Sharing Pointers from Ashtavakra Gita 1.1 - 1.5 (Day 2) - 28th September 2016

Then he says: 'You have no caste or duties. You're invisible, unattached, formless. You are the witness of all things. Be happy.' Since it was written many years ago, then we know that the caste system was prevalent in India at that time. It seems like political incorrectness that I'm talking about caste, but we are just looking at this from a higher perspective, which is to see that when the illusion of personhood is not there, then the attributes which can be attached to this so-called person also drop, you see? The person drops. It's important that he says 'no duties.' So not only are the other attributes dropping, but also the sense of doership dissolves. Duties must be to that idea that we had about ourselves—that 'I have to do something,' you see? Now these duties also drop. So the way to look at this is to see that no attributes and no doership can then remain, you see? Because he goes on to explain that you are invisible, unattached, formless; you are the witness of all things. Be happy.

You are invisible, unattached, formless; you're the witness of all things. Be happy. First is the dissolution of personhood, no personal attributes. And what remains then? Without attributes, this exists. What he says—'invisible'—actually means without any attributes. 'Unattached'—that which is without attributes, this awareness, cannot attach to something in reality, you see? So all attachments were about this idea of the person, never truly about that which we are. So that we discussed yesterday—that what we say about attachment is to call something in this realm 'mine.' And the 'mine' implies that there is a 'me' that owns something. But we are then not talking about the truth of what we are; we are talking about the imagined one. You are invisible, unattached, and formless.

Now for the seeker, he might enjoy the sound of these words, but actually, if you were to try and find what is invisible, unattached, and formless, it is very frustrating. How will you discover that? If this is about discovery, how are we to find that which is unattached and formless? How do we start even looking for it? Where do we go? This is the whole point when the seeker shows his frustration eventually in Satsang, saying, 'What am I doing here? I'm not really getting anything,' you see? 'I have been coming here and initially some joy and peace was there, but even that is gone.' This happens in Satsang also. 'I've been coming for so many months and it was nice, but now I just feel like it's a waste of time. I'm not finding anything at all. Even that I knew, I have forgotten. Now I can't even speak knowledgeably about anything,' you see? So in that, frustration is encapsulated because what is the discovery? We are not discovering anything phenomenally tangible. Being this invisible, unattached, and formless—but is the frustration warranted? And things we know this already. It is only our mind which cannot fathom this, you see?

So when we go back, we contemplate, we look at these things, and I have given you the tools for it. That's why I asked you: are you aware now? Is your finding of this awareness something that is visible? Does it have a form? Is it attached? Even to say that of something, we see that this content—that which we are aware of—keeps changing. But to be able to say 'I am aware of it' means I am already aware that there is this awareness here. Very slowly. It is not confusing; only the mind wants to fight this in a big way. I am only simply saying that to be aware of something, you must first be aware of awareness. Otherwise, how would you say 'I am aware of it,' you see? Just like to be able to say 'I am smelling this, I am seeing this, I am hearing this,' we must first be aware what smelling is, hearing is, seeing is. In the same way, to say 'I am aware of something,' you must know what 'aware' is. Hey, I am that which doesn't have any attributes—invisible in that way, and formless.

So then what happens is: yes, awareness is here. But even in this statement 'awareness is here,' there is a tendency for the mind to create some distance between awareness and what this means. 'Yes, I know awareness is here.' That's why I have given you another tool, which is: who is aware of this awareness? Use this one: who is aware of this awareness? Those of you who are open enough, you'll find that this is the recognition of the Self. 'I' is this awareness. Finding that 'I,' I am formless, I am unattached, and I am not a physical object in this realm with attributes. Invisible. So this is the recognition of the no-thing, the unborn, the eternal that we speak about. Who is aware of the awareness? 'I' is this. Is this 'I' distinct from awareness? No. There I find no separation. There is nowhere where 'I' is but awareness is not, or awareness is but 'I' am not.

And also then the sage has given us a way to find this also. He says: 'You are the witness of all things.' Before we come to the 'be happy' part, this phrase is very important. He says 'all things.' Important—he doesn't say 'some things.' He says 'all things.' That means only that which is witnessed exists. Yeah? Is it too far to go? But even physics is coming to these conclusions, isn't it? Nothing exists without the observer. So does that mean that this is our dream? Because if I am the witness of all things, that means only that which I am the witness of exists. Just like in a dream, if I get a newspaper from America, then the newspaper exists, but does the America exist? Just like this, this waking state is just like the dream state. That which exists in our attention, that exists, because he says 'you are the witness of all things.' It's a very direct statement. Don't allow the mind to misinterpret it. It's very, very direct. It needs no... you are the witness of all things. Very often in Satsang we have said that the universe is that which you are aware of.

Then he says, 'Be happy.' And this seems to be like at a different level from where he was speaking just now. So I feel this is also very beautiful because the sage is saying that once we know this, is there any reason to be unhappy? In fact, this must be cause for celebration, isn't it? That I am no-thing, that I am that which cannot be hurt, that which is formless and unattached, that has no attributes, and yet I witness the play of this realm. Yeah? So much fearlessness, so much cause. Oh, so the sage is sitting in a sulky seeker face here as you know this, but to have 'be happy' as a person, you see? Many times we talk like this. The sage says this: you are not a person, you're not a person, you are not a thing. You are not even consciousness; you're that which is aware even of consciousness. That which God takes birth and God goes back to sleep. What must you be? How is it possible for us to suffer now? Before he says 'be happy' you...