Quicker than Time, You Are the Self - 12th January 2019

So if you are in satsang already, you have a sense that 'I'm not the body', you see. Just because many times I ask this question, 'Who do you consider yourself to be?' and you say, you see, 'body'. But then if I were to ask you, so then if you are just that, what are you doing here? You see, why? If you are just this, why would you want to sit in an uncomfortable floor and, you see, noisy room? What is here for the body? So already you have a sense that you are not the body. So then what else is there? You say 'mind'. You see, mind is what Bhagavan said: the mind is a bundle of thoughts. You see, so a thought, it is here one moment, it is gone the next moment. But you are witnessing this coming and going, you see. So you are the constant. So you cannot be this thought also. You cannot be these thoughts, or at least we can say that you cannot just be that. There must be something about you which is greater than that.

So this exploration is the spiritual journey. Now the journey is really, really super short actually, because it is already over. You see, it is already over here and now. But it is the seeker usually just keeps picking up the journey over and over again. It's like you take a flight from Boston to Bangalore, you see, and you got to Bangalore and you quickly fly back and take the flight back again. You see, because the journey is over. You see, over. But if you say, 'But, but, but, what happened?', you see, then back to Boston. I'm saying it's over. If you say, 'Where is my seventh chakra?' or something like that, back to Boston. If you say, 'What happened to those fireworks I experienced three years ago?', you see, back to Boston. Any notion that you attach. Now, I was saying yesterday that if I said that a cat is going to walk through this door in a minute, you will stay with that, looking at the door much more than when I say the truth is apparent to you now. Is the minute truth is apparent to you now? It's like, 'No, no, no, what? Maybe for him.' You see, all this. Give it a chance. What is here now?

This is the shortest journey ever. Quicker than immediate, you see. Quicker than time, you are it. Faster than you can sit where you are already sitting, you are the Self. You see, what is the journey between you and where you are already sitting? How many steps you have to take? Let's hear. Zero, you see. More intimate than that is you yourself, you see. But if you pick up, if you grasp the idea, then you can start running around the whole of Bangalore, the whole of the world, you see. What are you looking for? 'I want to get to where I started from.' You suppose the goal was to find exactly where you're sitting right now and you start walking. Are you going to get closer to it or further from it? Is it? Till a point further, and then you go around the world and then it comes closer so you can come to it that way, you see. But where will you reach? Exactly where you are now. Wherever you may wander, you are this. You could not lose yourself if you tried.

So what is happening then, if it is like this, that it is more immediate than immediate itself, more now than now? You see, then what is this game all about? And because you have unlimited potential, you have the potential also to consider yourself to be something that you are not. So you have the potential to consider yourself to be this bucket of flesh and blood, which is very ephemeral in its nature. But if you want to consider yourself to be this, nothing can stop you. If you want to play like this, nothing can stop you from playing that. This play is called the Leela. But it is not true that you can ever become just this in reality, or the truth is not here right now. These things are just not true. So when we say that 'I don't find it', it is not true because you already said 'I'. I wonder if some of it resonates. The minute you say 'I don't find it', you already found the 'I' who can't find it. You see, everything after 'I' is just a story anyway.

So this grasping at ideas, conclusions, notions is to try to get to where you are sitting now by walking. And then we have some very fancy ideas also, like very spiritual ideas. They can feel like 'I'm really running now to my destination.' What is your destination? Where I started. So meet what is naturally here. Many of you, we were playing the other day, so he said, I said, 'What is it that you really get frustrated with in satsang sometimes?' And many of you said, 'Ananta, when you say the truth is apparent, already apparent, then it just bothers us.' You see, but tell me how it isn't. What isn't here right now? You see, what isn't here? Thought. Thought that it's not here. That thought is here. The thought that the 'I' is not here comes, you see. So then what happens then? Searching starts, the seeking starts just by the appearance of the thought.

You see, if it were to start, then I would say that in this design there is no escape. There is no escaping the Leela, you see, because in this play these thoughts keep coming. So if just in the appearance of them we were caught in them, then it would seem like there is no escape, you see. But Consciousness has this supreme power to give its assent to the thought or to let it just come and go. You see, so in a way to activate that appearance as if it is truthful, you see, or it is a valid representation of reality. You see, this only reality can give, you see. To give an appearance the seeming of being reality is the power that reality has for itself. So it is not just in the appearing of them, but in our saying 'this is true'. You see, that's why we keep playing. It's just a thought to help you identify what you think is meaningful, what you think is valid. But to see that it's just a notion, it can be very... when you start hunting like this, you will see that we are caught up in notions. Caught up, is it?

So if I say, 'What do you see?', you see, I'd say 'hand'. But there is no such thing as 'hand', you see. It's just a notion. You see, what is a hand? A hand has five fingers. You see, what is a finger? Oh, finger is on the body. You see, what is the body? A set of molecules. You see, we have never met anything called a hand. It is just an abstraction, like in computer programming sometimes you make these objects, you see, then defines everything under it. You see, so hand, set of fingers, palm, you see, all of these things make 'hand'. Man, same way, some attributes we put together, you see. And it can seem very innocent actually, you see. It can seem very innocent, but if you see what happens, you see, so much violence is inflicted in this world. Okay, we're taking a bit of a digression just to illustrate, you see, because I'm able to separate one set of perceptions from another set of perceptions, I can call this 'man' and that 'animal'. You see, something else 'animal', then it becomes okay for me to inflict violence upon it. You see, whereas if it was violence on another man, then that is of course much more serious. Or you would say, 'Oh, but this is like cannibalistic behavior' or something like that. Why? You see, it's just because we have these ideas, these layers of abstraction which make separation between perception.

So this is just a strong example of how these notions of separation, duality, operate. Is it? And we make time and space in the same way. Nobody has ever met 'up' or 'down', you see, because then you would have to have this reference. You would have to make a reference point about yourself which is again that 'I am this body', which we already saw is not true. You see, 'up' for who? You see, and it will expose all our even spiritual notions which may tell you that, oh, you are like a pure being sitting inside the body or something like that. You see, how can this be? This is just like at some level to explain to beginners maybe, but how can a glass contain an object, contain non-object? So this body container, how can it contain something which is not an object? So if you are spacious beingness, how can you be contained from here? And if you're not contained here, then what is up and down to you? Too far? What is far and not far?

So we were taught these limitations and now we take them for reality. But as I keep reminding all of you, we don't know what 'inside' is. Inside and outside. We say, 'When I look outside then it is here, when I go inside I find myself.' But inside where do you go to find yourselves? Inside what? Do you go inside this container? You find yourself and you close your eyes, you go inside this body? This is just made up, you see. If you were just perceiving what is inside the body, then you presumably perceive skull and brain and blood and bones and these kind of things, you see. So the coming to true spirituality is first this acceptance that 'I don't know'. Coming to this acceptance that 'I don't know', you see. Because if you hold on to things that you know, it is going to be a painful satsang journey because it'll resist everything along the way. Everything that you hear is contrary to what you think you know, and it is not going to be fun. That's why it is a spiritual struggle.

We presumably perceive skull and brain and blood and bones and these kind of things, you see. So, the coming to true spirituality is first this acceptance that 'I don't know.' Coming to this acceptance that 'I don't know,' you see, because if you hold on to things that you know, it is going to be a painful satsang journey because it'll resist everything along the way. Everything that you hear is contrary to what you think you know, and it is not going to be fun. That's why it is a spiritual struggle. Even the dark night, all of this is nothing but the coming to an emptiness, an emptying of what you think you know.

And many times now, because many of you have been on the spiritual journey for many years—10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 maybe, you see—then you feel like, 'I must have got to know something now, otherwise what have I been doing for the last so many years?' You see? So, it is our spiritual knowledge also which will seem to get in the way, you see. But how is it when you meet yourself empty of this, any sort of knowing, any sort of label, any sort of conclusion of even having got it or not got it? How is it? Give it a chance, a few moments. And I don't want to answer how is it; it is just an invitation to look. When you meet yourself motionlessly, how is it?

You are actually testing what Master Bankei said. He said all things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn. And this Unborn is your notionless existence. So, it is my proposal to you that all things are perfectly resolved right now already, but it is completely in your power to pick up the notion that it isn't. You as who? Consciousness, the manifest, the root of the primordial of that which is manifest anyway. We don't even have to pick up these notions. How is it motionlessly? The invitation to be somebody will come. The invitation to bring yourself back into this limited identity will come. You'll say, even when it says, 'Yeah, this is pretty good, I could live like this,' who is that 'I' then?

So, open emptiness, whatever you want to call it, is already here. The Unborn just is. This isness just is. You see, one is just here to play.

Why there's manifestation? Why manifestation is around? Why? So they can deny manifestation? Can they deny manifestation? So is manifestation not a notion? I'm not saying deny or accept, both are also notions. It's truly not an object and appearances happen. It's true we are universal, and the universal wants to become particular. Particular too, otherwise it can't manifest, can't play in this world. So it's all right to play, right? That's what it wants. Brahman itself became the world. How we got from notionlessness to all this? Notionless is the background in which all notions arise. From where does it arise? It arises in Consciousness, right? Okay, in Samadhi state there is no world, but we are not in deep sleep. We are not in deep sleep, we are in the waking state. Oh, also that is a notion. It is understood that the universal is my nature. It is understood. How does it help to understand that? I'm fine for the... isn't it okay? Isn't it okay as long as this body wants to be an object and, you know, be part of this manifestation until it disappears, until this instrument disappears?

The body wants? I mean, I don't know. This manifestation has happened, all these manifestations. Suppose you forgot the term 'manifestation.' What has happened?

I can't deny what I perceive.

I'm not asking you to deny anything.

Okay, I can perceive, but I know also something is perceiving. Okay, can I... something is specific, really? Yeah, without that light I can't see.

What is this thing that is perceiving? If you didn't know any of this spiritual knowledge, then what is it?

There is a light which is something that is manifesting as this universe. Sounds very spiritual. Without the light, how can I see? How can perception be there?

Show me where the light is.

That's me. That's my nature.

Where is it? Where is this light? Is it not phenomenal? Then how is it light? Okay, then no label. But you have to speak, you're speaking. And then allow me to be foolish if that is the objection. Allow me to be the deluded foolish one, you see. You remain motionless, you see, because these things which you might think they free you, they are actually your chains. The idea that 'I know something about what this is.' The idea that 'I know something about what this is.' And these are very glorious ideas, I'm not saying I'm not complaining about the quality of the ideas, but I'm telling you that even they are just ideas. They are just ideas.

Yes, of course. Like there is a... what was it? Even yesterday in Yoga Vasistha or the day before we read, no, that even the notion of transcendental light is just a notion. Very clearly the sage said it is the 'horn of a hare.' Not only are these elements the horn of a hare, even the notion of transcendental light is the horn of a hare. Suppose you are empty of all of this, then something plays in this world. 'I'm coming here, I'm interacting with all these guys.' These are just ideas. And to put it strongly, these are just lies, you see. And I know they are lies you heard in satsang, I'm not denying that, but we have to at some point look at even these and throw them away. 'Something is playing,' you see. Tell me what thing is playing? What is that thing? What is 'is' and what is 'play'? Do we really know any of this?

Tell me something that you know for certain is true.

I exist.

What does it mean to exist? Even this is not true. Maharaj said, 'I'm not dead,' even this is not true. Maharaj said the only truth... you see, you're not in bad company, you're in very good company. Maharaj said, 'The only truth I can say is that I am,' but he said, 'But ultimately even that is not true. Ultimately even that is a notion.' And what to speak of everything is a lie? That everything, every word. How about these words then? What to say? So when we say everything is a lie, is that truth or lie? Saying is so important, you see. You can explore this. Where does it come from? Because we feel helpless the minute we don't have anything to say, you see.

What does it mean? Not that we have to say, but you feel like, 'But what do I actually know?' And you come to the nakedness of that moment and it can feel very defenseless, you see. It can feel very defenseless. 'So what have I really understood? Nothing,' you see. And that can feel very almost like an attack, you see. But this is it. This is it. If you can take the attack now, good, because then you can be done with it. Because you have not understood anything, you have not come to know anything, you see, and you have not found anything. So all these are gone now.

Speaking is okay now. You said every sentence you say is a lie. Now this one is true. In the real sense there's no need to say anything. Is that true?

You see, I'm pushing you beyond your intellect, you see, and you're trying to capture it with your intellect. You're saying speaking and not speaking, these are the boundaries of your intellect, isn't it? In the intellect there can be speaking, speaking, speaking less, speaking really less, not speaking at all. This is the boundary, you see. I'm pushing you to a place where none of this is true. So it doesn't matter, speaking, not speaking, all these opposites. You want to be pushed there or no?

Yeah, yeah. That openness is enough for me.

Is it? This is what I was saying, that when we first admit that 'I actually don't know anything,' you see, and not even this whether I know or don't know anything, that is openness. Then simple. If we meet it with our mask of knowledge, then we'll keep making something out of it, you see. I was saying that ignorance in the world, they say ignorance is what we don't know what we don't know, you see. Yeah, but how would you define it? Like we don't know that which we don't know, you see. Many times the trouble in satsang is that we don't know how much we still know, you see. And that is getting exposed every day. Exposed every day if we are being open. Otherwise, we are adding a lot of concepts every day, you see. Otherwise, we are adding a lot of spiritual concepts also every day, adding to our framework of knowledge which we think is knowledge but actually is garbage.

Maybe it's time for a report because it sort of ties into the goal. So going back to your earlier question, for me, you know, you said 'Who are you? What is the I?' To me there are many 'I's. There's the 'I' as the witness, there's the 'I am' the presence. So it's this and this. And then there's also the identity which separates, becomes a separate from the witness and world. And for me it is very important, and there is more of the personality and there's the intellect and there's perception recordings going on, the memories. So it's a, for me, it's a continuum of this and this and this and this and this. In the beginning there was this sense of it was either this or that; you are either this or you're that. And that's fallen away.

And as you asked—this happened before but it came back as you asked—and for me it was just this vastness, no edges, no space. And in the vastness I experience myself, I experience you, I experience all these beautiful beings sitting together. And there was this curiosity of wanting to feel Ananta Ji's I-amness. And as something went there, as attention rose and went there, I realized that there is no difference from that space. There's no difference in your I-amness and the personality experience because in that space there is no you and me, there just feels. And as that was going on, the questioning came in and your questioning came back about 'Is that true? Is that true and that true?' And in that space they were just vibrations, just fluctuations of whatever. No matter what you said, no matter what was said, brilliant, stupid, exotic, but just vibrations, fluctuations in the sense.

And also you get pulled into feeling it or experiencing it, you know, getting pulled back into personality. And then as attention rests, it just dissolves into whatever this is. And the attention rises and becomes... and earlier when I think you were speaking, right? When Ji asked 'But why?', attention rises with belief somehow and becomes this. And see, attention for me, it's attention resting. Like when you said 'Go inside,' where's the inside? The way I experience it is the attention rests like a wave falls back into the ocean. That feeling as attention rests is what we say 'go inside.' And when we experience the attention rises and it rests, and it rises and becomes obvious and it rests, you know. And now as I'm saying this, I'm not in the I-amness, I am one step out articulating, but that's at least my experience. Tell me if this was true.

And if it was somebody else, we can forget about it, but you said to me last time—tell me this is true—that you said to me that 'I'm a bit stubborn, Father, so you know, next time don't kid love me.' Was it like that you said this?

Take that, yeah. A dream conversation.

So one tip I have for you then is to make no distinction. Just make no distinction. And I mean, I have to report, come out and report, but as you say 'make no distinction' and I said 'fall back into that,' yeah, but don't make distinction between back and front. Right? Don't make any distinction, you see. Try this experiment for a day and then tell me on Monday, you see. Because what happens is that we have very authentic insight, you see, very authentic insight, but when we make a structure out of it, the structure poses as the insight, you see. It is like how we learned anything else in school or something like that, you see. He did an experiment, a biology experiment, and then he said, 'This is how it is,' you see. And then what was alive in a way, you see, then becomes, 'Ah, this is my framework for how it is.' Because all of our previous experience, all of our history, all of our story in a way also gets conceptualized and solidified in a way, you see, in that. And what I'm saying is that the truth doesn't need all that hard work, you see.

Like how we learned anything else in school or something like that, you see. He did an experiment, a biology experiment, and then he said, 'This is how it is,' you see. And then what was alive, in a way, you see, then becomes, 'Ah, this is my framework for how it is.' Because all of our previous experience, all of our history, all of our story, in a way, also gets conceptualized and solidified in that, you see. And what I'm saying is that the truth doesn't need all that hard work, you see. It's just here. Every instinct is fresh. Fresh, is it? And we're not superimposing any past onto it. And so this is what I have found: even that is not needed, actually, you see. So if it cannot be certified here and now, then it has no value. And even if it needs my attention to go from here to here to here to here, even then it is not of any value, you see. So it is not about coming to a particular place or state or way of being, you see. Because in spirituality, we might end up believing that when I'm this way, then I'm like that, but when I'm this way, then I'm like this, you see. So these distinctions, although they were useful at one point to point you, you see, must also be now thrown into the fire. Thrown into the fire.

And when we start looking at it in this way, you see that all of this actually doesn't mean anything. All of this actually doesn't mean anything. And it can hurt because it can seem like, 'But this was my certificate, you see. This was my certificate of spiritual progress.' But when we see that all this distinction also is nothing, you see, it doesn't matter. It is not pointing to any valid version of reality, you see. Anything that we can say—'This is how it actually is'—you see, is not true, because this cannot be represented in any term. So this visit, I feel like the number one pointer for you is: make no distinction. Either past, future, spatial, temporal—any type of distinction.

And as you're saying there, for me, the feeling that the residue that's coming up is fresh. Fresh. Thank you.

Oh, welcome. No, please. As you were saying that, it's like fresh this-ness. Fresh. And with fresh, it's free. Yes, it's free. It's free. Every fresh now. Don't hang on to these labels. It's good, it's good, but your reporting is fine. But what can happen, for example—this is how I was illustrating—is that that which is so naturally whatever, then because you feel like, 'Ah, that is very fresh and free,' even—I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm nitpicking—but because these can actually become like weeds, you see. And so don't pick up any representation of it, of what it is really. I know that for reporting you could just be using terms, which is fine, but to yourself, don't. Because it is actually beyond any notion of free or bound or fresh or old, you know? It is not pointable through any of these, you see.

So that was just a fragrance. Yes, yes. But full, full, full, empty, full, empty. Just no distinctions. No distinction. Allow me to be like saying, 'But you say all this,' so allow me to be the foolish one, you see. You remain without distinction.

I didn't understand that. Does that mean in the sense that... because he was saying only things that he had heard in satsang, you see, and I was saying all of this is not true, not true, not true. He was kind of saying, 'But you say this stuff.' So I'm saying that for a while it can feel like, 'Oh, you see, he's asking us to be notionless, but he's sharing all these notions about Consciousness and the Self and the witnessing and all of that,' you see. So if the conclusion helps to say, 'Okay, maybe he is deluded or foolish,' you see, we can—it's fine. I'm fine with that, as long as you are not, you see.

You see, as soon as you talk about the Self, yeah, I feel like there's this cloud-like sky and then there're just bodies, but we're all of the same sky. But that's a notion or a vision. I don't know how to get rid of that.

Don't have to be rid of it. Just your noticing that it is a visual, a notion, is enough. See, the trouble is not the arising of these imaginations, these notions. The trouble is our taking them to be valid representations or valid reality. Not even representation, is it? So once we see that this is just notion, everything can arise. It's okay.

There's also this quality of, as you're saying that, it's like it's self-aware. It's like effulgent. That's only what's coming to... self-aware, effulgent, glowing. And even that you let go in the... you let that go. It's there.

You see, that is when we come to this what Guruji called wordless spirituality, you see. So undefinable. Like who was saying yesterday, something very beautiful: 'To define it is to confine it.' To define it is to confine it. And there will come a point where, although it might seem like words are coming to describe it, you're clear in your heart that you're not actually defining it, you see. It's like the children attempting to catch the moon in their hand or something like that, you see. It becomes like that. But as long as we feel like, 'Oh, I'm actually getting the moon,' you see, then it's best not to try to grasp at it this way.

I'm asking about these very fundamental notions like space and time, and all our frameworks are built on these building blocks. It's like the Lego set is built on the base being space and time. So if there is no front, there is no back, there is no eternal, there is no ephemeral... what is that beautiful quote that day? 'Don't go looking for that which is eternal in that which is beyond time,' you see. Like, you know, a very popular idea like God must be this really, really old man sitting somewhere, he's been there from the beginning of time, you see. So we can have this idea, but it is not like that. It is just not subject to time. In fact, time is just nothing. It's just made of...

And it does become a bit like this. Our conversations do become a bit like this because you will come to a point where you will feel like, 'This stuff is actually helping me. It is making me more spiritual. It is making me more whatever,' you see. I'm saying throw it away. Throw it away now. What is left? Whatever it is, throw it away. What is left? If it can be defined, throw it away. If it can be defined as if it is undefined, throw it away, you see. Even 'undefined' is a definition. Throw it away. No room for any...

I want to come back. Good with the not speaking, but at the same time, you know, you get up, there are things to do.

So let's go very slowly. So which of these is not just a notion? That's what you're saying, that 'I can't deny that this is true, therefore it is not just a notion.' So let's go slowly with which one you feel is not a notion. The world is notion or no? This is a good contemplation. Is there something called the world?

It depends where you stand. Because if you stand in personhood, there is a world. If you stand in the expanse of awareness, everything is playing on the fabric of awareness.

So it's not just 'Is there a world?' The important question is: is there a world, and where do you ask that question from, or where do you hear that question?

Yes, but whatever that distinction might be, the question is: is the world real or is it just a notion? And you said, of course, that if you're looking at it from the personal perspective, then it of course seems real. But the person itself is what I'm talking of as notion, you see. So isn't the person just a notion?

I want to emphasize where you're looking from. It's where you inhabit. It's almost like where—not where you're ruling from, but like, where do you sit? Where's the throne? If the throne is in personal heart, yes, then there is a world, there is time, there is space, there are relations of the body, and it hurts. Okay, if you're in personal. But if your throne is in that sense of all-awareness, then these are just play, just flashes of light and vibration playing on this.

So the first world that you describe, if I say that that is just notional, it's just ideas...

But you only say that because of where you're standing from or where you're talking from, because that's what you occupy. You are speaking from a position of awareness as awareness, so you can say that. But if someone is not sitting there, sitting in personhood, they can say that. They'll say, 'The world is real. What are you talking about? I have to get up and walk.'

Yes, and this would be a big problem if it was true, in the sense that if it was possible for you to sit as a person, you see, then it would be a real problem. So can you be rid of this awareness and be the person for a moment?

See, I reject that statement because that statement implies this or that. I prefer to word it as this and that. I can sit as awareness in truth—it's here right now—and I can also sit as personhood.

Show me how. But that's how we are sitting. Show me where. Move from the... move from awareness.

I'm not saying no. You're still coming from this or that. Is it as you're verbalizing it? I'm saying your Self and personhood are both simultaneously coexisting. Not one in the other, both simultaneously. So you're both the Self and you're the person. It just depends which one you inhabit from.

And which we feel like has some reality, I'm saying, is just notional. That's true, you see. That's all I'm saying. That it is never like you say, 'I can be awareness and the person,' you see. I'm just questioning that.

Another way to for me to experience: one is primary and one is secondary. I'm using terms which you'll have fun with, but I'm just trying to...

Yeah, you see, it's good. Very glad we're having this conversation. It's very, very good. So if, let's say in my case, I'm steeped in my personhood, then just to be very Excel-like, I would say that my personhood is primary and the secondary realm... I'm still Self, but the light is shining more in the personhood. I don't know if I'm saying it bad, but you know what I'm talking about.

Yes, yes, yes, it can. So would you say that it is not a statement that you inhabit both worlds in a sense, but more of what you believe about yourself? Yeah, you see. So that's what I'm saying. So it is not that you are this and that, but it is more what you identify with, this and that. And what can be identified with is just ideas. This we can confirm. Like, is the truth subject to identification as well? Can the idea 'awareness' encapsulate truth? And if I identify with the notion of awareness, does that make me free versus this? Or are not both notions, you see? And identification is only possible with notions, you see. But empty of this identification with either or both notions, you see, there is something which is not identified ever or identifiable. So it pulls the sense of there being an 'I' who is like straddling both worlds or something like that. But this is the thorn. Sometimes you need a concept or belief as a thorn to take out the other. Okay, so it's gone. It's fresh. Okay, very good.

So gone, gone. Very good. Is it now any time, any space, any duality, any distinction, any of this present here?

Yeah, and I choose to be without the sense of me-ness there. Me-ness here, there's just... and to make that choice, how would you say that? How do you make that choice?

It's a sort of falling in and then sort of just... first it starts as a falling in and then it's something that springs forth and you just rest, or you just find yourself resting in it.

Before you fall in, what is there? Beautiful. Before I fall in, it is also just there. And there's almost the illusion that you're falling in. Look, explore like this. Explore like this. Because if you make it subject to time, you see, then again we are getting into process, state, these kind of things. It's very beautiful. Yeah. So it's helpful to just see that before we can even have the intention of going to it, what is there? Like, is it in opposition to this or that? Like, is there some like I have to push, pull, or pull from here and go there? This kind of thing. And I know that all of this was good stuff, you see. I'm not denying that at one point all of this was good stuff. It turned our attention away from this.

To time, you see, then again we are getting into process, state—these kind of things. It is very beautiful, yeah. So it is helpful to just see that before we can even have the intention of going to it, what is it like? Is it in opposition to this or that? Like, is there some... like I have to push, pull, or pull from here and go there? This kind of thing. And I know that all of this was good stuff, you see. I'm not denying that at one point all of this was good stuff. It turned our attention away from this and got us to explore what is beyond just this. All of this is very beautiful, beautiful stuff. But there comes a point where neither this nor that, neither both, nothing, neither, neither... there's no struggle, okay? Struggle is all.

I can be as fresh as... I mean, I like that. Fresh, easy. I can be fresh. I'm fresh now, okay. I'm aware and I know I'm aware, okay. To stay here, there is always a question of 'can I?' But because to make that statement you have to objectify yourself, so it's always, you know, that habit. You know, it comes. Is it an idea? Is it... I don't know. I don't think it's an idea. And I'm fresh. I have no struggle at all. Very good ease, openness. You see, beyond the concept of ease and openness, conviction comes. I need to sometimes, you know, cry really so much. Wow, too, too much. You know what I mean? Yeah, like that. But these are all states, all these things that happen. I know that I have nothing to figure. When you try to figure it, you lose it.

Yeah, and this is what I've been saying. That attempt to grasp at it or to make any sort of framework about it, to make any representation of reality, you see, is our attempt to conclude. Like a painting—can a painting of a sunset actually be the sunset or something like that? So to say that any notion is valid is to say that it represents reality as is, you see, which it cannot do. But in our... the boundary of our intellect can only be that, you see. That is all it can fathom. The mind can only fathom either it is this way or it is not this way, you see. Either it is one, both, neither—all of these are just the variables it can have. But I'm really feeling to push beyond, although 'push' is also a notion. But push beyond, you see. Let's go beyond now. Like, we made enough templates, frameworks; we played enough with the best notions there were. But now let's forget about it.

Something, you know, from the knowledge point of view, what we have read of Father's experience... that, you know, is there going to be... if we are in that motionless state of not objectifying anything and then stay here, it doesn't objectify, it stays as a subject. But then will there be a disappearance of perceiving, you know, objects? All objects disappear and then all objects...

Okay, let's look at it. I am proposing to you that there are no objects that you are perceiving. This is what he was also struggling with. I wasn't there for many days, so I'm saying that 'object' is an idea. You're never perceiving an object. What are you saying? In fact, I'm going to get beat up today by many of you. Enough, shut up! I'm saying that even of a bag, a bag... even perceiving is a notion. Yes. So forget that I'm perceiving an object or not. Even that 'I am perceiving' itself is a notion, you see. It is just a concept that is used to make a distinction between perceiving and non-perceiving, that which is aware of perception. You see, all of these are notional boundaries. You are not contained in any of these, you see. Because what happens when we even buy into any of these boundaries is that what do we make ourselves to be then? You see, on one side of perception, we have a nice framework we can build around perception itself, like 'the world is on that side of my perception, I am on this side.' You see? Now forget it.

Why are you saying there are no objects? Because whatever we are giving a name to is put together. Like what you said, the hand—it's a put-together concept.

Put together, put together. But put together what? At the root of what all can be put together? Nothing, right? So each thing we have to deconstruct, like a flower: the petals, then go beyond. What is it actually? Or anything, you know, the carpet, then go to the thread. And then we realize there's no such thing as a flower, a carpet. I mean, in the sense of not to become unnatural or something like that, you know, in the world, in the play. But really when you're looking for reality, which apparently we have come looking for reality, you see, then to see that all of these are just like pieces of seeming knowledge which claim to represent reality. But these claims die the moment they are truly investigated with openness, you see. The claims to any validity in any representation of isness or reality, you see, fall away the minute we start to look.

But like he was saying, if you want to play in the world, then you cannot be in this state and you're all the time seriously, you know, deconstructing everything. And maybe you're at peace, but you're not participating in the Leela. Say, enjoy.

No, but what does that make you? If this report was true, that if I was to become deconstructive in this way and see that all of these are notions, then I cannot participate in the play anymore. Are you talking about yourself as the body? Are you talking about yourself as...

Talking about myself as an actor who cannot play the role anymore because it seems fake. I just stay as the Self. I cannot participate.

But this one that will stay, what will change? Like, when you stay as the Self, what will change?

When I stay in that, none of this looks valid. Any roles, any... then I could just sit like this like a stone for the next...

Because you said this, that 'I could just sit,' you are still referring to yourself as this body?

No, no. As a Self with that spacious thing. I don't feel like...

So it doesn't matter what happens with the mouth and hands, all of that is fine. Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying that I wouldn't want to get into the wild rush of the world or even enjoy.

Okay, let me clarify further what I'm really asking. Are you saying that once you see this, then this apparent play of the waking state will not arise anymore? Is that what you're saying? Or what you're saying is that when you say 'I don't want to play anymore,' you're talking about this body which arises in the waking state will not want to do activities, not enjoy participating, you know, it's like a fake game?

Yeah, but then we are still referring to ourselves as the body, you see.

No, as the Self which is disinterested. And then if the Self is disinterested, then the waking state won't arise at all.

I guess you will still sleep and get up in that sense.

No, but this is what I'm saying, you see. So if you are speaking of the Self, then... and we say, 'Oh, all this conceptual framework of the play, all that is valid.' So if this is the play of the Self, then if it is done with the play, then no more need to project the waking state. Just like if it is done with a particular realm in the dream state, no more need to project that realm, you see. So this will stop showing up then. So nothing to worry about activity or inactivity, because the framework for activity/inactivity itself won't show up. But if you are referring to yourself as an object within the waking state and how that changes, you see, then we have to question that reference point. Are you still referring to yourself as the coconut, having seen that you are the ocean? So in a way, it is just like this. So what will happen to the cat once you discover that there is no cat? Yeah? So our cat identity can play in this way. But okay, once I see that I am the Self and there is no me, there is no me, what will happen to me? You see? So this also will be... this worry will also go away. This 'once I see there is no me, what will happen to me?' is a popular worry that even sages talk about. Like Guruji says, 'I used to worry that will I become like a beggar on the street,' you know, this kind of thing. So it's not an uncommon worry, but it'll pass, you see. And Guruji also reassured us and said that nobody comes to this and regrets it. So this part of our spiritual journey together can be a bit full of tantrums, full of objections, full of things, because now I'm taking away even satsang candy. Now I'm taking away even satsang candy, like those things, those belief systems that you have now because of satsang itself. Sorry, my dear.

Yeah, you even earlier... oh, I just wanted to say like, I'm so happy that you're taking it away because... and like, I'm so... I actually was very pleased to hear that you just said actually perception is not a thing. Because when he started satsang today saying 'where is the one that perceives his hand,' there was some kind of reflection that came off and it was like, 'Hang on, but inherent in that question, it's already the mistake that there's a one that perceives the hand.' There is no one who perceives the hand. Like, and you know, at the best maybe you could say perception of the hand is happening, but ultimately this is also absolute nonsense. And like everything that I'm saying, you can also throw it. That's all.

So this part I'm happy to hear, one report at least that he's happy. Mostly it's just like, 'And but you told us about awareness, now you're saying awareness is the concept,' you see. But what I'm really saying—because she also had a mini tantrum with me that day—was she's saying, 'But are you saying forget about Krishna also?' I'm saying, is Krishna dependent on your notion of Krishna, you see? And if it is, then forget about it, you see. If as long as you are going 'Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Krishna,' then Krishna is there, you see, then that is not the Krishna, you see. So in the same way, if this awareness is dependent on 'I am awareness, I have to stay with awareness, I can leave awareness, awareness, awareness, awareness,' you know, just like that, then leave that awareness because it is not... we've lost it already. If you think it's a state that I have to maintain, the state of awareness, you see, then leave that because it is not that. You already lost it, you see. So in the notion of it, it is not there. Person, being, consciousness, awareness—all of these also can be taken too far, you see, as some true representations of reality. But actually they were just road signs, you see. At best, at best, road signs. Now I'm saying to all of you, in fact, make no distinction, because you may feel like these distinctions, my spiritual distinctions, actually are in service to me, you see. But there is still duality, you see, duality. And this is Advaita, non-duality. There is no distinction, no duality of anything than anything else, you see. And even this distinction of distinction and no distinction...

Can I just now really clarify? Because when you see how I understood it, that when you said to me that 'will my notion of Krishna change the existence or non-existence of Krishna,' to be that I'm imagining, say, an entity called Krishna and his qualities or whatever through certain conditioning, and then if I drop all that and just be open to just look and not put a label or whatever, then maybe I don't...

Let me illustrate with... maybe I can illustrate while you frame the question. The great saint Madhusudana Saraswati, yeah, he's the one who has written one of the most beautiful commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita, okay? Huge Krishna bhakta and all of that. And he said, either with attributes, qualities, or without attributes, it is my one Krishna only, you see. So if our representation becomes a limitation, that it is only this way, not that way, you see, then there's a greater reality which I want you to meet. That's all I'm saying, you see. I am very much, at various times, I consider myself to be various types of bhakta, you see. Sometimes Ram, sometimes Krishna, sometimes Shiva. So I'm not against that per se, but I'm saying ultimately these are also part of that greater reality which cannot be imagined, visualized, conceptualized, intellectualized, perceived. In a way, it is like the Papaji and Bhagavan story, yeah. And so some of you on the broadcast may not have heard it. If somebody's new, they might...

I want you to meet, that's all I'm saying. You see, I am very much at various times—I consider myself to be various types of being, you see. Sometimes Ram, sometimes Krishna, sometimes Shiva. So I'm not against that per se, but I'm saying ultimately these are also part of that Creator reality which cannot be imagined, visualized, conceptualized, intellectualized, perceived. In a way, it is like the Papaji and Bhagavan story. Yeah, and so some of you on the broadcast may not have heard it; if somebody's new, they might not have heard it. So beautifully, Papaji came to Tiruvannamalai to meet Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. And beautiful things happened. He saw that he had already met him, actually, but he never went to Tiruvannamalai before, but that's another story.

So he came for a couple of satsangs, and then in Arunachala, he would have these beautiful visions of Krishna. It was like Krishna was playing with him in as much reality as this body; that was Krishna's body that would play with him. So he just started enjoying that play, the sweetness of that state so much that he didn't come to satsang. So then when he did come, then Bhagavan asked him, 'So where have you been?' And Papaji—and of course I'm paraphrasing, maybe it didn't happen at all like this, but it certainly serves a purpose to paraphrase it in this way—Papaji, almost with a sense of pride, said, 'You know, I was playing with Krishna in Arunachala,' like with a sense of specialness. And then Bhagavan said, 'So where is Krishna now?' He said, 'No, now he's not here.' And Bhagavan said, 'What comes and goes is not real.'

So, very much all these beautiful experiences, darshan, visions—all of these can come and they can go, you see. But Bhagavan is pointing to a greater reality which is beyond coming and going, you see. So, and that in itself is not in opposition to anything, but when we take something perceptual, something tasted, to be the container for reality or that which can confine reality, then it is not it. The greater representation of Krishna in this case, of course, is both; that is Saguna and Nirguna. Then everything—then it's not separating.

And it is make no distinction? No, it was not that it was Saguna or Nirguna. It was just the very existence of Krishna.

Existence means Saguna. No, sorry, I didn't know that. I mean, Saguna means like a form.

And existence means as reality. For me, the word existence means it's real. Real or non-existent, not real. Not like a physical thing, but see, in terms of it is or it is not. You know what I mean, Father?

Like what is beyond 'is' and 'is not' is my whole point today. These are the boundaries of our intellect. It's like we feel like beyond this 'is' and 'is not' can't be anything, is it? But I'm telling you that your greater house is there. Yes, Kabir Ji said, 'Make your house where nothing is seen.'

About what is, what is? Oh, see again, what is, what is? What about what is? What about what is?

Okay, so let's put it this way. The way Guruji uses the term 'isness' is beyond the duality of 'is' and 'is not'. It's also pretty clear to me. 'Is not' is not a valid thing. How can reality be 'is not'? No, it is not subject to existence and non-existence because all of these are just terms of time and space, temporal and spatial. Even I-amness—'I exist'—like he was saying, I can definitely confirm that I exist. And of course, for many, many years I've said, 'Can you stop being?' Of course we can't stop being. But even beyond this idea of being and not being, which where our mind cannot go, which our intellect cannot fathom, this is your abode without time and space.

But if you keep getting caught in time, getting caught in cause and effect—'when this, therefore that'—all of this, you see, is still then part of our notional idea of reality. If reality was the effect of some cause, even if that cause is movement of attention, then it cannot be reality, you see. So let's smash these paradigms. Let's smash these paradigms and be naked of them. That is true Jainism. In fact, I don't know whether Jainism or not, it is definitely Zen-ism. Buddha was a Jain in China; it became from 'Jhyana' it became 'Zen'. That's one thing. Was he a Buddhist? I said Bodhisattva. Bodhichitta tears into this Bodhi concept. Tear into every concept is good.

Anytime I feel like myself sounding like Byron Katie: 'Is that true? Can you be absolutely certain it is true?' What would you be without this story? Like, Byron Katie is like mind. I mean mind, because you keep saying something and then you say 'don't think', then you say something, 'understand', 'don't think'. So you're pushing, push.

What is that which is to assert something, you see, to get some belief in that assertion and then completely crush it or deny it, you see? And then you're left with neither this nor that. And you might feel like, 'But that is the extent of everything that I...' Actually, our intellect is just a tiny part, you see. We feel like we are contained in it. Then that's why we struggle with these kind of things. You know, 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?' Yeah. 'How did that goose escape?' That the pot was so small.

But I just feel that, okay, whatever that resistance or the anger, the frustration or whatever it may be which comes, it's just a melting of what you think you know. There's still some gratitude there, I don't know, whatever it may be. The melting actually is the tears when they come.

Yeah, but the anger is the defense of those. Like, 'But I know this, man! You know, what should I believe?' And the best way to defend what I know is this.

But you only told me. I'm wondering what is our true nature. So we are telling this is not I, that is not I, everything is notion. Yes, but there is something. Yes, what is that something? How will you—what will you—that is, I understand that is my true nature. Yes. Is it experiential or is it only a knowledge?

Exactly. So these are the two categories we have. One is perceptual experience that we can call experiential, or we can call conceptual: 'The world is round,' 'There are 10 million stars in the sky,' you see. So this is just knowledge. Now if I told you it is neither and still it is undeniable, is it? What would you say? Like, continuing on what Joy said, so are you perceiving this hand or no?

Yes.

Yes. So this one that is perceiving the hand, you see, is not perceptible, nor is it conceptualized. Like you said, it is neither knowledge nor is it an experience, is it?

That's my true nature which I am referring, which I am seeking, which all of us are maybe seeking. My true nature, is it something which I can experience or is it just a knowledge?

This is it. You cannot not experience it, but you cannot experience it as what we think of experience, you see. In fact, you're always experiencing it, but not as a phenomenal experience, you see. So that is why you cannot perceive it in this way. See, when you say 'I perceive this hand,' you are not lying, you see, and you're not speaking from knowledge. You're not speaking because you read somewhere that you perceive this hand, you see. And yet you are not experiencing the 'I' in a tasted way. You cannot tell me the size, shape, color, age of this 'I', you see. So this is like a non-experience experience which is so present, to use the term, you see, that if I said, 'No, no, you are not experiencing it, you see, it is somebody else experiencing this hand,' you would say, 'You're just speaking absurd things,' you see. And yet if I tell you, 'Can you tell me what the perception of that I is?' Tell me if I'm going too fast.

You say 'I am perceiving this hand.' And if I tell you, if I ask you, 'How is that I perceived? Is it an experience or is it a knowledge?' It is neither, and yet it is undeniable. It's quite crazy, actually. It's quite crazy. Let me give an example, right? Is there a yellow coaster on this couch?

Yes.

Yes. Is there a yellow coaster on this couch? So simple. In the world it seems so simple, you see. Now this 'I' that you are claiming is perceiving this hand, did you see it like you saw the coaster? The 'I' that you say 'I am perceiving this hand,' this 'I', did you see it like the coaster that you saw, the quality of it, and said, 'Oh, this is the I that is perceiving'?

Okay, should I go very slowly? Okay, because what will happen also is that as I'm speaking, the mind will try to resist this very much, you see. It'll go blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you see, as the words are coming, you see. So how do we claim the existence of something in the world? You see, we have the perception of it. We say, 'Yes, there exists a yellow coaster on this couch.' If you have no perception of it, it doesn't exist. Now who is perceiving this hand? You are. Now how you saw that you are, that's what...

That's what it's—I cannot describe, but I—that's...

That is it! So that indescribable experience which is not phenomenal like this, you see, is you tasting yourself, you see. Is your experience of yourself, you see. But because it is so quality-less, the mind cannot grasp at it. So the mind will say, 'But I saw nothing,' because the mind only says 'I saw something' when there is some quality to prove that the perception happened, you see. So beyond these mind conclusions, it is very natural for you to say 'I perceive,' but this 'I' itself is unperceived, and yet you say 'yes', you see.

As long as I am alive, I have mind, I will have intelligence. But the thing which I'm trying to perceive or the thing which I am is beyond both these.

Exactly. So how will you perceive with this limited mind? You don't have to. These are just there like two fingers, you see. So your perceptual capability, your conceptual or intellectual capability, these are just the two fingers, you see. We have got so used to only using these that you feel like there's nothing else, you see. You feel like if it is not this way or this way, then what will happen? That's why we resist. No, if I say it's not in this box of intellect, then the intellect itself will come and say, 'But that means I'm lost, I've not understood anything, I'm not getting it,' because we are only used to using these devices, is it? But actually there's a greater device for which to claim that 'I am perceiving this hand' is very natural, you see. Did you read in a book that you are perceiving this? No. So it's not knowledge, is it? Did you see the color, shape, or size of this 'I'? No, you did not. So it's not experience as you first asked, you see. It is neither, and yet in some part of you it is clear that you are perceiving it, isn't it? It is just not clear to the mind and it's just not clear to perception, you see. That is the part which I'm introducing you to.

Is it a thing which we need to seek for, or it is a thing which we—do seeking means I need to either use my body or intelligence or my mind.

Yes.

So but this is something which I cannot use any.

Exactly what I'm saying.

So what I am supposed to do?

So without these, are you lost or you found? Without the use of—you said very nice—body, mind, intellect, and senses, you see. Now I'm used to finding only with this, you see. I'm saying, okay, it cannot, and you said that cannot be found with this. So now I'm asking you, if none of this is that you don't try to use or grasp with any of this, would you call this lost?

I would call it found. It's a—is it—what is it? Is it a happening or it is—or will you say after some time it is an experience, it will happen, or it is already there? And what makes me separate from that?

It is only like you call these devices, or I call them devices as you were spelling them out. It is only these devices, and specifically what we call our mind-intellect, which seems to keep selling the idea of separation, is it? So that's why I keep saying, in your notionless existence, there is no duality; it is Advaita. And even in your notional experience, there is no duality; it is Advaita. But there's the power to pretend as if there is duality.

Suppose if I'm in a state where I neither use my intellect nor use my mind, yes, will it be what I am seeking for?

Yes. What is that something by which I neither use my mind nor my intelligence, neither my body, so that I am that? It needs no cause; it already is right now. What is waking my mind? No, before you went to 'what is', what is here first of all?

There is no duality; it is Advaita. And even in your notional experience, there is no duality; it is Advaita. But there's the power to pretend as if there is duality.

Suppose if I'm in a state where I neither use my intellect nor use my mind, yes, will it be what I am seeking for? Yes. What is that something by which I neither use my mind nor my intelligence, neither my body, so that I am that?

It needs no cause; it already is right now.

What is waking my mind?

No, before you went to 'what is,' what is here first of all? I am here, then my surroundings. So this that is here, I am before surroundings. Who is that one? Body is part of surroundings or no?

Yes, okay, so good. So body is also part of surroundings. So there is something there even before this realm of world. Which is that one?

That's it. That's so.

At this point of time, it's a knowledge for me.

No, at this point of time, it is not knowledge. At this point of time, we make it knowledge by concluding that it is. You see, at this point of time, it is clear in a notional sense. A moment later, we convert it into like a mental knowledge, and then that seems to get clouded, you see. So this is causeless, timeless, effectless; all of these things don't apply, and which is just apparent here and now, you see. Because here and now, you do not start this moment by using your intellect. You start empty only. Everyone is a sage in this moment, you see. Everyone is a sage in this moment, you see. But when we conclude 'I am a sage,' then sageness is gone.

It is a happening. It is an experiential thing, and it is already there.

That's how we start talking, but then you see that actually 'happening' implies that it is in time, you see. You see, but a better way to put it, if you have to put it somewhere, is to say time is happening within that, within you, you see. You are not a happening within time. So the 'now' that we are speaking of is not the moment in time. Don't... so you said what was the precondition? You will not use your intellect, you see. So there it is simple. Possible not to use the intellect, not to use the mind as long as I'm alive or in at least in a state of Consciousness? Yes, it is possible not to refer to it for any representation of reality. It can still come; all the conclusions, all the thoughts can still come, but it is possible not to refer to it as if it is speaking the truth, you see, about the Self, of reality. And that much is enough, you see.

In fact, the effort is in going to it. But because our habit has become to go to it, it can seem like the effort is to not go to it. Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi said that because we are used to carrying this heavy bag on our head, it can feel like the effort is in putting it down, but the actual effort is in carrying it. To live this life burdened with the notion of a separate 'me' and all these notions of what I want, what I don't want, what I like, what I don't like, what I'm getting, what I'm not getting, what I'm understanding, not understanding, what is good, what is bad, what is true, what is false, what is up, what is down—all of this is such a tiny, limited box, you see. Your reality is much greater than that. That which is here now, is it constrained by any of this? Unless it pretends to be by going to your mind, it isn't, you see. So the Self-recognition is immediate. Before immediate, it is faster than the notion of fast.

Is it how it can change my life? Or who's... okay, suppose I'm in a state, will I be the same person right now which I use intellect and my mind? Will I be the same person?

This discovery is not personal at all. And because the discovery is not personal, what we are calling the person is just an amalgamation of our belief system, like what we believe about ourselves. So because that is just a belief system, it cannot come to a discovery, you see. You can add beliefs to it or withdraw beliefs from it, you see. The person is like a box of beliefs; you see, you can add fresh beliefs to it or you can withdraw beliefs from it. It itself does not have any existence, independent existence. So to presume that this reality can do something for the non-existent one, you see...

Somebody said, you know what, let me tell you the story then. So once, you can say, a cat was born in a world without mirrors, you see. So it could not check on itself, you see. But everybody around said that 'You are a cat, you're a cat, and your only job is to get the next bowl of milk, you see. Then you'll be happy. As long as you keep getting the next bowl of milk, you'll be happy.' So then we were told, what is that bowl of milk? Get a good education. A good education, you'll be happy. And we were told, get a good relationship; you come to that bowl of milk, you'll be happy. Then make enough money, you'll be happy. And then after a while, the cat experienced all of this and said, 'Where is that everlasting peace, happiness? You see, where is all this stuff? I'm not finding it.'

Then somebody came and said, 'You need to get that Amrit bowl of milk, you see. That eternal, the bowl of milk which is so sweet like Amrit, and then you will be free forever.' So the cat said, 'This is very good. I didn't know about this, you see. Can you tell me where to find it?' You see, then he said, 'Go to this Master, go to that Master, go to that Master.' There we tried at all the satsangs, all the various places we tried to get that eternal Amrit, but it is not found. Then somewhere, from somewhere, let's say Grace leads us to a Master who says... you come as a cat saying, 'I want my bowl of milk which will make me eternally happy.' You see, Master says, 'You think of yourself to be a cat,' and you say, 'Of course I'm a cat, you see. This is my story. I went from this bowl, this bowl, this bowl, I've come here, and finally somebody said you have the ultimate bowl.'

So this one says, 'Oh, sorry to disappoint you, I don't have a bowl of milk, but I do have a mirror. And if you look in the mirror, you will see that there is no cat.' You see? So if you say yes, and you saw that there is no cat, you see... so you came to this recognition that there is no cat. In fact, I am beyond, like our first conversation, beyond time and space, beyond perception and knowledge. You see, you saw this. And if after that your question is, 'What does it mean for the cat?' what should the Master say? You saw that there is no cat. The cat was just an idea, a belief system, you see. And you are that which is beyond all concepts and of all percepts that you can experience, you see. Would you feel like, 'But this must end up helping the cat somewhere'? No, you see, it doesn't exist. How to help that which doesn't exist? So the person does not exist; that's what your discovery is. So what does it mean for the person? The fact that there is no person, how does it help the person? Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Om Shanti Shanti Shanti.