do that construction of limitedness.

So yeah, it would be just an image. Coconut is green appearing, though image is not a thought.

But your interpretation of the images is thought. The narrative about the images is thought.

Okay, so for instance, sometimes I have a... I don't know, let's say an image of what I want for dinner. So there is this image of... the image is there.

How do you know you want it for dinner? I'm also trying to look at this. So image is there. How do I know I want it for dinner? It's like a suggestion of image. Closer is dinner and there is tomorrow night. Wow. How do I know I want this for dinner intuitively? Yeah, actually the image pops up without even doing anything. Yeah, right. Everything pops up without doing it. So there is this suggestion. Image is there.

Yeah, okay then. Yeah, exactly. Pasta. How do I know I want it for dinner? How... how do I know that I want this for dinner? Just keep looking at the image and you know, because I like this dish, all the ingredients are in the apartment.

No, no. How do you know you like this dish? How...

How do I know I like this dish? Yeah, you're looking at the image. Let's go really slowly. Looking at the image. Now what's next? Asking this question.

So let's use spiritual terms. So say there is a perception. We want to make a desire out of it, you see? How do we do that without the thought 'I want for dinner'? Let's call that a desire. This is the image is that of pasta, which itself is just an image. How do I make a desire out of an appearance without the thought? Without a thought is there 'I want'? Is there 'dinner'? Any of these things? Any... any media agency?

Yeah, you would want to make it look attractive. Yeah, the dish. So when you're working, you're... you are telling me to quit?

No, no, no. I'm saying you... you would have that in mind that it should look attractive, the poster, you know? You should make them want to come and spend money and eat it. So why are you saying inherently in the image there is desire? But that's how you would want to design an image in your job. That'll get the narrative up. Without a narrative it's possible. Is it like... I'm just asking you like advice for how you run your job. It's not really my concern, but yeah. So your job is to get somebody to come and have dinner there.

I never did my job properly anymore. She did very well.

What is the job?

Yes, the job is to create like a psychological advantage for the client in the mind of their consumer.

Would you never put a text? Without the text, would you say it would never do that job? The text can come from the mind also. It doesn't have to be put in copy. So it's not in the poster, but somehow it works if you are open, which you are always. So you have no distinction between between good, a nice painting or better painting. Then you'll have to use your mind when you are doing your work. Oh no, I mean you will have to take some decisions, right? This pasta picture looks better than the other pasta. It's more provoking, it's less provoking. Yeah. So is the... is intuition, intuitive knowledge, the superset or the subset of the mind? But for intuitive knowledge, everything is beautiful.

No, even if everything... that's what it expresses. So I sit in the meeting empty. It's all great. Good job, everyone. Although it usually isn't. Can't predict and we can't presume that your job is to judge between the two images and I will... I am not going to use... and I will judge it. So it's difficult to digest how intuitively I can judge it, for me at least right now, without putting taste in it, without defining it for myself. I am... we try. So we are talking about how the functioning of the body-mind happens although we are living in a way which is open and empty, isn't it? Yes. When I'm open and empty and my child is doing something, let's say harmful to themselves, then intuitively I cannot tell them that this is wrong. I have to be judging through my mind to do that, or I'm sharing satsang with all.

To digest how intuitively I can judge it, for me at least right now, without putting taste in it, without defining it for myself. We are talking about how the functioning of the body-mind happens although we are living in a way which is open and empty, isn't it? Yes. When I'm open and empty and my child is doing something, let's say harmful to themselves, then intuitively I cannot tell them that this is wrong? I have to be judging through my mind to do that? Or I'm sharing satsang with all of you and I notice you're going in the wrong direction, you're not following properly, but I cannot notice that intuitively? I must be judging with my mind?

Our intuitive knowledge or intuitive presence is that the rules can be played naturally if they must be. That life can unfold in most situations in the most natural way. Even without holding on to conceptual notions, we can be placed in environments where it seems like certain decisions are taken, certain choices are made. Intuition has no trouble with any of that, just like it has no trouble with picking what it is going to say next in satsang. It has no trouble saying, 'Yes, yes, yes, my child' or 'No, you're completely wrong.' It just plays out like that. The Supreme Intelligence which is running this entire universe is not limited in that way, that it cannot handle situations in life. Maybe what it can't handle, or can but won't handle, is that it has to do things my way, like in the way of my mind. So if you go with that expectation that, 'Ah, this is a nice cheat code to life and I can just make everything happen my way by just being intuitive,' it's not going to dance to those tunes.

So this is a good conversation you have because is it really possible to live headlessly? And it doesn't have to do with the cities of an ashram; that's also work. There was one very angry with one disciple because he did something badly in the kitchen. So the outer expression can be used by the intuitive presence, used by God's light, without the contamination of the 'I' and whichever way we feel. In fact, that is the crux of what is being said. What is it to really follow God's will? What is it to follow God's way across the mind? So it is not true necessarily to retire in a cave, although in some cases that may happen intuitively as well. And it doesn't mean that if you are not here you have no choices to make. How are you going to prevent all the snakes from coming into the cave? Do you make some choices? Should I put this? Should I block it with this? Elevate my body where I sleep? Yeah.

Although it will not leave you alone. So yeah, with some repetitive... but like today I was working for two, three hours. I could say that it was a flow state of work for sure. It wasn't something that was easy to do; it was very difficult, but yet it was of that nature, that taste. But there was a lot of thinking involved in the way I'm calling it thinking, and that's where my confusion is: flow and thinking together.

Yeah. And what I mean by flow is like when you're working on, let's say, you're playing chess for example. You can really be in flow enjoying that game of chess. You're planning this move, that move, what happens if that opponent does this. And so maybe it's semantics and that's where my confusion might be. I'm considering that still to be thinking, but it's not thinking of the bothersome kind. Is that the difference? Or that also is... is that intuition, what's happening in the chess game?

Yeah, so try to play chess intuitively.

I'm not trying anything. I'm... which is why I'm making a report after the fact, trying to understand.

I'm saying that because I also play chess sometimes, and I just play intuitively. So like when I say after, I don't do it... that may also happen intuitively, but usually I am not saying, 'Pawn E4 to B5' or something like that.

Okay, let me give you a simpler example. I'm coming up with a strategy for my company to do a certain thing. I'm analyzing the competition and I'm thinking, 'Okay, if that competitor does this, then I have to be prepared for that.' So it's a lot of if-then-else. It's not stressful; it's enjoyable, that strategy session. But there's clearly thought: 'If that person does this, then I should think of...' you know. So that's why my confusion is. That's all thinking too, but is that kosher thinking? And I'm not trying to make it... this is just for my understanding because I'm witnessing these thoughts. I'm not feeling closed and full, the opposite of open and empty. I'm feeling open and empty, but there's thinking that's going on and it's okay. Because it's not mind wandering, it's not mind chattering, it's not oppressive, it's not enhancing the ego.

Yeah, that's... so two points I would say to this. One is that the appearance of thoughts may go on anyway. So if thinking means the appearance of thoughts, then that is not thinking. But if thinking is that the thoughts come and I'm believing them and based on that... right, right. So we can just allow our heart to move all of this and move all of this. So it doesn't mean that a business strategy cannot be created; it can be created from the heart as well. Thank you.

What I was saying is that it seems like open and empty, the mind wants to make it a very restrictive sort of place. 'When I'm open and empty I can't answer a question. When I'm open and empty I can't decide. I can't give feedback to people on the work that they've done.' To make it into a very sort of restrictive idea of open and empty, which is the opposite of open. Just so open and empty that everything can flow from there. You have to taste these things more rather than think about them and say, 'How must it be?' So it would be good if you can report like that, then: 'I'm just so open and empty, but there was open and empty I found that there was nothing, no question, no answer.' Or a report which says, 'Open and empty and yet I was in a business meeting and all those things just actually flowed.'

Why do we feel that satsang can happen but work can't happen as we open it? Satsang is not hard work. You know, the objective functions is maximizing solutions. Yeah. Something in itself have a zero sum. Yes.

So that subtext in a way determines whether it is possible to be in the heart or not possible. So if this subtext of satsang was not so that everybody came to God's light, when it was a different subtext, then we could not live in the heart. You can still feel the presence and your activities can run. Have this experience at work that we may say, 'Okay, my work is so that this happens and that happens ultimately.' But most of the time when you're working, we don't consider that at all. When you're just like in the world, can I do flowing? We are not thinking, 'Okay, now what is the impact on net worth and company evaluation and all of those things?' Those happen once in a while, maybe strategy conversations.

But the issue is there's a want attached to everything. So if I send in, you know, if I'm discussing with somebody, let's say, it could be a client or it could be, you know, whatever, there's a want. There's some, implicitly, some goal. I'm sending an email to somebody, I'm trying to persuade them to do something. There's something there. Whereas in open and empty, it's devoid of all... all right. So this is where I don't know if I'm getting too... I'm just trying to kind of get into why it's unsettling at work. And maybe this is taking care of the conversation we wanted to have when you said earlier when you met.

So in satsang, as you ask this question, did you want a greater understanding? As you ask the question, there was no want with that question? The mind was trying to rationalize something. Suppose that some magic happened and we, instead of being in the satsang hall, we were suddenly in the office. Yes. As we continue to be open and empty, then things could unfold. Emails could be sent and WhatsApp messages could be responded to. We are happy to do... come with me to work any day. It is possible and people can actually also sense it. But also it is not that I'm always like... sometimes I find my mouth giving like strong feedback. All flow from this is intuitively. Suffering can't happen. Okay, don't make that a benchmark.

Be a sport. I'm very competitive, and when I say very competitive, I really want to win that point is what I mean. And it goes point by point, and at the end of the day I may have won some games, some lost, but I go back every day with as much zeal to play that sport and it's not exhausting or fatiguing in any way. So it seems like competition works without a problem in a play mode, and play could be life also. I don't know. Work could be that play. I don't know.

Conversation sometimes... we've already spoken about how the greatest sports people and the greatest scientists, all of them have often said that they play the best when they're in the zone. And when I hear them talking about the zone, it just sounds like open and empty to me. Doesn't sound at all different. Yes, see, he's a player, he's a billiards or snooker—always confused—he plays at an international level. So when are you playing your best? And maybe you can clarify. It's like when I enter the point, there is a background desire to win the point, but once you start playing the... let me hit the ball, then there's nobody there. Stuff is just happening.

So what does the context bring to the moment? So when you step onto the court and you're going to hit the ball, there is a desire to eventually win the point, but what does that bring to the actual playing of it when you're empty? No, I'm just trying to say that it's... I'm finding that competition, that intent to win the point which is there at the posture of beginning the game, is a competitive goal. Yeah. But while the playing is happening, there's no sense of competition, like the mind is empty, like what he said. Yeah. So, but okay, so that context of wanting to win the point has to be discarded when you're actually playing. So satsang is just the invitation to constantly discard it anyway.

The real thing, word that... not the benefits to life and what happens when you're in the zone and all those, we can say let's for the moment they are the byproducts. But what is the insight when you are open and empty? Not be touched by anything that may appear and disappear. The appearance and disappearance of anything at all does not touch the reality. Who do we find? Who do we find when we are open and empty? Who is here? Who are you when you are empty? And if that one is insipid and boring, then how come all the sages have given us such magnificent descriptions? The self-effulgent, all-pervasive, all-knowing Absolute reality, higher than the highest, King of all Kings.

How are we saying all this because there is nothing there? No. Why they say higher than the greatest King of all Kings? It would be really silly, these sages. How are they saying all this? Even like that, we should tell these sages they're all just so messed up, using concepts for everything, all kinds of things. The boundless ocean where the arcs of the universes come and go. For whom are they saying all this? Actually, there's nothing there? Yeah, we're full of what? Me. Yeah, you love me. The real me, the Self. But it's nothing. You know, if you like, half of you wondering, 'Are they really saying or being sarcastic?' Obviously being sarcastic in the sense that all those sages, they've said the highest of the highest, they cannot be talking about a negative nothing. Don't be talking about, 'Oh, nothing.'

They're talking about that where... so that song that even there, even nothing was not, only He was or It was. Is this fancy language, far-fetched and removed from reality, or is this reality? Where even nothing was not, only He was. Can we meet this? Where even nothing was not apparent. Open and empty. Empty of even the notion of empty. Open of even the notion of open. Just empty. Where even nothing is not already. The mind can...

They are talking about a negative nothing. Don't be talking about, oh, nothing. They're talking about that where even nothing was not, only He was, or It was. Is this fancy language, far-fetched and removed from reality, or is this reality? Where even nothing was not, only He was. Can we meet this? Where even nothing was not apparent. Open and empty. Empty of even the notion of empty, empty of even the notion of open. Just empty. Where even nothing is not. Already the mind cannot fathom this. Where even nothing is not, what is? What is the mind to make out of it? It's like saying my question: what do you know when you know nothing? Mind is but the author. I don't know, was it Bulleh Shah or somebody who said, which means that where even nothing was not, the reality was, or the Self was, or He was, or God was, whatever word you want to use, you see? It was just messing around.

Who is that He who is there where even nothing is not? He is the whole point of everything that is spoken. That one. Because if everything else is found and He is not recognized, then all of satsang has been futile. Who is that? Have you met this one or no? Thank you. So I put an end to the number crunching or whatever it feels like. If you really show me that, if I was to go away tomorrow, you will not just make life hack out of open and empty. You know what I mean by that? Sort of expanded on that throughout the day because I don't want you to just have a nice life. Of course, I want that for you, but not just that.

If all that you got after being in satsang was that you led a nice life, it's not good enough for me. Or even a blissful life, or a joyful life, a life full of love and companionship and everything, but you continue to be oblivious to God's reality. Have you found the God that you cannot perceive? That all of us do. I am very happy to keep sharing, keep repeating, and all of you must also share with each other. You must also share with each other because, like, I will not rest until I feel like I fully, fully, fully share this light with you. In the same way, as some other brothers and sisters, and you can, anyone who comes to you, if you feel to knock and just check if they open.