Remain in the Not-knowing - 1st December 2018

So, are these going to be like fantastical concepts for the mind to play with—Brahman, Atma, or our Self, Absolute, Nothingness? We can play for many, many hundreds of lifetimes with these. But is there a way to not get caught up in the concept and get a taste for yourself and reality? Is it truth? As long as you're happy to say, 'Yes, yes, no, no,' he says, 'No, this is right, this is wrong, this is the way I think about it, this is what I feel is true,' then this will not be so appealing for you. This way or that way, it's still duality. It has its juice. Enjoy it, no trouble at all. But I am going to be honest and say that if the juice is still there, then maybe what is being said here may not be so important, won't seem so exciting, because there is no promise here of any taste which is perceptual.

But if you are done with this roller coaster, if you're done with your own judgments about things, you're tired of your conclusions, you look at your conclusions and you say, 'What is this about? Is it really like this? Do I actually know any of this?' If this is what your own mind is feeling like, you join me here. But there is no attachment to this roller coaster. It can play. There is no aversion to it either. But see yourself with a different set of eyes. You deserve a fresh view, beyond concept, beyond perception. But if the distance between any opposites becomes small—true and false, right and wrong, inside and outside, up and down—the distinction is just a thought. It is just a thought. There is nothing inherently big or inherently small, nothing inherently inside or outside, right or wrong.

And inside and outside is very easy to check. I don't feel like there will be anyone in this room who has not said, 'When I go inside, I find peace' or 'I find some emotion or sensation.' But nobody has been able to tell me where this inside is. Inside of what? Is it the inside where you go to find peace? It is inside of what? And these are the simplest things which we don't question because we take them for granted. You see, the whole egoic notion is built around these notions which seem like stupid to question. They seem like, 'But of course, inside is inside, outside is outside.' But I say, inside what? Even this we do not know. And we claim to know how the world should be.

We do not know how to speak a word, even though you might have a theory about it. You might say, 'Oh, neurons fire and these actions happen,' but nobody here knows how to fire a neuron. So what is this intelligence that is running all of this? And if there is a will, it must belong to just this one, this intelligence, because this mythical individual has been looked for and, except for some blurry evidence, we have not found any real one. So don't be fearful of that which you do not know. We hate it, actually. In our heart, we hate not knowing. So we quickly replace that fear with a judgment. As I remember, not knowing can feel a bit like some tough medicine. It can feel a bit like some tough medicine because nobody is holding on to a belief knowing that it is false. Whatever you believe, you think it is true.

So when someone comes and says, 'But what do you actually know?' you see, it can seem like an attack almost. Now, what is happening for most of you is that you are advanced spiritual seekers. Advanced spiritual seekers, you know a lot of spirituality. Because you know a lot of spirituality, you may think that you are right about it. And you will be good to have in your encyclopedic spiritual knowledge. You will have all the most credible sources. 'But all I know is what Bhagavan said, what Maharaj said, she said, he said.' But what are they saying? They are saying that all of what we are saying is just thorns used to remove any embedded thorns that you might have, and then to be thrown away. We are not saying that I can capture reality in some concept of truth. They say, 'All I can do at best is point.'

So we've been playing this game which last year didn't go so well also. Just a thought. Look at those things which you feel that you are absolutely certain about. Let's put a twist to this game today and look at those things which you feel you are absolutely certain about. And I have the easy job every time, which is to say that it is just a thought. That which you think you're absolutely right about is absolutely certain about.

Absolutely is happening. But even otherwise, is it happening? Then what would 'happening' mean? That nothing has ever happened?

So, okay, so just to clarify, someone... so when she said, 'Yeah, okay,' she had the sense that it's just a term and this term just has meaning based on what our mind has given it. Okay, that way. But even to say 'everything is happening,' can you really also say that all of this that you're witnessing right now is not just a memory? Yeah, of course not. But can we conclude that 'I know for certain that this is not merely just revisiting a memory'? That we can't. So what if all of this was not actually here? It is revisiting an old daydream. Are we absolutely certain about it? And I'm not going to deconstruct it in this way because then the deconstruction itself can become a new set of thoughts. So I'm just going to say it's just a thought. And then you can explore a little bit and then maybe the next time you come you can say, 'But I saw and it's not, it's just a thought.'

Maybe only you exist.

Is it only you? Okay, something you want to deconstruct. Very... thank you, sir. But does it apply sense to what you're saying? But if only you exist, then the term 'you' does not have meaning. What is the opposite of 'you'? 'You' is 'yes.' So what does 'you' mean? Why don't you say 'only I exist'? See? So this 'you' is in opposition to 'I.' But if it is all-inclusive, it is not in opposition to anything. You mean you see you knew because you exist. I appreciate the feeling behind it, of course, but I'm just saying that if you feel like this is so, this is like representative of truth rather than just a pointer, then we are making a mistake even with that. And if this is a beautiful pointer, which it is, then what is the taste of that now? What can be spoken about the experience of this?

So this is the beauty, that it is completely apparent. The complete, full truth of what you are is fully apparent to you. It only seems to be a little bit when you start thinking about it. But the appearance and disappearance of thoughts... but the belief that these tiny concepts have an ability to represent reality? If you wrote an entire book, you would still not be able to describe this glass. So if words are not even enough to describe your phenomenal existence, what words will describe your non-phenomenal, unmanifest?

It's a condition. It is somewhat like we've been saying, that step away from the duality of even 'I am Brahman.' And you hear that, you know, 'Aham Brahmasmi.' That is helpful to our hearts. Duality of 'I am Brahman' and 'it will be done.' She might be getting a prick on hearing that, you see? But it's straightforward that if it is just naturally true that you are Brahman, what use is the assertion? The assertion only gives credence to the possibility of it not being true. Nobody is saying 'I have a nose.' You're just aware. Also a thought on either... well, it points to you. Say, in a way, it points to that which is wordless. Yes. Oh, that's my Guru. She says, 'Don't even make tattoos out of my words.' Bhagavan said that these are sticks that you use to light the fire, but the stick also has to be thrown because otherwise... and that is happening many times. You end up making idols of these things. It's like taking the road signs and considering them to be the destination. With the signs this way, you pick up that sign, put it in your house and say, 'I got it.'

And what is everything pointing to in spirituality? Everything is at least... maybe the truth is unchanging. So apparently all of this is pointing to one truth which is unchanging. If it is unchanging, where must it be now? It must be unchangingly here. Before the duality of 'here' and 'there,' it must be, because it is unchanging. 'Here' and 'there' keeps changing. So who wants to test that? In a way, I feel to say that my only interest is in speaking to those who want to test the validity of this: that here and now, the truth is complete and full. I'm hardly dealing with your objections about that. Not so much. There are enough places for that. But here I want to point you to this unchanging reality, to use some terms. And the trick is for you to not judge it immediately.

And there it must be because it is unchanging. Here and there keeps changing. So who wants to test that? In a way, I feel to say that my only interest in speaking is in speaking to those who want to test the validity of this: that here and now, the truth is complete and full. I'm hardly dealing with your objections about that, but not so much. There are enough, you know, places for that. But here, I want to point you to this unchanging reality, to use some terms. And the trick is for you to not judge it immediately. Stay with the taste of it for a bit and then give your report. Aren't we certain the unchanging reality is here? That seems to be a certainty. I'm saying it just to adjust the spirit.

So let me give you an example of this. Upon hearing this commentary, actually, I became a lot more open to the Buddhist points, things, and teachings, because traditionally the conditioning here was very daunting. Nagarjuna at one point was questioned because he said that even emptiness itself is empty of even emptiness. So everything is just so. Anyway, I'll get to what I used to feel about that later. But then he was attacked by the Buddhists saying Nagarjuna was saying that the Four Noble Truths are not true, that the Buddha is not the truth. Then Nagarjuna explained that the truth is independent of any concept that we might hold about it, including that, including the concept of Buddha itself, including the concept of emptiness itself also. That's why there is emptiness of even itself.

And then his student explained further and said that holding on is suffering. And when you hold on to even the highest spiritual concepts, then that is just another way to invite suffering. In a way, if you had to share more about it, you can say that if it is true, then it cannot be dependent on us having that concept. Does any concept truly represent what is? Anyway, that is why all these sages use concepts as pointers, thorn-to-remove-thorns, because what they're pointing to is beyond the opposite of changing and unchanged, beyond the opposites of false and reality. So at best, these are pointers. All of this which can be held by the mind, by the intellect, is in the range of limitation—from the smallest to the largest, from the false to the true, from the inside to the outside. This is the range of these devices called the mind and intellect. But your range is much greater than that.

This is the range of our mental knowing. The truly true knowingness is much broader than that. In actuality, changing or not changing does not mean anything for it. Even falsity and reality mean nothing for it. It has no distinction. Even distinction and distance mean nothing. That's why we are just struggling with these words and try to point, like the Zen master saying, "Do not nest in the intellect." So then when we are not nesting there, you can feel like we are falling. I'm paraphrasing a lot. So you can feel that you're falling, but this is auspiciousness. This sense of being wiped out of moorings, being not able to place this and that, it's great auspiciousness.

So it has to be said that even the certainty of the unchanging reality is just a thought. And "even that is just a thought" is just a thought. And before that, there was "I have no power or control, God is in charge." All of this is just a thought. It's just a cocktail the teacher teaches, but encourages it all to exist at all. The mind does not like the word "just" in this theater. It does not like the word "just." "That is just a thought." "I'm a failure in this world and I'm using spirituality to feel good" is just a thought. "I am eager to hear that" is just a thought. "It is just a talk." And also, be aware of the central genuine seeker that is arising, and the opposite thought is just a thought. "Which I want to hold on to" is also just a thought. Thank you.

I'm not asserting, by the way. You can see one thing which is an even simpler way to put it. It's a classic conundrum, like where the teacher asks: "Is it not possible that tonight when you sleep, you have a repeat of this exact same conversation?" Yeah, it is possible. So is there a way you can tell me that this is not that? So we cannot be certain. I also want to say something very beautiful on top of that, which is that coming to the truth is not to come to the truth as a certainty; it is to lose all our certainties. In a way, it is like what Bhagavan said: true knowledge exists in the dropping of the false. It is not that you come to know something which is now "this is true knowledge," you see? And if you just get a sense of this, you will become much lighter because otherwise you're grasping for something which you feel like will be the ultimate truth, see? But it is the grasping itself which is false.

How could he say nothing ever happened? Yes, so gradually it was a dreamy recollection, see? If I just took it as a point, I have no experience in this, experiencing that. I know, but something is there. I'm not here. What you're saying is that I've never had the experience that there was nothing, including the "I am." Something exists. I'm not there. But when it exists, meaning that I never had the experience of not knowing my existence, not knowing my existence at all. That definition of sleep state... in the sleep state, in me, what you just said... yeah, I know, but I'm not there. No, not that. I know that. I didn't mean that. I didn't ever have the experience that I don't... I'm not there. You know, that was never... I was not there.

Something else is just a thought. Another way of saying what Bhagavan said about true knowledge is just the dropping of the false. And being naturally present is the same as saying that when you let go of this "I" thought, then all there is is the Self or the truth. Now, the "I" thought is central to all of our thought systems. Now you might believe—and this is where the first statement comes—is that this "I" thought has to move from the false "I" to a true "I," and that is real enlightenment or freedom, you see? But it is not that. It is when you let go of all references to "I," the truth exists abundantly.

So the game is much simpler for you and much more difficult for the mind, because the mind would much rather prefer, "Okay, I'm going to drop the false position and come to the true position." Is it coming from the false position of "I'm just a person" to the truth of "I am Brahman, Aham Brahmasmi"? But it is not that. Now, make no reference to yourself and what is apparent. Let everything be as it is. Don't say "this is I" or "you," meaning your mind, "me" or "other." Leave the world and underworld. Nothing needs to be here. This is to go beyond your mind, this now. And don't take these words too seriously either; they're just nonsense as well. But something like pointers. There's nothing inherently true about these words. They are also a special kind of nonsense. But somehow we seem to have sometimes this desire to capture it, grasp at it, encapsulate it in your mental framework. All that seems to be a little... it could be, it's okay.

The annoyance that "I" is not going.

Where is it? Where is it not? Where is it that it is not going? Show me. I'll give you a thousand dollars right now. You show me. Show me that. Where is it? It's not going. That's what it is. It has never come, so how can it go? This is just the thought that when the one called the "I" thought... the "I" entity... I didn't say that. I think that the "I" thought is just a thought. It's as much an emotion as saying that there is a green-haired Martian sitting next to you. So how will that green-haired Martian go? Get rid of it. Come on, Nathan, get rid of that green-haired Martian. How to get rid of that? It never came, except as a thought. The "I" thought. And no thought comes and stays, actually. Your job is then the opposite: the next thought which comes, hold on to it so it does not go. Okay? And you tell me when you're dizzy.

So we established the "I" is nothing but a thought, and it seems to be sticky. So let's see how a thought can at least stay. The next thought that comes, just hold on to it. Just make sure it doesn't go. Can you do it? You can't do it. Even when you chant it, even if you chant it, there is a space between. I am ready to give all of you the certificate that you're completely free right now in this moment. You're the ones who don't accept it. "But I'm still not like him. I still have anger, lust, greed, fear." You need this kind of thing. Please, judgment. You tease me about who you are making these. You don't know.

It's much simpler than we think it is. In fact, in a way, it is too simple. Phenomena declare this. Grasping is grasping. You are thinking that you are the limited object, but you are beyond even the space in which all of that is happening. You ask questions, there's no looking for answers. Is that what comes out of this? After that, or even when I'm speaking, there's no necessity. We don't fall into that duality of "I would keep quiet" or "speak." We are not speaking about that at all, right? It is not a statement of what phenomenal appearances should appear as the body, what you should be doing outwardly or not. Just put it simply: it is just, in a way, this clenched fist internally just opening. And then whether words come or no words come, they are used to drawing conclusions about us in the way of how the body is representing us. Therefore we should then just keep quiet. But then you might keep quiet outwardly but suffer inwardly because you want to... "I just want to tell him off!"

So the keeping quiet that the sages refer to is just a simple openness inwardly. Why were all the sages speaking so much? You say then, "Keep quiet, keep inwardly quiet." Then they think that this mouth is moving, this hand is moving, and these thoughts can come and go, but they're too open. So this is that absence of belief. It is too silent. So whether words are moving or not moving, the guru element will speak. Or yeah, how did you say how it's moving? You're blinking your eyes, they went up there and down. All of this is happening. The one who claims to take credit for all of this is non-existent—the individual one.

So these are just waves on the surface of the ocean. They move. The ocean starts feeling like, "Mine, not mine. This wave should not go more than this, or should stay just like that." That's something like a strange belief for the ocean to have. And in the same way, when you as consciousness, you as God itself, start saying that "this is what I should do as this individual person," this is just this one appearance amongst all the appearances within me. Then you still consider yourself to be that limited entity. Don't make a reference to "I" anywhere in what you see and what you don't see. Then how is it? Put your hand in front like that. Yeah. And this hand is also there. What is the difference? What makes that "you" and this "not you"? That appearance is you, this appearance is not you? What made that? These thoughts. Children did not have this. We were taught this.

I keep taking these examples from when my kids were small. Every time I'd remember telling my son and daughter, "Where is your head?" and they would point to this head and say... then you will have to clean the... "No, your head is that! My head is this way!" So they were taught this distinction, which is a natural flow of this human life. But for those who are interested in satsang and coming to this, then you can look at these things and say: how did these actually come about? This "me, mine, me and you," this duality. This is Advaita. Then when you explore what duality is, then you can see that it's natural, necessary, that there is no distinction. It's not valid.

So there is no real way of saying that in this realm, forget this body, you will never have the experience of this realm never again, or you've ever had before. So you write that working that is contact, you know, things that we put on top of this conception of motion, which is also sleeping and waking up also as contact, anything that consciousness can...

Duality—this is Advaita. Then when you explore what duality is, then you can see that naturally, necessarily, there is no distinction. So there is no real way of saying that in this realm—forget this body—you will never have the experience of this realm never again, or you've ever had before. So you write that working, that is contact. You know, things that we put on top of this conception of motion, which is also sleeping and waking up, also as contact. Anything that consciousness can fathom, this is the fathom and unfathom. And Guruji says that you only perceive what you can see. There is no actual distinction between perception and conception; only the mind makes that distinction, that this is the process of conceiving, this is the process of perceiving, which is causing that type of relationship everywhere.

What is the will of consciousness? Is this writing its will in a diary and then saying, 'Okay, today I am going to implement all this'? My will doesn't seem like this. Naturally, in its existence is His will. How are you, Ram?

On a playground, it cannot be heard. How would it? In the previous conversation, we were talking about being heard. Yes, sometimes it happens. I mean, I'm in the situation without a fear of me judging. I would speak something without fear of not speaking. Speak something, I don't know what it is, so I'm pushed into a kind of awkward sentence also because I don't know.

Yes, it can be. It could be that total silence is good also. It's not a bad thing. I'm not saying you must be silent without words. Keep seeking. I said this is a point, and we'll come back to this point, but I just want to say that I feel like I should repeat this in every satsang just because X and Y are opposites. Okay, X is being negated. The nature of the mind is to automatically conclude therefore Y is true. But I am not saying that at all. Negating X, negating Y, and I'm hitting, hitting, I'm leaving you without any branch.

So when I said that it is not about just an outward silence, I didn't mean that I am not selecting outward silence. It's good; that's how you have silent retreats. But if you find yourself getting outwardly silent just to serve whatever it is... because I want you to notice the conditioning here also. It's a good thing, but I don't want to do too much of these opposites. Like you say, it's not a bad subject. While there can be polarity, it doesn't... it's good, I like it, but still, it's like playing within the box. There should be a subject like this, that subjective which is like what is not in that box. We can say, 'Okay, it can be both, it can be neither, or it can be all of them.' You see? All of that, but still operating in the box of labels.

You see, what is that which is not in the box? And that is what the mind, in a way, is trying to grasp at and failing at. And therefore, there is this like this either tired, frustrated seeker or dashed at something which then is like checking this concept against everything, everything. 'I think I caught it,' and therefore the spiritual ego. So the outcome of this grasping is suffering one way or the other. And this grasping is very strained actually, because without picking up the intent to know why or to know what it is, actually it is just so naturally known without distinction.

There is this very beautiful huge anthill in the form of a family. And this anthill, when people are saying it's a full system, you see the whole system works so beautifully. You see every ant; no ant is out of place. It's like raindrops; no raindrop falls out of place. Same way like these ants; no ant is out of truth. Everything is operating in this beautiful way, but I don't feel like they are thinking about it and saying, 'Okay, you, you, you do this, you do that, and I'm going to tell them this of them.' They do seem to have some communication, but it's not like we would say, 'Where is the whiteboard?' and still they operate so beautifully. But you can look at so many more intricate examples. The flower blooming: no petal is out of place, and everyone is unique. All fingerprints: no fingerprint is out of place, and yet all fingerprints are unique. All snowflakes are unique and yet perfect as they are. You see, what is this intelligence which is doing all this?

Something in his mind table, so just a pile of just coming into mind. What is the message in the anthill?

Be the anthill. Meet it fully, but don't presume to know what it means. Can you truly say that you experienced exactly this very sensation in the same quality and quantity before? You cannot. So what use is the label? You were talking about intermittent fasting, and one time I was doing it and Guruji was laughing about it. So he introduced us to this term called 'hangry'—hungry and angry. When you're fasting, first course, and anger rose: hangry. There are so many emotions you can have a label for, every emotion that comes. But when we say, 'This is what it is,' then we put it in that box and we put all our life-story conditions around it. We presume to know; we know what anger is. It is like an attacking energy, you know, this kind of... all of this is from our memory really. So we leave the innocence of just what is appearing and put it in that box of 'I know what this is,' and then it coincides with all our relationships in the past. So we face it like you don't have a label for it; it is what it is.

There's a lot of chat. There seems certainty to believe and thought that there is sensation of pain in the body. What is the pain without thought? To whom is it happening?

This is good inquiry. This is a good question. And this conversation also is a bit like that. It was good to see you, my dear. It's good to explore. I'm not bringing you to any truth about any of this; just be clear about that. I am just pointing to the point where you can drop your notion that 'this is what it is.' What you think about it is what it is—that is the notion that is being questioned.

Then is it true that all you speak is also a thought?

Yes, yes. It's a special nonsense. Not even special; special is also just a thought. And we use useful ones. Useful, special, easy. If the expression feels certain that you are holding on to the thought, it's an expression. If the expression feels certain is that you are holding on to thoughts, no, it is not about the expression seeming certain or more. And many times something you say very like really convinced, I say like coming out to come out, and now you have to keep up to it? Or is it really something that you're believing inside? Like we had this conversation the other day where a certain position was taken and then I was just saying, 'But this is how it works.' Is it just that some words escape just like that? And because they seem to have come from this body, then we feel like, 'No, I must live up to this.' You see, I must own these, and that is like the attachment.

So a lot of statements which seem so certain come from the mouths of teachers while at the same time living 'I do nothing.' So there are all the examples of statements torn apart which show something so that these are not mistaken to be some certainties, but just serve the purpose of shaking up a circle and then they are done. We can't even be certain about that. I'm generally interested and generally in the city, even though I might sound a bit annoying. Sound annoying? Are there words that are like lightning bolts? They shock the being out of its complacency. This shocks the being out of its complacency. Thank you.

Something needs to happen or then to stop this grasping of confusion.

Yes, this is also just a thought. 'I have to go, thank you' is also a distribution back. Other than the purpose of Zen koans, try... the mind will say too much, but in a way to tire your intellect, to tire your worldview, to tire your worldview which is just so we get tired of this perspective. It seems so or just confined to just the boundaries that we can make mentally. But to say that they have a purpose would also not be. If you can say that something is, then it is not.

Then you can ignore my previous message; it is no longer relevant. And it's not really a box with me escaping also.

See, it is just a box which is naturally not. Like right now you're not living in your constraints, in your limited ideas. Right now none of us are. Right now there is no difference between you, me, any teacher that an applicant removes. It only seems different; it seems to be that when these offerings come, the stream may seem attractive to some, it may not seem as attractive to others as it is. And often it comes to God to consider himself to be something small in some aspects of God that often seems to be picked up, and in some aspects of God that are offering what will be everything that we recall this consciousness speaking with consciousness under that another.

How do you operate in the world? Yes. How did the bird... it's newly or okay, maybe six months old. The season has come for it to migrate. Now suppose that it doesn't know what is north, south, east, west, and yet it flies. How does that happen? Or you're sitting now; you're sitting because of memory. The body remembers. Do we know any of this? How many processes are happening in the body right now? If we give some apparent reality to it, millions. So who's running all of those? Not you with your heart. So is that not operating in this world?

What we are talking about mostly, you and this question comes is, 'How do I pay my bills? How do I take care of my relationships, addictions?' and all of the examples that we are given that all these billions of planets are moving, all of these bodies are functioning. Within each body is like a mini universe. Apparently, all of that is functioning. So there seems to be a supreme intelligence which is doing all of this. But my bills? It cannot be. They are special for that. I have to become the green Martian. And what do we have to become? Can we actually ever become that? Like, how have you been running your life before you even knew about satsang? And also, we have not met in some hearts; it's the first time I'm seeing you here. But the fact is that if you were doing such a great job of running it, then we would not even show up in satsang.

So we've tried. Mostly those who come to satsang, mostly—it doesn't have to be here—they are looking for a new approach. We are tightening the life, taking care of things, or trying this and that and the other, but it doesn't seem to last in peace, last in contentment. So you know, and this is a very common question. This comes in, you know why this is? Because in a way, you know it is because when we were protesting, 'Why do I need to learn all this stuff?' you think that this is this and that is that and this is the way we have to be and all of that. You were told because without this stuff you cannot run your life. Our parents told us, society told us, 'Reverse this mind to life.' And now as we see that everything is just fine without me having to be just constantly a limited time, I mean the same protest is coming. That is the whole reasoning why with which we were holding this stuff up: that because of this I am able to run my life. And now I just let go, everything is fine, God is here.

This is because you are taught that all this stuff is important because using this you do that and all that. But you look at the doer, you look at desire, you look at duality—all these three Ds, let me be ego, and they're all made up. And so I was saying, how do you move your hand? Nobody knows how you do it. We don't know how to move a finger, how to run this life out of the time, out of the wheel design. I'm going to go and again I'm telling you the same thing, which is that if X and Y are opposites and I'm negating X, it doesn't mean that Y is true. Because in this paradigm of doing and not doing, both in my view are doing. In the waking state you may say, 'Ah,' and then today we shall seem quite confident about it as we spoke. 'I don't need to do anything.' So is that okay? You're not doing any of this anyway. So what is the opposite of that? 'Therefore I'm just going to sit in bed all day, I'm not going to do anything.' But that's also doing. They're not doing.

If X and Y are opposites and I'm negating X, it doesn't mean that Y is true. Because in this paradigm of doing and not doing, both, in my view, are doing. In the waking state, you may say, 'Ah,' and then today we shall seem quite confident about it as we spoke. 'I don't need to do anything.' So is that okay? You're not doing any of this anyway. So what is the opposite of that? 'Therefore, I'm just going to sit in bed all day. I'm not going to do anything.' But that's also doing. The 'not doing'—we decided to do the 'not doing' because now I've been told that I don't need to do. There's no escaping activity in this waking state, but we mistakenly call it doing. Even that which we call inactivity is also activity. Lying down in bed, you might say, is inactivity, but is there not activity? You are lying down; the body is lying down. So there is no escaping activity in the waking state. You mistakenly call it, take it to be, individual doing. So to do and not to do does not apply to reality. It only applies once you make a boundary around yourself using notions.

So the question of whether I have free will or not is secondary. It has to be, isn't it? Secondary to who this 'I' is in the first place. Is it free will or God's will? That is the popular question, isn't it? So then, if there is free will, who would it belong to? That is, of course, the question worth exploring. And then if you see there is only God, then the question itself... I don't ever want to... it's not for my... it gets to the root of all of this elusive desire of duality. Whose life are you speaking of? 'I'll govern this life.' How is it turned out if I did? Somebody tried to govern this life? We don't have to imagine; we just have to go to work and see all of everybody. But you see how it is just... but then clearly, life is just like every heartbeat, every breath, every hand movement, every gesture, and every word, every blink, and everything. And don't go half-measures; it's fully foolish if you see that you can't do it. It's just not possible.

And then the one question that remains for many is this one bit: 'Okay, okay, all this I understand. God is running most of this, but do I have that little free will or not?' So then the question is: you who? Okay, you have full freedom, but who are you that has it? Then you see that this distinction—God's will and free will—itself is bogus. All is moving on its own, you know? And it's all on one side. No, meaning surrender is a very beautiful exploration. Once you surrender to God or to whatever we are devoted to, are we asking for like a daily progress report? 'How are you running my life? I surrendered to you, but it's not looking good. I thought I'll surrender to you and the forces...' So we feel like surrender is some sort of a cheat code in this game. We used to have them in the games in my generation; we used to be able to enter some things on the keyboard and you're going to God mode. Often with the lottery, you could not be shot, nothing could happen.

All the Masters have said surrender and be sorted, but it doesn't come with this sort of guarantee of what should happen. And the way I feel like when I say 'truth for truth's sake,' it's really very often every time I've said it, I feel like it's more misunderstood than understood. That is also fine. But just like if there were no perks to this, there are no benefits at all, then would it still be worth it? Because it's true. Have you seen?

So it really starts off in this view, also in this way, that we want to go beyond the three, or actually they could be even this. As you see, as you're using the term inherently, this inherent sense that those three or four will get better. The idea, the door into this, can seem that way. The door can have a lot of marketing: 'Just surrender and you will have this and that.' I'm not saying any of this is lies, but I'm saying when you open the door, you might not find what you expected. Next. Now you have to quickly say bye to my relatives and come back in a couple of minutes.