Reality Is Indecipherable to Thought, but Not to You - 6th June 2019

So yes, empty of even the expectations of what we have heard in satsang, you see? All those which are pointers pointing us here. Now, if the pointers themselves become obstacles... you were given all the thorns which are given to remove other thorns, and we build a wall out of those thorns. It can seem like that. In fact, that is what's happening most of the time for those who witness satsang for long; this is what can happen.

So now, empty of even the idea of liberating, it exists, is it? No? Of your expectation or your idea of what it should be? Light and difficult, switching for whether there is a problem or not? Not even then. Not even that. Don't avoid this, because even behind spiritual ideas, true spirituality can be avoided. And whatever we expect from the truth, or whatever truth is meant to keep us—who is that one with the expectations anyway?

So if reality is just what is, and the mental, intellectual burden that we put upon it... then you really... and what is this burden? That is another thing. So, I heard it from Guruji a long time ago that nothing in the world has inherent meaning. Now, mostly the mistake we end up doing is when we hear this, we create the world a new meaning because it is empty of meaning; now we throw out a new meaning which is 'meaningless.' But he did not say that the world is meaningless, because that is also too much meaning, you see? This is empty of our interpretation. This is what it is.

So if meaning is not inherent, what is inherent? So you look unburdened, empty. This is what it is. And we find that in this there is no inherent meaning or meaninglessness; even the concept is not there. So what is inherent? You. Is this it? This is inherent. What are you looking for? Anything worth knowing is already known in this way. What is it? 'I don't know it.' Then it gets lost. I'm not playing with words. Anything that is worthwhile is inherent, you see? The rest of it is all made-up ideas.

So if you put it in the box of even Sat-chit-ananda—I may get in trouble for saying this—like even if you put it in that mental box, conceptual box of Sat-chit-ananda, then we are missing out on the Sat-chit-ananda more when we make that 'it should be' rather than just meeting what is. Well, no, what this 'should be' is itself is made of. It should be like this, it should not be like this, according to thought that comes up close to it.

Yeah, okay. The first part of everything is much room. Reasonably reality in the details. So please, you know what details for example? Okay, but we want to know the reasoning in to be able to design is to zoom out from a distance. You cannot be soliciting any distance.

In fact, complete openness, complete intimacy, complete openness, complete vulnerability, complete intimacy. No defenses whatsoever. What is the distance? And how is it that what I'm saying is that... he's God. No labels, no job, my decorations, my violations. So what I'm doing, but is that more intimate or less? If I had to meet you through the filter of 'someone, someone, someone,' then would that be a more intimate meeting or less? Then I'd be meeting an idea of you, you see? We had to come to this meeting. Then how's the week anyway? And just like 'someone should be like this, Sangha should not be like this,' then I'm just meeting the concept of Sangha, but I'm not meeting you.

So it is the labels which create resistance and lack of intimacy and lack of openness. So inherently, what do you know? What you're saying is notable if I met it without labels, you see? Now inherently, what is there? Inherently, is there a definition? Ordinarily, it is empty. Inherently, it is empty. It was over... the world is empty of inherent meaning. So because it is empty of inherent meaning, see, what is it full of or empty of? Other words here, I cannot operate. Is it because the meaning machine is the mind, intellectual things? Now what is left? You say 'is-ness.' And that also is a thorn, of course, at the end of the day, but as a pointer it is amazing. 'Nothing' also is another pointer. So nothing, which is... it's like the absence of something, like the empty glass? Nothing? Or what kind of nothing is it? Is it describable? It's nothing like that.

If I could say: Are you there? Empty of all meaning, are you there? So this reality which is unchanging is then there. Well, we can say yes. Here words are difficult, so I am just going to provisionally use them and don't make walls out of them. So now, empty of any concept and meaning, even description of this and that, or this and that, or 'it should be, should not be' here—all of this, what is it that we may see is? You see nothing? You say, 'my oneness.' Now, was that difficult? If you start thinking about it, I'm sure you can come up with three reasons why it was difficult or how you will not be able to hold on to this path in the future. Ideas with this for now. Was there a need? Reality is just what it is and it is not obscure. In fact, it is apparent. It is what it is and it is not obscure; in fact, it is apparent.

It only seems like it is inapparent when we have some idea of what it should be. What are we actually... in most of humanity, what are we actually doing? Do we walk into a stranger's house and we say, 'This is what your house should be like'? We won't even do that to a stranger. You go to a stranger's house: 'Can I have some water, please?' We don't go into the house and say, 'Why is the TV kept over there? It should be there. Why do you have three paintings on the wall? You should have one.' Thank you, we don't do that. Is it about our existence? We are constantly poking at it. It should be like this, it should not be like this. Whose house is this? Whose life is this?

So one tip I want to give all of you is that all of you, at some time or the other, had a spiritual experience. Really. Now that spiritual experience is bothering you, whether you realize it or not, because you are trying to meet even this what I'm saying—just so empty of all expectation—with an expectation of that seeing. Okay, now my... it follows this when I come to that, but because that was it seemingly... don't burden this with anything, anything at all. Don't burden yourself with anything. Meeting life without labels, expectations. You need to check again without the labels in history.

Because it's... give you an example of how do we recognize that you're meeting this moment with some labels, expectations? And then it can be quite as sketches this again. Okay, I make it... so when determination comes with this top, is that what you mean by the checking? In the sense that, do you mean by the checking as what I say, that the one who's saying, 'Okay, now are you meeting your life only...' because that can be the troublesome part. You hear anything in satsang and the mind will take it on and make itself your inner guru, saying, 'See, Ananta had said meet your life empty of expectation. What are you doing? Do you think this is not expected from you?'

This is what we usually call sacred, just that if you mean that this pointer is there and it's working in the sense it works like a reminder when you're getting caught up in your own ideas about ourselves and you end up talking, it's fine. At what point is it of use? So what is the type of house? Be aesthetic, like having one of our technical claiming, saying, 'This is wrong, this should be fixed, it should change, this should not be like this,' like that? Or one who's just okay with everything? And again, I'm speaking of the inner attitude, not for you maybe same outwardly, because outwardly these things have to come out in this way. But ignoring who could be concretely that case, neutral.

So again, don't mistake the activity to be your doing. Like I can say to you that—and I hope I'm speaking with honesty—that inwardly there is complete openness at this moment here, you see? With no expectation of change or something has to happen. And yet the words that may be coming out of this mouth may seem like, you know, they're provoking you or wanting to change you or something like that. When did we sign this contract anyway, that God is going to give us a life or a world according to what our mind's idea of it is, according to what we think of it? Ram didn't sign this contract. I don't even know of signing such a thing. And everybody's idea is different, so what is poor God supposed to do? Have an election every week? 'What do you think the world should be like?'

Everything. So as I say that, getting freedom actually is only about giving freedom. What we have not given freedom to ends up seeming like our bondage. And whatever is inherent, that is the only good thing which is of value. I mean it. And that which is inherent cannot be taken from or given to you. Nothing real can be threatened, as it is said. How do we have a... on what basis do we have a 'should be, should not be'? What are you talking of the other day? Better? Do you think it's better? Better or worse? But 'better' signifies time, it signifies distance.

So see, you can keep telling us that it is what it is, you are that. But in the idea of getting better, we created two states: state one and state two, going from something to something else. And all our resistance is based on these ideas. So finding the truth is super easy. In fact, 'super easy' is also too much. The only obstacle is this: our ideas of how it should be. So I want to keep emphasizing this point till you tell me to stop, which is that the truth is just what is, unconcealed. It is not obscure; it is apparent. Now you have to say what is apparent or inherent. You already said: is-ness, nothing, openness, or oneness.

State one and state two, going from something to something else, and all our resistance is based on these ideas. So finding the truth is super easy. In fact, 'super easy' is also too much. The only obstacle is this: our ideas of what it should be. So I want to keep emphasizing this point till you tell me to stop, which is that the truth is just what is unconcealed. It is not obscure; it is apparent. Now you have to say what is apparent or inherent. You already said 'is-ness,' 'nothing,' 'openness,' or 'oneness.' What were we looking for? Apparently, we were looking for this oneness, this 'is-ness' that we just... how it should happen, or that all the defined 'is-ness' should happen.

So enlightenment is no different from the finding of it already. So enlightenment is already inherent anyway. Freedom? No difference again. Liberation, truth, enlightenment—all same things. And to exist is freedom. Just is liberation. Just is enlightenment. Is it according to the mind's idea of what it should be? Probably not. But you won't like that anyway. If it was that, you would be the head of its own, whatever the idea is. I talked about flying, no-clinging, how it should happen. Out of this truth, everything can happen, but there is no 'should.' Give these ideas up. Okay, now to this inherent... got it. What is this business? Oneness, freedom, awareness. Okay, so now the mind says, 'Okay, so then what? So then, so what?' So nothing. So this just for today is about time. This is reminding you that when the thought comes, there is no 'so what?'

One mother said that we experience coolness... our reason... one mother had said we experience coolness from waist down when we stand in the Ganges, and the upper body experiences scorching heat of the sun at the same time. But our problem is coolness we accept, but scorching heat we don't. We don't want to accept. How to have this acceptance? It has to be forced, which feels bad. Yeah, after the acceptance, like how you had it in your childhood, what led to the loss of innocence? Again, if you can do something to change the idea that you can do something... some idea. The idea of especially desire: 'I want this, but I don't want that.' And most primal, being in a way, the idea of distinction between the two.

Again, I'm going to use an idea, but you have to hear. So the experience is empty of the idea of it. Let's use the term: cohesion. Your perception of it is not dependent on the idea we have of it. Isn't an impure perception? There is neutral. So the water was to hold, and the running out happens—fine. If the sun is too hot and you go into the shade, it happens—it's fine. But we are not saying, 'Yes, yes, no, no, good, good, bad, bad. This is why my life is like this. I want more cold-cold and want less hot-hot.' So these kind of things. And why I said originally we have to say these things is because ultimately even the idea of perception is just energy, and ultimately even the idea of 'ultimately' is just an idea. So you don't have to struggle with all of this. That's why I have said: 'Really? Really?' Okay, now better idea, ultimate idea. Then ultimately, that even the ultimate idea is just an idea can become the idea.

He says, 'We thought that they'd be okay.' One says, 'So true about this spiritual expectations and making a benchmark out of the clear, vibrant, transparent states. I see this benchmark still active here at times. Yes, forget clear, vibrant, transparent states. So commas you can keep, although when I looked, it is very clear that the seeking can never be for awareness, but it is for some higher states. This habit of measuring and concluding seems to keep me looking, to keep some me-entity alive.'

If I give all of you the option: do you want to sit just like you are, or do you want to sit with a 10 kg weight on your head? What would you pick? Somewhere out in that... no, it's not the door, it's not over the bed. So I'm saying that you are empty and free now. The seller of this weight is coming to you. Ideally, I hold the same speech, start with 'but.' 'But how will I live? How will I run my life? What are those who should have for me?' So what we actually want? What is it that we actually want? Don't have to say it out loud, just at least put that in your own mind. Is it something specific that you want so that something will happen or not happen?

God, Guru, Self—whatever term you use—you want it because it has the promise of some byproducts. Many feel that we want spiritual experiences. So is this the same old paradigm of pleasure and pain? 'I want spiritual experiences for the pleasure because you are irreplaceable.' Or do we want them so that at least we can seem like we are getting away from the experience of the tragedy of our life? Still missing, avoiding pain. If it is truthful to say that we want that, then it is. Even if the truth has to live up to your head or what it should be, then you can keep chasing that forever. So the problem really is not in finding the truth, but the problem, if there is one, is in what that should do for you, or what kind of experience it must be like, what must it look like, what benefit do I get, will it stay when I leave?

The problem is to live from the truth.

Good, we didn't even get to that point yet. Empty even the expectation that our truth lives on it. You want the 10 kg gold in there? You want to sit as you have only raw meat? Sounds like a 50 kg thing. Who is going to decide to live from it? Life is going to, truth is going to, or this non-existent me? It is this example of having worked so hard or got used to carrying the load. I just feel like what I have to hear, so let me worry about that. Because if you even take that metaphor of the man working at the airport all his life, or the woman working at the airport all her life, so used to picking up bags from the conveyor belt, then it may seem like, 'Okay, this getting out of the habit will take some time because I'm so used to it.' So it will be compelling. Now that it says maybe a bag on the conveyor belt is in the bag which says, 'You know, you're used to picking me up, you know it'll take some time.' Well, the label on the bag—one sneaky bag company called Maya—and this is no... very what I meant about the check of that. The sacred I will come and say, 'See, you're still picking up so many bags. You were... so it's going to take you a long time. Obviously, your habit is very strong.' All of these things, which is but a version of reality, is producing guilt in some. And thoughts are nothing but versions of reality.

Reality is indecipherable to thought, but not to you. Reality is apparent to you. You are it. Anne says, 'I feel like I like truth, but I have to love only truth for that. I seek your grace.' You see, it is not 100% 'I love only truth.' Come with me. It's 100% that this is true and what it feels like to you. So some feeling of the incomplete. So the idea is not to pick up unworthiness or guilt about it in any way. It's just to bring your attention so that you can notice what may be lurking behind our intentions and our ideas about truth. And your noticing is more than enough. Your noticing is more than enough. It doesn't even need to be followed up with an intention.

So if I ask, 'What is it actually that you want?' You may say, 'I don't... I just actually... I just wanted a peaceful life, really.' Something like that. And just to notice that it is enough. Whatever you hear in satsang is... you know, the mind will do the translation job, interpretation job, even what is being said, and it will make it seem like it becomes more applicable to the 'me.' But actually, the variants are not needed at all. Or the big head is going straightforward and around. And this is again different from how we used to learning, because we used to learning by advice, but we must see, 'Okay, how does this apply to me?' Yeah, spontaneous. Spontaneous. A question asked, answer will come. There's nothing that you have to really get involved with that way. It will need that sort of intervention.

Consciousness is playing a game of bringing things into its own light as if it had hidden them. And in bringing these things, these ideas, into its own light, they are dissolved. To paraphrase what you've been saying: truth has no obligation. It has no obligation to live up to your standard of what it should be, which is me. Expectations, yes. Mismeeting. Because it sounds like a bird. It's not good. No, even 'meet' is just the... you see, the empty of idea, there is no like 'me' to meet. 'Me' is also an idea. There are no two left to meet. We can't even say 'when only one.' Living mean one is an idea. In the idea of one, all the other ideas are contained. One notion is all we need to have a full bag of notions with us.

Let's take an example. Suppose a thought came and you're another being busy and you say, 'Okay, oh, I was thinking.' Really, what did you mean? How did you make that evaluation that you're thinking? To say that you were thinking already needs an understanding of how you know you were not walking or singing or feeling or breathing. So almost like in an instant, we are trained to recognize what that was. We have taken... we've done an evaluation on all of the other notions and we said, 'This is what it is.' That's why one notion is not just, we can say, connected, but I know we contain the three of those evaluative notions that we have. It is equal to you. That is evaluations. What in relation to what? Only our other notions. Because some may say that, 'Okay, I'm going to meet every moment as it is.' But what's the harm in them? I said, 'This is hand, this is leg, this is sitting, this is walking.' This is... now every term contains every other term because it is evaluative. It has meaning only in terms of the difference it has from everything else you see.

And secondly, it has a personal history for you. The way you will say 'thinking' is different. You go out of the screen and say 'thinking,' what do you mean by thinking? They'll have a different idea. So every term has a different history for you. In the notion is contained this entire world. Not your world you witnessed, but the emotional meaning independently contains the entire world. Only you in relation to other ideas. I can let it out. If there was no down, it's only relative. So in the 'up-ness,' the 'up-ness' idea contains the idea of 'down-ness.' And especially our ideas of right and wrong and should and should not be. The Colonel's lady in conversations... conversation response or what I said and then playing to and do what with it? To think about it. And there is it like you think about it. That was great. What a joyous moment we had together. Actually ready to see and so good you notice it, yes. But not with the thing, not with the condition that is because that... because you say it is a happy then not to feel guilty and say, 'Okay, I'm doing together. Why can't I just...'

How are you saying now? Or do you say, 'Oh yes, you know this in the sense that how you communicate about is this happening?' So once we see that actually all activity is like this, just activity, and there is no individual doer of them in reality, you get this sort of burdenless... around you don't know how to move. Who here knows how to move? You know the moving happened. Do you know how? You might have an explanation for it, but you don't know. You might have an explanation which says, 'Oh, neurons in my brain fired and then I moved my finger.' So how do you fire the neuron? I can guarantee you that nobody here knows how to fire a neuron. In fact, it's a precondition to moving your fingers. And how? So we did this like just notional. I didn't... when I married Roger, gravity that's always on here. The conditions seem like they're deeply embedded. It is equal to just like this. They raise it, empty, finish your freak everyday.

Now in this human existence, it seems like just like the condition was believed over a period of time, was bought and bought and bought and bought upon, then even letting go seems to be like that. Why don't I emphasize that point? It is because if you take charge of your progress, you're going to impede your progress, even if you believe in the notion of your progress. So I just want you to find it like this: leave your progress up to me.

Just like this, they raise it empty. Finish your freaky everyday. Now, in this human existence, it seems like just like the condition was believed over a period of time, was bought and bought and bought and bought upon there, even where letting go seems to be like that. Why do I emphasize that point? It is because if you take charge of your progress, you're going to impede your progress. Even if you believe in the notion of your progress, so I just want you to find it like this: leave your progress up to me, you see. Because once you put yourself on that progress spectrum, then you can keep progressing still. Then what I mean by that is you still believe yourself to be that limited entity which is progressing. No, that is what you've got to get out of, really. So every time you get on it, you're doing it first, so you find it fingers now. Just let me worry about whether you're cognizant.

It's like, you know, somebody came to you and said, 'I'm taking care of it.' Usually, the reactions are not like morose. If you were taken into the hotel and some receptionist at the reception bit will do when you come, 'Sir, all your expenses are paid and you don't have to do anything. Everything here is taken care of, but you just enjoy the moment.' Supposing you live in such a multi, you just enjoy the moment. Don't pick up any burden. 'I don't know if I can do that' also is a load. Being in this oriental habit, it is not being the moon. So, can I really be in the cool? Also, used to cooking all day, I don't know whether I can enjoy your meal. It's trained completely in crises. I am telling you, you are the Supreme Lord, and you say, 'No, no, but little old me.' Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba ki Jai.