Silent Retreat - Satsang 1, 7 Oct. 2016

So then Ashtavakra says, 'You are not earth, water, fire, or air, nor are you empty space.' This is very important. We cannot find ourselves this way in phenomena. And this phenomenal realm is made up of earth, water, fire, air. And very often we come to the seeing that 'I'm not this elemental, phenomenal, atomic, molecular,' you see. And then what do we come to? We say, 'I am space.' And space is close, but even this space you are not. Even a void you are not, because your mind is trying to help you by giving you visuals. You say, 'I am none of this, so what am I? I am this space.' Many of you visualize and you get stuck in your visualizations. You will imagine some dark space, emptiness. Who sees even that? So not even a space you are. Who is witness to even this dark space or white light? Can that be seen? Is that spacious, that witnessing? How spacious is it?

This is where we leave the mind behind because the mind cannot fathom this. The mind can only work with forms, names and forms. So when the Sage says, 'You're not earth, water, fire, or air, nor are you empty space,' what is left for the mind to do? Forget about it. You will not fathom this that way. You will fathom this only with your direct seeing. You will not be able to conceptualize this. The other day I was saying, can you imagine nothing? Can you think about nothing? Think about something which has no attribute. Can we do it? That is why it seems like this spiritual journey can be so frustrating at times. Even in satsang, sometimes somebody gets angry with me, says, 'I've been here so long and what have I got at the end of the day? Really, what have I got? I'm nothing.' You see, that's the point. So if that is frustrating, we are missing the point actually. Because you have to look at this idea of getting something, of understanding something, and see what that would be about. That means there would be some lack in you right now. Truth would have something missing and now that would be given to you to complete you. That's a complete lie. Nothing for you in that way, you see. Only a mirror.

So the Sage is shining his mirror upon us saying, 'You are not earth, water, fire, or air, nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as awareness alone, the witness of these.' Done. No? Pretty much done. 'You are not earth, water, fire, or air, nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as awareness alone, the witness of these.' Simple. Are you unaware right now? How do you know that you are aware? Do you see it? For everything else, you perceive it. Are there flowers on this table? You see, you say yes. Are you breathing right now? You perceive it and say yes. How do you know that you are aware? Do you perceive awareness? What form does it have? What are the attributes of this? Size, shape, color, something? Do we perceive any attribute? Are you aware now? How many of us are aware now? How you know? It's not trivial. I know to the mind it might sound like this is just crazy talk. You want to write it or you want to ask? Ask, let's see. Let's see what it is. Yes.

But awareness itself knows itself. How you know this? Because like you just explained, I need my eyes to see an object or something, but I don't need any senses to perceive my own beingness.

Yes. But even to say beingness already implies that there is a sense of presence, a sense of being. You are aware of the sense of being, you see. So there's a qualitative distinction, although the distinction is not real. There is a seeming qualitative distinction between Consciousness and that which is aware even of Consciousness, isn't there?

So, uh, when I, when this, this knowing is, is you knowing. Yes. Yeah. No. And if I need something else to know knowing, then it's just not... I don't feel that I need someone else to come confirm my own existence or presence to me. Maybe something else, but I don't need any...

So leave presence also behind. So my know... you say 'I am aware of presence,' you see. So 'aware of' keeps changing; that is the content. So leave the 'of.' You say 'I am aware.' What does this already mean? You know. And the 'I' that knows, which one? Knowing 'I' and, uh, an knowing things?

Are you saying that this 'I' is knowingness itself? This 'I' knowingness itself. Oh, if I say... but then it's like, uh, Ashtavakra is saying that the glimpse of this, that I am this knowing and awareness, and any amount of thoughts are not going to change that. Yes. But when the attachment is coming, this, the feeling of knowing seems to get lost.

No, the attention is moved off basically.

Okay, so attention moved.

Attention moved. So what happened to knowing? It's still, it's there. It knows what's at the backdrop. Even to say attention moved on, don't we have the knowingness of this? But the backdrop remains the same, isn't it? Just now when you asked this question that 'What is this attachment? To know Detachment I must...' so I, I really looked and I said, what, what is this attachment? Attachment is not to be... attachment is to just be happy. Attachment to being... the attachment is to happiness, yes. Always to happiness, yes. And that gives us the most unhappiness, yeah. You see, attachment is to happiness and so... okay, let's go into this. To say that something is 'mine' is how attachment is normally understood, isn't it? But this 'mine' implies that there is a 'me.' And we label in this realm of constantly changing appearances, we try to hold on to something saying, 'This is mine.' This is foolishness because everything in this phenomenal is constantly changing. What will last? You see, we don't even know for sure that it is this body that will wake up tomorrow morning, you see. So attachment to objects in this phenomenal realm is pure foolishness because already we know that it is changing. Everything is constantly changing, you see. Then as we dig deeper, we find that what are our greatest attachments? And you can find them out right now. What are you most fearful about? You say everything is okay, but this should not happen to me. These are your greatest attachments. And it's pure ignorance, you see, because that which you're saying should not happen is going to happen one day. So attachment is to label something as 'me' or 'mine.' Then it is not... it is part of the play of Consciousness, the movement of Consciousness. So we say that 'I want control over my life,' which means that my life should only have certain states. And the state I would like, you know, as if you're giving an order in a restaurant, is that 'I would like the state of happiness, please.' And life says no, you see. So freedom is not a state. Freedom must be the allowing of all states to come and go. Now that, funnily enough, is happiness. We're not even concerned with happiness; that is...

It is part of the play of Consciousness, the movement of Consciousness. So we say that 'I want control over my life,' which means that my life should only have certain states. And the state I would like, you know, as if you're giving an order in a restaurant, is that 'I would like the state of happiness, please.' And life says no, you see. So freedom is not a state. Freedom must be the allowing of all states to come and go. Now, that funnily enough is happiness. We are not even concerned with happiness; that is happiness. And we attach ourselves to only a certain state: 'I want happiness, I want joy, I want bliss, I want enlightenment, I want freedom.' These are just ideas, as if life will dance to the tunes of the non-existent one, because the 'I' that wants these things, we cannot even find it. And the 'I' that is here, we constantly deny. This is the upside-down world of the mind, you see. The 'I' that wants something that we cannot find; the true 'I' which is always here that we refuse to look at, isn't it?

So she says that 'I am that knowingness itself.' How many of you would agree? Very good. So when the question was asked, 'How is knowledge to be achieved?' this is what we are talking about. And also the concept 'I am knowingness' or 'I am awareness,' which is the same thing, will not help us. It has to be seen now. Now, who is witnessing all of this? Who is the witness of everything that has an attribute? What is that? That's why I've given you these questions to make it simpler. I ask you: Are you aware now? You say yes. And who is aware of this awareness? Don't let your mind come in now and say, 'But this is too abstract, too confusing.' It is very direct. You say, isn't it, 'I am aware.' So who is this 'I' that is aware? Is the one sitting next to you telling you you are aware? No. It is known. But is it a concept? No. This is the unchanging truth of who you are.

You say in sleep state there is nothing. I say, but there is 'I' to know that there is nothing, otherwise are you just making it up? You see, I woke up at 7:00 a.m. What changed? What is the change that happened? Is it only that objects appeared, or is there something more fundamental that changed? Many times we say we wake up but we didn't open our eyes; nothing was experienced sensorially, no object was sensed. Then how do—what is changed between sleep state and waking state? There's the birth of the sense that 'I exist,' 'I am,' you see. So now the state changed. Okay, so suppose it's like we're looking at a window and it was dark and suddenly there was light. If you were not there to look at it, would you be able to report this change? No. Now, so if there's nothing in sleep and there's a sense 'I am' in waking state, there must be this 'I' which is the primal witness of this change, which exists throughout. So this 'I' which does not sleep or wake up is this awareness, is this knowingness itself. So I'm giving you all of these pointers, but don't take any of them as concepts. Use them to check for yourself. Liberation is to know yourself as awareness alone, the witness of these.

The fourth verse is: 'Abide in awareness with no illusion of person; you will be instantly free and at peace.' Now, he has said that you are awareness alone. In the previous verse, he said you are awareness alone. Now why is he saying 'abide in awareness'? But I am awareness alone. No, if I am awareness, then why do I need to abide in it? This is the question we must ask the sage. What's going on? You said I am awareness alone, then you say abide in awareness. What does it mean? So he has clarified this. He says, 'with no illusion of person,' you see. What does this mean? It's very simple actually. Some of us, we have children. So as when we play with the children, the child might say, 'Let's play doctor-doctor.' So we pick up the pretense of being a doctor while we continue to be who we are. So we've picked up the pretense of being a person while we have always continued in reality to be awareness alone. Therefore, the abidance in the Self or abidance in awareness only means not to pick up the pretense of personhood.

Right now, in this moment, you don't have the pretense of personhood. You don't have it. You are free right now. You are free. You are, unless you pick up the pretense by picking up your next thought. Show me how you are bound without buying a thought. Show me how you are suffering without buying your next thought. That's why Papaji said that we need nothing for this natural happiness, but we need something to be unhappy. What does it mean? It only means this. So this is the bad habit that we are here to cure. This is the rehab for this habit. How many of you see that unless you pick up your next thought, you are not bound, you are not suffering? And don't have to go into peer pressure; if you feel really, then you can say. Can we really suffer without having something to suffer about, having an idea about? Do children—do they suffer before they are two years old? They are in pain, all right. The instant the sensory pain is gone, they're back to smiling and laughing because they're not thinking about, 'Oh, this should not happen to me. Why do these things happen? I'm such a victim.' Victimhood is the favorite position of the ego.

So the sage said, 'Abide in awareness with no illusion of person.' So right now, you see, personhood is a pure pretense that 'I exist personally.' It is just an idea. For three years now, I've had a bet in satsang: you show me the person and I give you $1,000. It is not—I have not lost $1,000 yet, and I'm becoming more and more confident every day. Why? Because we keep hearing these things these days; it's so easily available. Earlier, a sage would tell you, 'Come, you stay in my ashram twenty years, sweep the floors, then I will tell you one verse like this.' But here every day we hear, 'You're not the person, you're not the person.' I know I'm not the person. Do you realize what it means? You are not a person. What are you then, really? We are not speaking about some mythical stories, fairy tales. There is no person here. There is the appearance of a body here, but this body doesn't want freedom. This body is not concerned about special relationship, money. Who is this one? One cannot find this one, you see. It's a myth. It is the idea of separation which never really happened.

So can we at least make a deal that till you find this person, you will not believe in its existence? Fair deal? Fair or no? He doesn't look so convinced. It's very scientific. Till we find the existence of this separate entity, at least till then, can we not give it our belief? What is the trouble? The trouble is that this one has a very good lawyer, you see. The non-existent one in this play, in this Leela of personhood, is a very good lawyer called the mind. It says, 'But, but, but I want this. But, but, but what about this? What about this?' Right now it is saying all kinds of things. Who is it representing? You ask it, 'Where is the client?' Why do you need a voice to speak to yourself? You don't ask these fundamental questions. If it is my voice, then what it is telling me I should already know. Why do I need this voice to speak to myself? If it is known, why do you need this mind saying, 'You want this, I want this, I want freedom, I want peace, I want happiness, I want...' Who is it talking to? We picked up the wrong number and it goes on speaking to us, and we don't ask who is speaking. Who do you want to speak to? Either question, at least ask one of the two, you see.

So this is the habit that we are here to look at. In this moment, can we allow this voice to just come and go? Can we not resist anything at all? And with this simple allowing, you will not pick up this illusion of being a person. That's why I say, if you want to see God pretending to be a person, believe your next thought. If you want to see God, don't believe your next thought. The trouble with that is that the ego also likes this God. 'Abide in awareness with no illusion of person; you will be instantly free and at peace.' Everything is just so absolute, you see. If you just abide in awareness with no illusion of person, you will be instantly free and at peace. Done.

Then the sage says in verse five: 'You have no caste or duties. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the witness of all things. Be happy.' So we must remember that these words were written many years ago where something called the caste system was prevalent in the country. It sounds a bit archaic now, so let's look at a contemporary way to look at this. You have no caste, you have no real separation attributes. There is no distinguishing between what we are. We are one. Not only are we one, we are also in the phenomenal play; we are the same. So we are not distinguishable, and neither do we have duties because we are not the doers in the first place. That which we have presumed ourselves to be, if that doesn't exist, how can it do something? Imagine any person. Imagine some person, give it all kinds of attributes. Really do it. Imagine some person, color it up nicely, give it all kinds of character. Imagine—everybody has a person in the imagination, yes or no? Now ask that one to give you a glass of water. Can you ask that one to pick up this glass of water? Although this again sounds trivial, this is what we are doing every day. We are imagining ourselves to be a person and then we are saying, 'Okay, what should I do?' When we say 'What should I do?' we're talking about this mythical, imaginary person. So that which does not exist cannot do anything. That one cannot lift a blade of grass, forget a glass of water. That's why the sense of doership is false.

All of this is one movement in Consciousness. Even science is coming to these conclusions, that every energy level of a single atom, the position of a single atom, changes all other atoms in the universe. So everything is so deeply interconnected. Even in the realm of science, we are understanding these things. What is moving is moving on its own. You want to say? Please give her the mic. Give her the mic, they'll hear your question then, otherwise it's out.

But then who is the one who came to the retreat? You know, who planned it? Who?

Who is the one that is here? You already said that the person is imagined, you see. But who is that which is here that we are looking for? So what is it that we find? I give you a tip: Can you stop being now? Can you stop being? So this sense of being, this is Consciousness. This is God, Atma, 'I am,' the sense of existence. See, in the light of this Consciousness, all of this movement is flowing on itself, you see. This realm, many realms you have experienced. You see, I had a dream last night and that also, pleasure, pain, everything is experienced. Time and space is experienced. So in the light of your own Consciousness, this world is being played out. So when you dream at night, are you just the dream character, the dream body which you are presuming yourself to be at that time, or are you the entire dream? Or at least you can say that the entire dream is projected within your Consciousness, isn't it? So it is the same here. This light of Consciousness, this beingness, is all that we find. And when this light of beingness is here, then this world of change, this world of movement, flows on its own. That's why my Master says you are not the thinker of your thought, nor are you the doer of your action. Who is he referring to you as? A person, you see. Why? Because you don't exist in that way at all. So when the Master says you don't exist, it means that you don't exist personally. But what exists? What is undeniable? That 'I am,' you see. So Maharaj said the only truth that can be spoken is that 'I am,' but ultimately even that is untrue. But he'll come to that. For now, to see that all of this drama, all of this Leela, starts in the presence of 'I am,' isn't it? Have you ever experienced the world without you? Not possible. You give existence to this existence, you see. This world of duality operates in this 'I' and 'other,' you see. 'I am' which gives existence to everything else. So this being, this Consciousness, it is said in Sanskrit...

You see, so Maharaj said the only truth that can be spoken is that 'I am' but ultimately even that is untrue. But he'll come to that. For now, to see that all of this drama, all of this Leela, starts in the presence of I am, isn't it? Have you ever experienced the world without you? Not possible. You give existence to this existence. You see, this world of duality operates in this 'I and other.' You see, I am, which gives existence to everything else. So this being, this Consciousness, it is said in Sanskrit—what does it mean? You are the one doer and you are the one experiencer.

Now we'll take a bit of a diversion from the Ashtavakra Gita. It's an important point because most of us have some concept of God, you see. But what have we done with that concept of God? We have started making business deals with that concept. See, 'You do this, then I will be happy.' But that is half surrender. The truth is, which is full surrender: if You are the doer, then You must also be the experiencer. So this one Consciousness, this being, this God, is the one doer and one experiencer. Therefore, to come to the realization of God, once it is seen 'I am that I am'—you see it in the Bible, it is said God said 'I am that I am'—this is the realization of the presence of God. All of this is a play of the light of Consciousness on the screen of Consciousness, played out by Consciousness itself.

So that's why I said that if you want to see God pretending to be a person, then just believe your next thought. So the pretense or the belief in the individual identity is the opposite of surrender. It is the opposite of surrender because it means that I must exist separately and therefore I must have individual will, I must have my individual life, and I must have my individual sense of journey, any individual sense of direction. So what we're saying is: can we at least find this one? And we even incentivized it now, said okay, $1,000 if you find. Are we that attached to the idea that we are not open to the possibility that it might not exist? You see? So are we open to the possibility at least that this individual entity does not exist? That is what I mean by openness, you see. If you have a sliver of this openness, then the truth cannot escape us.

So what has happened for most of us is that we have been in this play pretending to be this person. I have this example as if everyone around us started telling us that you are a cat. Also the mind is telling her you're a cat. So everything says you're this cat. What is your job? To go after the next bowl of milk. So first what they said: 'Get a good education, then you'll be happy.' Then they said: 'Find a good partner, you'll be happy. Make lots of money, you'll be happy.' And we've seen through most of that. Most of us who are here have seen through most of that. I'm seeing that no, I'm not finding—I'm finding only momentary glimpses of happiness or joy.

Then they said, 'You know, everybody has been lying. Everybody's been lying. You find liberation, the ultimate bowl of milk, then you'll really be happy.' So we go about as a cat trying to find freedom for the cat. That is the biggest trouble in satsang, you see: the cat trying to find freedom, saying 'I'm not feeling it yet. My meowing is the same. My limbs are the same. Everything is the same. I'm not finding this nectar for the cat.' Then what happens? You come to a sage. Sage says, 'I have nothing for you.' Means I have nothing for you as a cat. But what I do have is a mirror to show you that you are not this cat at all. Are you willing to look?

Most, if you were to talk to just even in a spiritual ashram, if you were to talk to most people and say, 'Are you willing to consider that you are not a person?' most people say, 'Get away from me, man. What are you talking about?' You see? But some will be open to the possibility that no person actually ever existed, no cat actually ever existed. It was just an idea, a belief. So those who are open to this possibility will in super quick time see, 'Yes, it was just a fallacy. No entity here. All of this is appearing and dissolving within my one being,' you see.

So that's why it is asked—it is not asked everywhere here because we have the cat example—that's why I ask you: do you want freedom for the cat or do you want freedom from the cat? Because most of this world want something for the cat. That's why satsangs are probably the least popular because they have nothing for the cat, you see. Just a mirror to show you that there is no cat. The one that is doing all of this is the one that is experiencing all of this. That is one Consciousness. Isn't it? Sujata, what does that refer to? No, no, who is it pointing to? The form? This form? Now when we say Sujata is a very truthful person, you see, so this body can't be truthful. Who is the truthful person? The mind? The mind? It's good we're looking together, don't worry. The mind means what? Say it loud.

Ego.

The distinction between mind and ego, or are they the same? Okay, let me help a bit. So Bhagavan said that the mind is a bundle of thoughts. So what is our experience? We see that when a thought appears, we call that the mind. When there is no thought that appears, we call that no-mind. The Zen masters say no-mind. So mind is coming and going. So now, Sujata person, if it was just the mind, then the mind is here or not here? Be truthful. That which exists and doesn't exist, what is it referring to? For freedom, presumably. So who is it that wants this freedom?

That's a... I have to think about that because...

This is good. This is a beautiful contemplation. Please do, and I'll be happy to hear from you again about it. Because for you to contemplate this would mean that you're open to this possibility of what is being spoken here.

I am, actually. But only this is my last remaining doubt. Yes, it's the need to know or to understand who is performing, who's the doer of these actions. The mundane actions, I can... my mind wants to know, I guess, who is the one who performs all these? Who eats? Who drinks?

Yes, yes, yes. So there are two things that I want you to contemplate about this question. First is, let's make this question a multiple-choice question, you see. Who is the doer of all our mundane actions? You see? And also we can lose the distinction between mundane and larger actions because you must have heard of things like the butterfly effect and how everything actually can lead to bigger things. So we cannot... we pick up any small object, it changes the entire world, you see. So who's the doer of any action? What are the options? One is, first is the most popular belief: that there is a person here that decides to do this. That is what we're exploring. Is there such a person here? You see? That is the first option. Second option is: is it God? Is it Consciousness? Second option. Third option is: is it that which witnesses even this Consciousness, that which is aware even of 'I am'? So these are the three options. So will you contemplate between the three and tell me what you come up with?

I know I said... so the sage said, 'You have no caste or duties.' And we looked at this duties part. This 'duties' here implies doership. You are not the doer. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the witness of all things. So this 'invisible' is different from our usual idea of invisible because our usual idea of invisible is like the Invisible Man or Mr. India. He wears a watch, rolls the dial, and he becomes invisible, see? But he still has some attribute, isn't it? So it's just that his physical attributes are no longer seen, but he still has weight. When he slaps somebody, that one feels it, isn't it? So but this invisible is not that one. This means that you are attributeless. You have no color, shape, size. You can say about yourself phenomenally. And again I say, here is where the mind fails, you see. So he'll try some tricks. He'll try to distract you. He'll try to make you sleepy sometimes.

Personally, at the root of all thoughts is the idea of your individual existence, see. So when the first day when I said, 'Are you willing to go back as nothing?' it meant to see yourself as nothing, formless, unattached, and also rid yourself of all this idea. Can it be as simple as this? And who is really missing this? Can you not see that the witness of all that can be seen is itself formless? Who's missing this? See, because we are intimate, we are just few of us. We say witnessing. Witnessing and knowing is the same? You tell me.

So that's what I'm saying. From the mind, from the phenomenal point of view, when we... knowing means like the knowing the attributes of this object. So that is the small 'k' knowing. And this witnessing is just knowing its existence in a way without necessarily knowing any attribute.

You see, witnessing capital 'W', knowing capital 'K', and awareness capital 'A' all are the same. Knowing small 'k' is to know a concept of something. Witnessing small 'w' is the phenomenal perceiving of something. Awareness is related, again small 'a', is related to the mental knowing or mental awareness, conceptual knowing of something, or the physical perceiving of something. But what we're talking about is the capitals, the absolutes, see. So when the sages say knowingness, witnessing, the primal witnessing... you see, I stopped using that word so often because it gets confused with the phenomenal perceiving.

So that would be like in the deep sleep, the one who knows there was nothing, even though I am... I mean, and it knows, is the primal knowing. So when this 'I am' arises with the world, there's immediately a knowing that now something has come which was not there.

Yes.

But it felt like that the person also knows that.

No, the person is a product of this later. No, the person is a conceptual product then 'I am'.

So before coming to satsang and recognizing, being shown that the person is not there, before that, where the sense of the person was there, it felt like a bit illogical because you still knew that there was nothing there even before satsang. I knew there was nothing, but I knew that I must be there to know that nothing, yes? Right. So it felt like the person knew there was nothing and now the person knows... like I knew my dream, I knew my sleep was not there. It is not that there was a person there and now after satsang there is no person here. Our experience has always been one: there actually has been no person ever. It is always only awareness that is known to sleep and waking.

So then, like you just said, there was even when before satsang when the knowing was there that there was nothing, but I was there to... when I contemplated then I find, but who was the 'I' that was there?

Yes, very good. Who was this 'I' who was there? And because I guess I'm looking from the point of view again as a person, then I feel that I was there as... you know? Are you seeing how... but what was personal about it?

No, no, don't worry. I was there and I knew in the sleep state there was nothing. Now this 'I' that was there, what was personal about it?

Nothing.

Nothing. So we cannot call it person.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So there was... meaning there was no world, there was no sense of 'I am', no being, nothing, and yet there was... I mean, when we are there or experiencing there, you don't even miss anything. I mean, there's just no lack, there's no idea of any... many times the confusion that comes for many is that, 'But how can you say I was there?' You can say 'I was there' because is it a myth for you? If I say there's another state in which you see 100 rainbows, you see, that is something you'll say, 'But I have not experienced that. I don't think there's such a state.' But when I say about sleep, you say, 'Yes, of course, I went to sleep and I woke up,' you see. So you were not there in the most primal sense of existence as 'I am', and yet to be able to say this itself means that there was an 'I' which knows that even 'I am' was not there. Yeah. So but the same one is now also saying... the same one that was there has to be here to be able to answer that question. Of course. But then when I say the same...

Something you'll say, but I have not experienced that. I don't think there's such a state. But when I say about sleep, you say, 'Yes, of course, I went to sleep and I woke up,' you see? So you were not there in the most primal sense of existence as I am. And yet, to be able to say this itself means that there was an 'I' which knows that even 'I am' was not there. Yeah, so but the same one is now also saying the same one that was there has to be here to be able to answer that question, of course.

But then when I say the same one now, now I suddenly... the same one becomes a person. Feels... no, no, it feels like a person. You know, I mean, if I say just mentally, like question-answer, I know that it must be the awareness which is talking, okay? But like experientially, now I'm trying to just not be a mental answer, and experientially I'm coming to a recognition that there is no person. So it always must be the same one all along. It can't be this one then became that one became... even if it became, it's the same one who became this, became that. It's not that there's some three, four, five things. There must be only one. So when we say that, 'Oh, this person doesn't exist,' the person doesn't exist, somehow to understand the meaning that this person doesn't exist, meaning I who always am exist, not as I am that primal one, the Consciousness who knew there always is. And this person, when I feel that I'm not this, meaning doesn't exist in the sense it has to be an idea or something which can be gone away of, because I can't go away. I mean, I'm still here and I'm the knowing of my own existence always.

Very good, right. So somehow this same original one—I'm calling it the original one—has come into a conclusion. The person is not concluding he's a person. I, the original one, must be concluding I'm the person. Yes. Okay, this is confusing for you, so let's break it up a bit. Yeah, so there's no confusion in sleep state. No waking state, the being takes birth, Consciousness takes birth, I am. But when I say it, listen, listen, listen to this. So now this sense 'I am' appears and it is the same 'I' which is now 'am-ing' I am. It is not another one. There are not two now, you see? Some of you hear this sometimes, but that sounds dual. It is not. It is I am. It is not that there was an 'I' and now there's another which 'am'. It is 'I' itself, the dynamic aspect of itself, which now appears as I-am-ness.

Now, with the birth of this I-am-ness or the appearance of this I-am-ness comes the birth of all the powers that come along with it, you see? There's the power of attention, there's the power of belief, there's a power of gravity, there's a power of electricity, there's a power of magnetism. There's all of these forces that come into play, you see? Now, let's zero in on the power of belief. I am, before it believes something, remains unassociated, just as I am. Belief—that is the moment of biting the apple, the forbidden apple of knowledge—that it goes from this pure I-am-ness into pretending as if it is 'I am something,' you see? When it is pretending as if it is 'I am something,' that is what we call person. But just because it believed itself to be something doesn't give any tangible existence to this idea of the person. It is still only a belief, only an idea. So when it is said that you don't exist as a person, it means that you never actually existed. It was only a myth, only an idea. Just like the cat example, isn't it? The cat never existed.

So if I, when I say as I am, yes, and knowing even that I am is going to go away, yes, and the whole world goes away, yeah, like my whole dream goes away. I don't have to do anything, it just goes. But then it's going, and this waking state is also going, but my primal awareness, my original being, the original awareness is not going. Yes. And so if we say this person is just an idea, then the whole world is an idea. This whole... all magnetism, everything which we say came with this power of I am is also an idea.

It's a good point, but let's look at this even closer. Yeah, at least for this realm, yeah, we can say that they appear in this atomic and molecular way or in a phenomenal way. Yeah, the person is second-level delusion. Even here, we cannot find it. You see, how many atoms is the person made up of? That cat which we believed ourselves to be, what is the constituent of that? Even in the worldly way. That's why I say the person is second-level delusion.

This body, yeah, is not saying 'I am'. Yes, right, I figured that much. The dead body is not going to say 'I am'. So when awareness, 'I' awareness, wake up to this I-am-ness and I see this whole state, yes, can be any state—dream, waking, any state—and all the whole universe is playing. I'm really wanting to know why I want this body then. I mean, if I can experience everything without a physical body... like even this my sense of identity, it's just a sense, you know? And when you say 'Look, look where is,' I can see there's no physical person there, but there's a sense of being. And in this sense of being is also not physical. There's nothing physical or it's phenomenal because it goes, but there's nothing physical about it. It's also invisible in that sense. It's also not a thing. So why I want to take a body then?

You tell me. Why does a child want to play a computer game? Why do you want to read a novel? Because entertainment. That's why it's called a Leela, no? Now, in the Leela itself you're asking, in the Leela itself you're asking.

I'm not going to stop this now. I'm going... now this has to just really end. I mean, I'm really, really tired, and it's not a joke.

Yeah, now, now, who you're representing so far, it is very good. Now this one is one...

No, I'm representing the frustrated cat who wants to say, 'Now I...'

Why you picked this cat up? It was going so well. No, I was enjoying the question so much and this cat came up. I'm still saying, I'm still saying, okay, as I tell you one thing before you say your next thing: a cat trying to handle, get a handle over all of this, is going to be a very frustrated cat. You drop the cat because this is not for the cat, you see? Cat trying to get, 'Okay, I'm getting a hang of this. I am this awareness within which beingness is happening.' Then something... and as a cat, if you want to own this stuff, it's going to be too big for you. You're going to be pulled at your seam if you still feel you're a cat, you see? So forget about the cat.

Yeah, so the forgetting about the cat... before coming to satsang, there was not even a concept that I'm a cat. Okay, so after being pointed out...

No, no, the only concept was you're a cat. Yeah, you... before coming to satsang, we were completely addicted to the idea that 'I am a cat'. Yeah, I mean, there was not even a concept that this cat can be a concept. That's what I mean. There was not even a feeling or a doubt that 'I am a person'. It never... you know, mentally you can say, 'Yeah, I'm conscious, I'm aware,' but there was not even a single doubt in understanding or, you know, that openness that, 'No, no, this person is only a nonsense, you know, that it doesn't exist and you have to surrender this idea.' So having understood it or accepted and looked and seen, 'Okay, this is an idea,' but somehow... and maybe, no, maybe the sense of being completely and with full conviction, I can't seem to drop that. It doesn't go away.

No, no, you lost me. The sense of being? The sense of beingness or existence or whatever—not whatever—the sense of existence, yes, 'I am'. Now say 'I am'. It doesn't go. You know, when you say 'drop the person,' because the sense of being is not the person. The being will not go, you see? Yeah, it goes in sleep state, yeah. So from this side of the window, yeah, you cannot say... if you consider yourself to be an object in this realm, then for that, the sense of being is timeless. It will not... if you consider yourself to be an object within this realm, obviously the sense of being is the Father and it is timeless. It is going to be eternal from that perspective. Once you represent yourself as this awareness, only from this perspective of awareness can you say that even the sense of being is coming and going, you see? Even the sense of being is coming and going. Only from the perspective of awareness can we speak like that. But for an object in the realm, if you're pretending to be an object within this phenomenal, like this body, this is the God. This God does not go for objects within itself. Now what you want to do with the cat? You want to give it a good burial or...

Yes, I... so coming back to where, as where as this presence of I am, which now I can accept that I don't have to give up, yes, of course, in a sense. Of course or not? Now, no, now don't worry, I'm not going to police you. Find that there is something there which is hanging on the concept 'me'. But can we look together? Why am I... why I as I am, even the thought, like I said, it's all in here, right, in this drama mind. Why do I need a body to experience? If I want to experience, 'I am' is enough. Why feel this need of a body?

Yes, when this I am wants to experience itself with this instrument called the body, it uses this instrument called the body. When it wants to experience itself out of the body, it has out-of-body experiences. When it wants to experience itself as spirit, it experiences itself as all kinds of spirits. Right now, our current experience seems to predominantly be this one. There is nothing impossible for Consciousness. It will experience itself in the way it wants. Now, this one which is saying that 'Why is Consciousness doing this right now?' and 'Is Consciousness limiting itself within the body?' is not true. It is the Leela of this one that wants to play as if it is a body right now. It must be enjoying this sense of the body. But many in this room have also had out-of-body experiences.

Yeah, so have I. I mean, sometimes you... yeah, but you know, no, I don't want to get lost. So this, you said the Leela, the one in the Leela is asking this question, 'Why am I behaving as this body?' So again, I'm in that cat state asking the one who's...

Exactly, yeah. That's what you say. The one in the Leela is the cat. The pretend one. The pretend one saying, 'But why my role is asking why?' Because it is your will. The character and the play is God's will.

For me to ask this?

No, even this, yes. Yeah, because if I never answer is also the same. Because if I, even as a person, I not ask this somehow... I mean, in the role of the person, I would not have come to satsang. Not a blade of grass moves without it being God's will, and therefore your will fundamentally.

So also in the contemplation in the morning, when I was like... you know, one Guruji said in some satsang, I just heard this a day or so ago, and he says, 'I'm showing the mirror. I'm only showing you a mirror. But if you've never seen a mirror, you'll ask me, "How do I operate the mirror? What should I do with this mirror?"' you know? And then it really struck me. It's that really there's nothing you do, just look. And I'm showing you by my own beingness, I'm showing you. So what effort you have to do to look in the mirror? No, also besides how to operate and all these things, yeah, the point is the mirror is showing you nothing.

Yeah, she's like, 'Don't see anything.' Yes, that is the point.

No, but... so when after in satsang with you, with Guruji, one can see, see or understand that, 'No, I'm not a thing. I'm not a thing.' Exactly. I am, I am, but I'm not a thing. Yes. And you can really see that the presence or whatever is also unidentified in any way. Yes, it's just presence. And you feel the presence of God when you're there. You feel, 'Here He is,' because I... you know, God inside yourself.

Well, so yeah, 'Here He is,' which is very beautiful. Of course, more accurate, or 'Here I am,' more accurate.

'Here He is,' that's more accurate. No, I mean, when you're there with, in this presence, or you feel the presence of God, because...

Yes, and you can really see that the presence or whatever is also unidentified in any way. Yes, it's just presence and you feel the presence of God when you're there. You feel, 'Here He is' because I—you know, God inside yourself. Well, so yeah, 'Here He is,' which is very beautiful, of course. More accurate, or 'Here I am' more accurate? 'Here He is,' that's more accurate.

No, I mean when you're there with, you know, in this presence or you feel the presence of God, because me—but there you recognize it instantly, you know? And you recognize it. There is some separation sometimes still. Let's look at this. Yeah, the outer form of the Guru is the most transparent reflection of your innermost being. It is the most beautiful reflection of your innermost being, most direct, most clear reflection of your innermost being. But even the outer form of the Guru ultimately is a reflection. It is your own God presence which is being reflected. So this being 'Here He is' is pointing you to 'Here I Am.' The Satguru is this I-amness itself, unassociated, you see? That is why it is a mirror, no? It's still a reflection.

I just want to stay with her and I want—I want to because it's very good.

Okay. Verse number six, Ashtavakra says: 'Right and wrong, Pleasure and Pain exist in mind only. They are not your concern. You neither do nor enjoy. You are free.' So this is like your question. You neither do nor enjoy. What is this 'one' referring to? The non-existent one. 'Not your concern' implies that the same thing—you don't even exist. How could any of this be your concern? Because you neither do nor enjoy. Same thing what we said: you are the doer and you are the enjoyer. 'Enjoy' here, by the way, means to experience. Right and wrong, of course, are just interpretations. Pleasure and pain—sometimes also in satsang we bundle up not only the energy constructs of thoughts but also similar energy constructs like emotions, like the sensations, pleasure and pain. We bundle all of that up sometimes and we say all of that is the mind, to that definition of the mind.

So without right and wrong, all our stories lose their power, isn't it? All our judgments, all our difficulties. And many of us have explored this: the need to be right seems to be a very, very primal need of this mythical separate identity. Need to be right. Why? Because its only job has been to prove its existence. When it actually doesn't exist, it needs to be proven right. 'I do exist. I am a person. What do you mean?' So it's used to this. The need to be right. Often it is said, 'Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?' And very often in this worldly play, they are on opposing sides. And many times we choose this false sense of self-righteousness over very natural happiness.

So all these bundle of concepts that we collected about ourselves, then we want to protect them through our need to be right. Our refusal to throw them out is our hanging on to the idea that they must be right. 'I have collected them for a reason.' It's just like saying that suppose you were building a house brick by brick over fifty years. You build this house brick by brick, then someone comes and says that, you know, there's going to be a road coming over this house, so you just have to give it up. Even if you can afford it, because so much investment has gone into the building of this one, we want to give it some hope, you see? Because so much investment has gone into the cat identity, we want to at least give it a decent burial. So, 'At least give me something. Give me a halo, give me some bliss, at least something. May I be considered an enlightened person?'

There is no such thing as an enlightened person. If you want to be an enlightened cat, then lifetime after lifetime you will have the same conversation in different halls, in different ashrams, in different physical forms, but you'll not make it. You'll play this role over and over again because nobody can make an enlightened person out of you. Freedom is from the person. And as God, actually, we are entitled to this play. It's fine. A million lifetimes is nothing for the Infinite. For the Eternal, what is a million lifetimes? Nothing. It's a blink of an eyelid. You want to say something? Yes, yes. We won't record your face, but at least we need the audio.

So, this is my attempt to answer your question, please. When the I Am wants to experience limited itself—limitation—yes, and it wants to experience existence through senses, yes, then that's where you need to perform the actions. Because as the limited body, I need to feed and clothe it, so I will then need to do certain things to make that happen, right? And then the sensory enjoyments. Yes, I think—and this is the difficult one for me—I think even the suffering is what that one wants to experience, to know what it feels like.

Very good, very good. Yes, this is difficult for many, but it's completely true. It's completely true that even this suffering is being experienced because it is our will to experience it. This I Am wants a taste of this suffering because it wants the taste of all contrasts. That's why often I take this example which is not very palatable; it's also—it can seem repulsive to some who are sensitive. Like this, you see: in this realm of appearances, all contrasts are available. If there are sages, there are also serial killers, axe murderers. So are they not Consciousness? They are. So this is one Consciousness that is playing in all dual ways, you see? Good and bad, truth and lies. And we do not actually know what makes good 'good,' you see? Just that in this play on this realm, it seems like there's an internal compass of some sort which guides us towards that which is good. Even a child knows that lying is wrong somehow, even if they've not learned it from their parents. Is it the programming of this realm?

But for Consciousness, which is the impersonal experiencer, they are all the sugar and spice of this experience, actually. So you're absolutely right that Consciousness experiencing itself, wanting to play in a limited form as if it is the body-mind complex, it then conjures up this idea of being a person and then gives it these two D's: the D of Desire and the D of Doership. You see, these are the main two D's. 'What's in it for me? What's in it for me? What's in it for me?' Every situation we go into: 'What's in it for me?' You see? And not only 'What's in it for me?'—'Me first' and if possible, 'Me only.' And you also had in the satsang that it's most irritating if somebody in the satsang seems to be getting it but I am not getting it. If nobody was getting it, it's fine by me. So not only is it 'What's in it for me?' but 'Me first' and 'Me only' if possible. It's true, that's how it operates.

The mind is—so the Mahamantra of the mind is 'What's in it for me?' which means desire. Is it desire? Then when this one seems to achieve it in some way, then, 'Okay, now what should I do? What should I do? What should I do? What should I do? What did I do? Why did he do? Why did she do?' Doership, doership, doership. These two main legs of the ego: desire and doership. That is why, although these things which you are discovering are so obvious, you see, but there's a lot of investment which has gone into our doership also. There can be investment in others' doership. We had one come to Guruji once and she said, 'Yes, it seems pretty clear to me that I don't exist, but I just can't fathom that my husband doesn't exist.' You see? So very often it can be like this, that we seem to drop the idea that 'I am the doer,' but it still seems like everybody else around me is the doer. So that then more and more feeds our victim identity.

All our guilt and right—those who are attracted to guilt will say, 'Oh yes, yes, all the good things that happen to me, God is doing, but all these bad things, I am the doer of them.' So they feel guilty. Those who are attracted to pride will take credit for all the good stuff, and then one bad thing happens—supposedly bad thing happens—they go to God crying, 'Why are you doing this to me?' So all of this is stuck: guilt, regret, remorse, pride. All of these are made up of this idea, false idea of doership. Once doership goes, then the ego cannot survive for too long. Once we see that there is nobody who is the doer, or there is one doer which is Consciousness—same thing—then you see that it is like the oxygen mask has been taken off from the ego. The nutrition of doership has been deprived. It's very good. I'm very happy that you're looking like this.

Just to put it simply, the video game is enjoyed when you're able to relate to the character, you see? So you put on the video game, James Bond, you've got ten missions. But if the voice doesn't come and say, 'Mr. Bond, your mission is...' you cannot relate to the character. Same with this mind. This voice is saying, 'This is what you have to do. This is you, the doer.' And with that, we get attached to this idea of being Mr. Bond. You want to do this now. As doership is dropping and we see that this play, this game, is moving on its own, you'll find a great sense of ease will come because it seems like this big burden of doership which has been carried—then you just find the hand moving on its own. Mind comes post facto and says, 'Oh, you moved this hand.' Even if it comes before, actually it has no way to move the hand. A thought cannot fire a neuron. How do you move your hand? It can only come as a thought. So with this, then this becomes a very enjoyable play that we are watching. Beautiful play without all of this pride, guilt, remorse, regret.

So some of you haven't heard this because you're new to satsang with me. I used to go to somebody called Ramesh Balsekar before I went to Guruji. For a few years I used to go to him and he used to speak a lot about doership. But one thing I did realize is that the only end to this free will versus God's will debate is to see whose free will could it be. Is there somebody who could have a free will? Or if there's only God that exists? And if there's only God that exists, then God's will is free will. He is free to do with this realm as He chooses or She chooses. Then the distinction between free will and God's will dissolves. Otherwise, we can debate this topic forever. But to see that there is no person here that could have a will in the first place is the most important thing. Take the mic, take the mic.

That conscience that remains always untouchable and it is nothing—somehow it goes through something, kind of evolution? You're feeling that this sense of being or Consciousness also goes through a process of evolution? What—yes, that is expressed in this moment here like a person, and it also means that experience for another and another.

Yes, let me—yes, so let's look at this. This being, what is the process that it seems to go through? You see, it seems to go through this process of giving belief to all kinds of ideas and therefore carrying this basket of the person on itself. And these ideas can be about the energies that are being experienced, the states of mind, the states of emotion, the states of pain in the body. All of these it can pick up ideas about, you see? So it seems to play first by getting—diving into the delusion of concepts, of ideas of personhood. And it uses whatever is appearing to dig deeper into the role of personhood, you see? Everything in this realm can be used as part of the delusion, also just in the same way that it can be part of freedom from the delusion by inquiring. If you want to go deeper and deeper into personhood, everything that appears—'He said this, she said this, this energy is coming'—it can just reinforce our sense of personhood also. But when the true urge becomes to drop this delusion, then this process of adding more and more into this basket of personhood starts to drop. Then we start the process of emptying it out, emptying out all these ideas. We look at them like a rotten apple, throw it away. Look at the idea, rotten apple, throw it away. So this process of emptying the basket is happening, and along with the picking up and the...

This energy is coming; it can just reinforce our sense of personhood also. But when the true urge becomes to drop this delusion, then this process of adding more and more into this basket of personhood starts to drop. Then we start the process of emptying it out, emptying out all these ideas. We look at them like a rotten apple, throw it away. Look at the idea, rotten apple, throw it away. So this process of emptying the basket is happening. And along with the picking up and the emptying, as part of the design of this play, there will be some energetic movements that will happen, you see. Like love, peace, and joy are in service to our unassociated being, so they will be experienced more and more as these concepts are being emptied out. The so-called darker energies—grief, sorrow, other just dark energies with no name—will appear more and more as we are filling up our basket of concepts of personhood, you see.

Now what happens is we filled up. Now when sometimes when you're emptying it out, then also some energy wants to play out, you see. It wants to play out because that is also getting released. So let that unfold on its own. So this is very good. So this seeming process of getting into delusion and finding freedom from the delusion, it happens very naturally in this play. And along with that, all of this energetic movement also plays out. So that is the only evolution, actually. It is not that Consciousness now fundamentally changes in any way from where it started out, because God is always the Supreme Being, you see. It cannot get suprer in any way. It is fully Supreme. So it cannot evolve to a higher level; it can only pretend as if it is playing at a lower level and then drop all the pretenses and come back to its absolute supremeness.

So it's always in truth itself, but it's necessary to go to an extreme to know the other exactly.

Exactly.

Oh, it was my... oh, you perceive what I was... I was not perceiving why the question was coming. Oh, how you get... okay, is the Satguru's voice. It speaks using this mouth. It seems Tulsidas was asking, and now it was my question. How... what will come? Different kind of experience. Oh, thank you, Father, for... you're okay. My feet are paining.

We should try and organize the cart for you, you know, to take you around. Maybe when your car is available, we can also, instead of walking... Give him the mic, please. Give him the mic.

Just wanted to confirm something. It's like just resting on this very obvious I am, and this is all what I have to do. But that's like, then you imagine I am with this, and then you create your own self-created obstacle and try to come out. And I felt like so many times before also, because this concept, like whatever is more of this comes, and then you create that concept and try to visualize and try to come out of that concept. But it's just... it's very obvious what it is. But then there's a tendency always to create this concept or pick up a concept from satsang or something and then have a discussion or creating that circle and then trying to visualize or trying to work it out. But it's all...

This is very beautiful. So this I am is obvious for who? I don't know who, what. So what does it mean when you say it is very obvious? Can you elaborate on that?

It's like just resting on the sense of I amness. It's not like... so what's the big deal in that? It's not like that. I don't know whether it's coming from ego.

Because this I am is all there is. It is the Lord of this universe. So when it is tasted in its pure presence, the mind will use whatever it can to try and resist the tasting of this. That's why I want to look at this with you and see whether the sense of obvious is coming from the sense of simplicity of it—that it's just here, I just am—is it? Or are we making a conclusion about it which could be a mind trick saying, 'Oh, but this is so obvious and why are we doing all of this?'

I don't know. I feel it means kind of ease here. It's a... because when it comes from concept, it's okay. Wait, now so with this I am, you're absolutely right. Complete sense of ease. Now how does the coming of a concept break the ease or change the ease?

It's like that false belief of something lacking at that moment that creates an obstacle.

Even if belief goes to something, does it affect the I am in reality, or it only seems to?

It just seems to.

It only seems to. So you see that there is nothing lacking or missing in beingness, isn't it?

Until unless I assume something to be missing, there's nothing missing.

Yes, yes, that's what I'm checking. So even after the assumption, it only seems like something, some lack came, but in actuality it never happened.

Yeah, but that's like when it comes, there is an energy pull for that and yeah, that's like we can say attachment. Although I don't want to discuss about it at the moment, it's not there.

No. So what can happen sometimes is that there can be this idea which can try to hang on to this sense of I am itself, and then when your attention is going to other places, then it can say, 'No, no, see now you're getting out of I am' or something like this. And then this can evolve into the checker guy which is constantly then monitoring your progress and seeing where it is. So forget about this one. I am is here; it is not going anywhere. In this moment, all that is needed is to not buy any concept. See, even if it is bought this moment, don't buy the next one. So the conveyor belt example is so good. It doesn't matter what you ate earlier. Is there a voice which is checking and reporting on your state, and are you believing that voice?

Not at the moment.

Very good. Thank you. We can sing a song. Thank you all so very much for being in satsang this morning. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.