The Only Beingness You Will Ever Know is 'I Am' - 23th May 2017

Therefore, if you're looking for support as a stable phenomena, then it must be the root phenomena, the basis of all phenomena, which is the only support. And which is why maybe somebody like Maharaj would say, 'Just stay with the sense I am.' That is the only constant, the sense 'I am'. But ultimately for you, even this is a coming and going, and that's why Maharaj himself said, 'The only truth that I can speak is that I am, but ultimately even this is not true.' Now notice that in all of these layers, we never came across something called a person as a discrete person. We never came across an entity like that because there wasn't any, there isn't any. In you, as unchanging awareness, is the birth of existence, 'I am'. And the birth of existence, 'I am', is the birth of all phenomenal appearances. All that we taste and experience as consciousness itself takes birth within consciousness, on the screen of consciousness, and by the light of consciousness. No entity called a person ever really took birth.

Then how is it that consciousness decides to play like this? If I, consciousness—you, consciousness—wanted to play as if you are something limited, how would you go about it? First is that you'll see that it is impossible to actually happen, that the unlimited would become limited. It cannot actually happen. Then it must be a pretense. It must be a pretend. So how is it that consciousness plays this game of pretense to get out of this phenomenal realm in a limited sort of way, feeling that this realm could affect me in some way? It must only be with the invention of this energy construct called thought and the invention of the power to believe that this thought is true.

I was saying the other day that if it was impossible for you to add anything to 'I' or 'I am', then what would your experience be like? Ah, be like that. Maybe water started falling crazy. Oh, it's good. I don't know what to do. Good stuff. So if it is impossible for 'I am' to attach an attribute to itself... I think that something happens in our life. Someone comes and shouts at us. I just am. Some anger is coming. Some fear is coming. But I just am. I'm not angry. I am not fearful. The arising of these sensations is there. Everything might happen. These thoughts would come, all their stories, but it is impossible to attach them to 'I am'. Then how would you give yourself trouble? How would it be possible for consciousness to pose as a limited entity, as a body-mind as they say, unless it has the ability to say 'I am something'? That's what Bhagavan says when he says Atma getting identified as jivatma, as 'I am' identifying as 'I am something'.

So because consciousness wanted to play this game in this way, then it gave itself the power to believe what this tiny energy construct called thoughts are saying, because in almost every thought is embedded the message of a 'me' which is limited. Very few are just purely phenomenal. Very quickly the idea of a limited 'me' drops in the question.

Yeah. There are so many different life forms right now. At what stage does this thought start operating, this mind? And I would say, well, it's tough because there are various studies on this also actually, and for a long time the presumption has been that only this human form has these thought patterns, but this is completely now getting blown away in research. So it's truly impossible to say at which level this concept of this energy construct of thought starts to play. So before the forms, before that starts playing, are they having this in existence or the oneness?

Yes, I would say so because you don't even have to go to other forms. You can just look at children when they are very young. When we were very young, without the limited conception, all of this was just an appearance, including the body. We took that example of how you buy a toy for the cradle of a child and you put it there with great excitement and you expect them to play with that, and something goes and the hand moves in that direction, and then the child starts playing with the hand itself. For them, that is as much of an appearance as that new toy. So this concept of a limited existence has to be sold by consciousness to itself in the form of thoughts.

Say that even right now—why go to other forms and even children?—even right now you're unlimited. Your experience is that of being unlimited. Right now, if you don't refer to a concept of it, what is your experience? You'll experience some sensation of the body. But if you don't go to the concept of them, you will find that even the sensations of the body are happening in a space which is you, which is your being. It's a direct experience. That's why I was saying that I'm not talking about something that will happen. I'm just getting us to recognize that which already is. If you don't go to the concept of what is you, not say that 'my head is not heard by me like by Ananta', these are just arising and they're being heard the same way they're being heard seemingly everywhere.

So all of this is a movement within consciousness and for consciousness it is not an effort. It is happening effortlessly. The world is moving effortlessly, including the movement of our body. Consciousness is being effortlessly. I am. I am aware of this 'I am' effortlessly. So all the effort only belongs to a limited concept of myself. If I have to do or not do, both are an idea of limitation. If I want or don't want, desire or aversion, both are concepts of limitation. None of this truly applies to your present being and definitely doesn't apply to that which is aware of even this being, which is one notch back.

So what is the paradigm or the perspective you want to start with? Almost every satsang, the beginning of every satsang, this is the invitation. Where do you want to begin? Do you want to begin first to seemingly step away from the now and pick up a limited concept of myself and then speak from there and say, 'This is what I want. What I want is freedom' or 'I want something which is peace'? Or do we not even pick up that which then needs to be dropped? What is this picking up? It is only the giving of assent to what a thought is saying, that 'Yes, you are meaningful.' A thought comes with a begging bowl, begging for your assent. 'I'm meaningful. Please give me your meaning. Please give me relevance.' And now we many of them just become in this way.

All of spirituality actually is one big looking door. This is a good way to smell it. If you find that in your spirituality you're holding on more and more to concepts, including spiritual concepts, then know that it is the birth of the spiritual ego. We just empty of them and all that we rely on, if at all anything, is our present experience. What is it that I am now? What is it that you are? I have said that we are not replacing a set of personal concepts with a set of spiritual concepts. We're making these concepts powerless. How powerless? Because they do not apply to the reality of you. They only apply to the pretend you. This pretense never truly happened.

So what is the perspective with which you want to start? You want to start as if we are something enclosed within this container of body-mind? Or is it not clear to us already that there is this container and every aspect of our experience which is contained within my being? 'I am' is not there and no appearances. What is aware of even this 'I am'? That's why the cat story is very important. The cat story is very important. If we've been told throughout our life that the next bowl of milk is going to be relationship, is going to be money, is going to be security, it's going to be health, the body, and we have come to the conclusion that none of this is bringing a stable peace, a stable contentment, and then we pick up the idea that the true bowl of milk is enlightenment, and then we expect that this bowl of milk will give great fulfillment to the cat... so that is like the marketing department of spirituality. Once you come into true satsang, the Master keeps insisting that it's really not about the cat or the bowl of milk.

It's going to be security, it's going to be health, the body; and we have come to the conclusion that none of this is bringing a stable peace, a stable contentment. And then we pick up the idea that the true bowl of milk is enlightenment. And then we expect that this bowl of milk will give great fulfillment to the cat. So that is like the marketing department of spirituality. Once you come into true satsang, the Master keeps insisting that it's really not about the cat or the bowl of milk. It's only about a mirror to recognize whether there is a cat at all here. If there is no cat, will you still ask for the next bowl of milk?

If instead of the cat you discover yourself to be consciousness, do you still say, 'Give me my bowl of milk'? Still there is hunger. Still there is hunger. There is sleep required.

Yes. Yes. But this is not the bowl of milk. You see, the bowl of milk is a conceptual idea which means that I need something for my contentment or for my existence. Now you'll find that all of these—Maria was saying something very beautiful the other day. She said that whatever there is longing for in this phenomenal world, there's also the solution for that longing. If there's a thirst, there is water. If there's hunger, there is food. You see, there's nothing in this realm for which there is a longing phenomenally and that for which the longing is not—cannot be fulfilled. So this interplay of opposites of longing and fulfillment will keep happening in this world. But what the mirror means is to see that you are not subject to that.

You see, that's what I was saying where we paused over there when the water started falling, is that anger can come, fear can come, any other sensation or emotion can come. But if it was just seen, perceived, and we didn't have the ability to say 'I am angry, I am fearful'—if 'I am' was just 'I am' without the ability to attach attributes to it—then you would see that all of this interplay is arising. And the interplay of opposites, they meet each other in this play and they extinguish to be replaced by something else. So this play is going on, but this idea that 'I am the cat'—the cat can still play, can still run around, but you're no longer saying 'I am the cat.' It's a clarification of your true position.

So in this body there will be these urges: anger, fear, lust, greed, all these things. You say 'I am' and see that it is arising within your being, and you see that that which is boundless being, with the arising of something, doesn't truly take up as much space as you believe that it does. You start to see your own boundless being. You see that all of these are just tiny bubbles on the surface of an ocean. This is what we are playing the game of: introducing ourselves to this sense of being which is boundless. And I keep reiterating that I'm not speaking something very idealistic, utopian, or fancy; I'm speaking of your present reality if you explore your being without commentary from the mind, without believing the commentary from the mind. What is it that you mean? What? Nothing else. Then where is the appearance of the world? Is it outside your being? So you find that there is nothing outside being. Then you find that all of this, including time and space itself, are just appearances within the space of mind.

And the point of these words is not to convince you, but just to prod you to look for yourself. That which is limitless is your very existence. Where does this come from? Where does your very existence come from? What is the source of your being? How to use a metaphor? Suppose what you find for yourself is that there is an infinite house. A house with no end. This is using a metaphor. You find that there's this house which has no beginning and no end. Now within this house suddenly there appears somebody who pretends to come and say, 'Namaste, I'm the watchman of this house. I'm the watchman or the security guard for this house and I'm familiar with this house. I will guard it for you. You know, at the edge of the house there are these others which come and they might attack you. So you have to be a little careful. But don't worry, I'm on the job now. You know, the boundary of the house is starting to wear away a little bit. So, you need to exercise this house.'

What you found is a limitless house in your experience. So this watchman comes and says, 'Sir, you know, you need to save up some gold coins because soon this house will need maintenance.' You're a very good watchman. So it starts off like this watchman voice and then becomes like the master of the house: 'This is what you must do. This is what I need. This is what I need. I need this.' You see, 'I need freedom. I need...' So this we started off with as if it is a pretend protector, and now it becomes a dictator in a way. The being in the play, its own design of course. The play then starts to conform to this voice, this watchman. In satsang, all I'm saying is just send this watchman on a leave for a few days. Then you notice the reaction from the watchman, right? The typical reaction: 'Ah, but what's going to happen to you? What's going to happen to me if I send this?' Saying that, 'Let's see, let's just see what happens.' The watchman voice will come: 'But who will protect you? You're just dying, you'll just dissolve, you'll fall. I've been holding you up.' I say let it go for a few days. A few days at least, a few minutes. Just let go.

Yes. But I have to manage some practical things.

They can wait for a few minutes at least. The voice of the watchman itself is saying, 'I need this watchman.' Because you had a false sense of security with this voice of the mind. For many, this fear can come. Fear of dying, fear of dissolution, fear of emptiness, fear of nothingness. The mind quietly whispers to it, 'It's all good. It's all for your process. It's all your dissolution. It's part...' Even this is just logical because this watchman was making a concept out of everything that was being seen, interpreting every single experience and labeling it and saying, 'Good, bad, this is for me, this is not for me.' It was making this and now it is still trying to be relevant. We're trying to say that, 'Yes, you see, this is part of the process of spirituality,' as if it understands anything about what is really happening to you.

It comes with these—stop looking at discrete things because most of us have stopped labeling so much and now started becoming more processor-oriented and letting go. And now, '50% I have let go, but the other 50% is making these reports about the spiritual reasons.' So this also becomes like a crutch. The watchman playing in a different, more subtle way can be fire. Even this one, you don't know what is happening. If you even took away the crutch that 'I'm making spiritual progress, I'm getting somewhere'—and this can push some buttons for some of you because much of this has been about spiritual progress. Suppose we didn't even know this. Don't know anything about anything. No watchman to whisper in our ear. If it whispers, we don't listen.

For some, some discomfort can come. Don't even interpret that or label that as anything. For some, some joy can come. Don't be concerned even with that. Don't make a label out of that and say, 'This is true.' Let all that happen on its own. But you continue not to know anything at all. In this way we talk in a conceptual way. No patches, no support, no security.

So the watchman is of no use. This is what is itself asking. So you fire it for a few days as you have been doing and then you report from that experience of it. Firing is doable. Half-firing is very hard. Half-firing means that that is a consolation we make to the watchman sometimes. I say, 'Yes, yes, it's not bad if it's only making phenomenal reports.' But even at the root of that—and we've said this before—it is the presumption that God needs this voice which it itself creates, therefore it must be the knower of what even this voice is saying. Ability to operate for practical things or something.

It's like saying God is using a thought to rotate the earth around the sun. Is it not a practical thing? Rotation. Yes. You're hearing these words. Is it a practical thing? Is it a phenomenal thing or not? And yet you don't need to rely on a thought. Only when you have to play as if you're a limited idea, a limited—if the play is a limited self, then this voice is seemingly needed. 'I am this body-mind. This is what I have to do next.' When a job needs to be done and once you start, it takes over. This is when—if when you say 'practical' you mean, 'Let's pretend I'm limited in some way for some time.' Is that what it means to be practical? Or you're still saying some job needs to flow, but not really flowing to think—that's what I'm saying.

Does being practical mean that I have to agree to the limitedness of God and say, 'Okay, let's engage in a limited way'? Then I can give you a different answer. Because the other answer means that if the job has to be done by God, then God is doing it. But if you say, 'Okay, now let's pretend for a while that this means that I am truly limited in some way,' then should I listen to the mind or should I believe my thoughts only about practical phenomenal matters? This is what we say. If that is what the question is, then I can tell you: okay, listen to the mind, but only when it is making a phenomenal report about something, not about what it is saying about you.

But my true invitation is to step out of even that. See that—does this limitation really apply? Is there a limited entity really running our life and that has done anything ever, or has all been a play of consciousness itself? And if it has been a play of consciousness, then why does that consciousness, which itself is the creator of thought, need to rely on an example? Slow it down, slow motion. Explain what happens just like this. Just like it is for you. You'll see that the giving of belief to the limited idea of yourself or not giving it actually doesn't make so much difference into the day-to-day activity of this body.

We discussed also before that we said that once I was—I should broadcast this—but I was picking from my trousers and saying I could see that the movement is happening, looking at the trousers is happening, you see, and the mind is saying... so I remember one day it was just I picked up, I was already starting to, you know, use these trousers and the mind was saying, 'Yeah, this is the right one, this must...' You notice that most of it is just post-facto. Things are just happening. They're moving on their own. But the mind comes with these as if with the pretense of being the decision-maker. 'Do this, don't do this, write this, don't write this, say this, don't say this.'

So just like this, how are these words happening? They're just moving. Even that is just a happening. The thought comes and pretends that, 'Yes, today I'm going to send an email.' Many times the thought has come and said, 'Today I will send an email,' and the email doesn't go. Or many times without the thing, you find that you are just moving and the email is getting typed. So it is just—how do you say this—the subtitles can be a phenomenally accurate description of what is on the screen or it can be inaccurate, but nobody can truly say it is the subtitle which is making the screen or the images on the screen.

So that is the con of the mind: to convince you that it is on its basis that actions are happening, that it's on its basis that even laziness is happening. Action or inaction, either is happening on the basis of the subtitle, this interpreter. This is what you see: that just movement. So including the movement of the subtitle, everything is on the stream of consciousness. It's just moving but not moving. So that is you, and see that the mind plays as if it is participating. We've spoken also about this topic of this DBC study. The hand has already started to move. The nerves are getting activated and the thought is just starting to move the hand. So before the thought has even come, before the so-called decision is even made, already consciousness is moving. It is energizing this on its own and making it in its own life.

Everything is on the stream of consciousness. It's just moving but not moving. So that is you, and see that the mind plays as if it is participating. We've spoken also about this topic of this DBC study. The hand has already started to move, the nerves are getting activated, and the thought is just starting to move the hand. So before the thought has even come, before the so-called decision is even made, already consciousness is moving. It is energizing this as its own and making it in its own life. A cup of tea which says, 'Okay, like satsang, sharing of satsang is okay, these words are okay, hearing is okay, I have to like do some work, like do a project or something.' But this is as subtle or complex an action that can happen with this—the articulation in satsang. When I sometimes broadcast the articulation in satsang, sometimes when I read the transcript, I find that it's very beautiful. If there was somebody who could plan to put it like that, it was not possible. So this can happen. Why can't everything else happen? But in fact, it does.

Like the subtitler, this man, the translator, the interpreter, which is trying to now become more powerful, saying, 'No, no, no, I'm not just the narrator, but I'm the one who is driving the story. I'm the creator God himself.' The narrative voice, which is part of the play of the movie, is now trying to usurp the power of God in some way, saying that 'I am that God.' All movement is happening in your own. Who is this watchman talking to? Who is the audience to this voice? It is consciousness. Who else is here? There is only consciousness. Consciousness is tasting itself in all the various aspects. It's tasting itself as time and space, as the objects within time and space. And one of the objects within time and space is this energy construct, right? Thoughts. So it's tasting itself also as a thought. The only audience is consciousness. The only player is also consciousness. There is nobody else here.

Why? Because that's how we started satsang by this, isn't it? How does consciousness, if it wanted to play as if it is a limited entity, go about playing this play? We talked about this before. He said if you go for a movie, it's completely unrelatable. Just a series of random people doing random activities with no cause and effect, no story, no pattern. And you yourself can't find anything to believe. And you as the audience will say, 'Okay, let me connect, you know, like these headsets and you know, their seats that vibrate. Let me feel it more intimately.' So when things are happening on the screen over there, you feel sensation. So consciousness gave itself these intimate sensations to interact more with this movie in a more relatable way. Even then, it's just sensation. You can't relate. Shaking, I feel sensation. Watching music, and then I also had to create this construct saying something is happening to me. I think this is about you. The creation of even that construct.

So now body sensations are happening. Consciousness created all this thing. All of this is happening and still the thoughts are also coming. But the ability to give meaning to that thought or belief to that thought is not there. Still all this is moving, everything is still happening, but that latching in, that logging-in power, is just not there. So the ability to give meaning, to give truth value, to give relevance, to give assent to what this energy construct called thought is saying is that which we call belief. And this belief is the power to identify with that which is false. You pretend to be something that you're not. See now what happens? Now what happened? The movie is still playing, sensations are happening, thoughts are coming. But now because the power to identify, the power to believe is there, what happened? Something's happening in the... no. Oh yes. Because you then have this power to believe that you are something limited as a participant in that movie. Then you become involved in a limited way.

So the thought is coming and saying, 'Yes, yes, it would be good, you see, if you go to satsang every day. I, this limited body-mind, you see, which is not free, must leave. Something would be good if you don't go to this, don't go to that.' So it's all still moving as part of what? As part of the play, part of the design of the play. But now because the power of identifying, the power of belief is there, then we can latch on to these concepts which are telling us the story of ourselves being a limited entity, and then the movie becomes a lot more relatable. We can feel like it's happening to me. I, which was the projector, the screens, the scriptwriter, the director, the producer, everything, have now become a character in this movie—or at least pretended to become—because of this compulsive voice and the power that I have given to myself, which is the power to believe it, to give it meaning, and to say, 'Yes, this is true.'

So then consciousness plays like that till it is done with this, done with this movie. 'I tasted all of this. It's just a movie. I'm done with this movie.' Then they start to question, 'Is it true what this mind is saying about it? True medicine?' It says completely wrong, this fearful, these feelings of guilt, unworthiness. And then for some of us, this question starts to come: 'But who is it talking about, this voice?' Then the question appears: 'Who am I?' Why is it this question is so powerful, 'Who am I?' Because you find that all that this voice is saying is not applicable to the reality of what I am, and the movie continues to play anyway. What is my true position in this?

And for most of you, actually, you come to see this person many times over and over. See, they say 'puna puna.' We have recognized the reality of what we are, and yet this voice and the design of the power of belief is so compulsive in a way that it will become an addiction as part of the play itself, in the script of the movie itself. That's why this satsang will talk about these same things in different ways over and over so that you keep checking again and again. When you hear, sometimes it just clicks. Yes, thought is nothing but an energy construct moving on the screen of consciousness. But consciousness has also given itself the power to believe what this thought is saying, to pretend as if it is an individual, as if separation happened, as if it is just a body. Now it is divesting from that for some, for some little by little, but in some means, some expressions of itself, different different ways.

Why is consciousness then, if it's all consciousness, why is it making it so difficult to realize itself?

Now, difficulty is from the perspective of consciousness or from the perspective of individuality? So from the perspective of individuality, it is difficult. Now, from the perspective of consciousness, is it difficult or easy? So what is your question? Why is consciousness making it so difficult to realize itself? Because it is tasting the ending of the illusion also with as much juice as it can extract from it. Now, if you look at it from a personal perspective, that 'I have to get my freedom,' then it can seem like, 'What kind of sadist is consciousness? Why is it so complicated?'

And I've spoken about this a few times also where I said that there was a build-up to the movies. All this will happen. Then you were told one day, 'In three months, you will come to your final satsang.' You were told like this, and in that satsang, your head will explode and it'll only be left with light. It'll be this big light which emerges from you. So this becomes like the expectation for freedom. Then I say it's done now. Nothing needs to happen. Now that expectation that that should have happened will start playing a part. 'But I want that,' you see, and that itself becomes the expectation. It becomes a struggle. So that which is the struggle is for a desire which is not original to you.

You say it's struggling to recognize itself for whatever the reason, but like the first day when you came, I asked you, 'Can you stop being?' You said, 'No, I can't stop being.' What did you recognize? You recognized that you exist. Being is here. This is the recognition of consciousness as simple as that. Now, what is difficult is your ideas about what it must mean or how it should be. Suppose you didn't buy any of those ideas. Can you tell me what is difficult? You see, so the difficulty is also part of the play of disengaging with this watchman, disengaging with this energy construct, right?

I was saying that this movie, it has a build-up, build-up, build-up, and suddenly abruptly ends. Those are the most irritating ones. You go and the build-up, like the end... the new age directors have like that, the independent filmmakers. They have like... I mean, they want the audience to come up with the ending or whatever appeals to them the most. Or there was no ending, just like we played this game as we are personal, personal, personal. So even the directing from that is happening with that build-up that has happened. Experiences... it wants to go from satsang to satsang, wants to hear various, wants its moments of insight. It wants its moments of clarity and then falling back into limitation. It's playing with even the disengagement in a way because consciousness is not in a rush. Consciousness is not bound by time. Time is bound by consciousness.

You find that all of this, when the perspective changes—when the perspective changes by the will of consciousness itself from a limited identity to that which is beingness itself, or even to that which is just aware of this being, untouched by even the coming and going of being—these words like 'difficult' or 'easy' lose their meaning because they don't apply at that level. They only apply if you're a limited entity. Nothing is difficult for consciousness. And the fun trick is what? The fun thing is that you are that right now. What happens when you hear this? You are that right now. Some the mind comes with it. 'Yes, but...' Meaning means the what is saying after the 'but,' we say 'yes' is still attached. This is fine. The most common one, you see, 'It's fine in satsang, but what about when I leave? Then I cannot be God, then I must be a person.' That is... it doesn't complete the sentence like that, but this is what it implies. But can this ever be true? And if you were to check outside satsang, what do we find ourselves to be truly? You are never not that. That is unchanging.

The purpose of the mind in some way is to say that, is to convince you of your limitation. Some great philosopher once said that to start thinking is to start undermining yourself. And I never understood this initially. Only now I realize what it means. To start thinking is to undermine yourself. What does it mean? It is to really pretend as if you are something much tinier, much more limited than what you actually are.

So I have to stop my thoughts?

No, no. So that is not what he said. You don't have to. So 'stop thinking' does not mean the thought should stop. It is that your identification with them stops, believing stops, and you as consciousness... So my advice would be to start with the recognition of what you are. What is it that I am? I just am. I start from here. No thought can say that 'I am a good person' or 'I'm a spiritual person.' You say it really doesn't apply because I cannot find this entity which is being referred to as a spiritual person. The sensations of the body are neither spiritual nor... the thought comes and says, 'I want something.' You find that there is no such 'I' here that has any lack or want or desire. When the sensations come, you see that your space is not getting overwhelmed by even the strongest seeming sensation.

So therefore, the starting point of recognition is very useful because otherwise what can happen is that the starting point itself is a delusion, which is that 'I am a person. Now as a person, I will not believe my thoughts or I will not go with my mind.' But the foundation itself is unsteady. Before it can feel frustrating that 'I personally am not getting anywhere,' so all that there is to get to is already where you're starting, then no problem. If you already pick up the perspective that 'I personally am looking at ways to end the person,' then the foundation itself is wanting to dig itself out.

What can happen is that, you see, the starting point itself is a delusion, which is that 'I am a person.' Now, as a person, I will not believe my thoughts or I will not go with my mind, but the foundation itself is unsteady. Before, it can feel frustrating that, 'I personally am not getting anywhere.' So, all that there is to get to is already where you're starting, then no problem. If you already pick up the perspective that 'I personally am looking at ways to end the person,' then the foundation itself is wanting to dig itself out. So that's why very often I say that 'don't believe your next thought' is not a personal strategy. It's not a strategy that 'I am something' you can apply to have a happy life or something. It's just the recognition that the pretense can only come on assent to what the thought is saying to give it meaning, relevance, that it applies to me. And because thoughts in their very nature are limited, then when you say it applies to me, your perspective about yourself, your belief about yourself, is that you are something else.

So in satsang, my meditation always is not to begin as if you are something limited, but to begin with the simple seeing: where is the limitation? Is there any? Is there any separation? What binds me really? Before I go running after freedom, can I identify upon whether it's really here? Then the question becomes simpler, isn't it? The question becomes simpler because you see that already you are boundless. Then the question becomes: how do I pretend as if I'm not? Then you see the symmetry. So what is your beginning point? What are you right now? The beginning point is not something where you have to get to. You already are there.

Also, before I forget, I want to apologize to many of you. You've sent me messages over the last few days. I've been a bit busy with trying to get a visa for Portugal. So, I've not been able to reply to many of your messages, but I have read most of them and I will get to replying soon. I have a new ninja sword, and I don't know how many of you have experienced this one. I feel like we have the new ninja sword is this one. And I say that if you do not use any phenomenal appearance, any phenomenal appearance, to make a report about yourself, to have any meaning for yourself, then what are you left with?

Can we for a while go as far as to say, and just for a while go as far as to say, that the condition of my body, whether the sensations are pleasurable or painful, has no meaning to the reality of what I am? Can we then also say that whatever these thoughts might be saying, whether sounding good or sounding bad, they have no meaning to the reality of what I am? What if you were able to say that even the quality of my emotions and feelings mean nothing to the reality of what I am? Can we go even further and see even the appearance of existence, of being, there is no meaning to the reality of what I am? This 'I' which is before 'I am'.

Don't be concerned that if you remove conceptual meaning from phenomena they will become lifeless. In fact, the usual experience is as we remove mental meaning from objects, they become even more vibrant in their experience, in our experience of them. And in that way we can see that in our taste of them they're even more meaningful than they were before. They are empty of conceptual meaning, mental meaning. The pure knowingness of appearances becomes even more vibrant as we don't know them or don't claim to know them mentally anymore. What survives without our mental labels? Who am I prior to the appearing of this mind? Who is that that experiences no mind? What is aware of my presence?

Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. I'll see everyone after the retreat. So, Sahaja most likely now will be, for me it will be from 8th of July, 8th to 16th of July, if we get the visa. So we went to the visa office yesterday in Bangalore and they said because you never have had a Schengen visa before, you have to go to the consulate in Delhi. So all of us have to go to Delhi first. Then there is August.

When is going to Portugal next week? Next week. Okay. And I feel I end up in Sahaja again. Actually, I'm going for a job in a beach down south. Maybe end up in Sahaja. How far is it from Sahaja? Like one hour, one hour drive. Like twelve hours like a trip.

I hope to see you there. Yes, definitely. Yeah. So, Nita will be there in June. Paul will be with Mooji tomorrow. Wonderful. Thank you.