The Realm of Perception and Beyond - 29th November 2023

What is happening in some of these interactions is I can almost see myself in that person, like when I'm caught in my mind-trap situations. Actually, they are so similar, there's not too much variety, ironically almost the same. But knowing what it has taken me—and I'm still, you know, in the kindergarten two years of coming here and doing trying to do as much work as one can do in following your guidance—that feeling of helplessness comes when talking to somebody. It's like I can't even begin to scratch the surface, and so just kind of hold space and be silent is all that's coming intuitively. Before I would do that mental gymnastics just to make them feel good that I'm interested in their problem, but now even that is gone. It's not out of disgust or judgment; it's just like I can't do that because it's not worked for me. And it's come from a place of honesty. I just wanted to share because it's...

And don't even make a position out of that, that 'I'm going to be quiet.' No, no, it's just whatever is happening. If you made yourself truly—and same thing for the Heart Temple movement also—I've been encouraging everyone because some may feel bad nobody came, or some may feel bad that some people came but they weren't really open and they weren't able to explain to them about God. Some may feel bad that, oh, these people who came, they just started talking about other random things that had nothing to do with God. Some get upset that, oh, but they just wanted to share themselves, they weren't open to listening and all their stuff was intellectual in the head, so we weren't able to do anything. So really the only question to ask is: did you make yourself open and available for God? If we did that, if we made ourselves open and empty, available for God to shine through, then that is the extent of what we can do. Actually, in that sense, the job is very simple because I really hardly ever know what I'm going to talk about when I enter this room. So my job is just whatever is left of me, I have to empty myself of that and create just the space for God to shine through.

And in the three or four hours of sharing, sometimes if I notice something, some 'me' is creeping in, just to be open about that and throw that away and let God's presence speak in that way. Then whatever the body has to deal with and all of these things, then we know that because we were just in service to God and it was not coming from any pride or specialness, then God is regulating all this flow very well and we don't need to worry too much about that. And in a way, if there is like a 'me' creeping into the sharing and that 'me' does get a bit tired, then that's also fine. That's also fine because—but this does not mean that we need to set benchmarks on that, that 'if I'm tired it means there must be more me.' It's not like that. I'm just saying that just open, empty, trust, and allow it to unfold from there.

Thank you, Father. It seems to me sometimes that to be open, empty, and in tune with what is coming from God—see, if one is not doing it oneself, then it's, I feel like it's not okay to tell anyone else. Because if I am my own student first, yes, and if I am not able to truly follow that, yeah, I get this feeling that there is very deeply important because...

Very important. It's very important. The good thing is that as you are empty and available for God, you will find that as you're sharing, you're not sharing to impress or sharing to say that 'I'm doing all of this and you must also.' It is many times you will find that the words that are arising—like when I started sharing Satsang long, long time ago, I found that the words that were coming, I needed to hear more than anyone else. And hopefully I was quite open about that in the process of sharing, that these words that are arising from here are as much instructions for me to follow or guidance for me to follow as they are coming for all of you.

So I used to joke at that time saying that I was involved with quite a few sanghas, and I always wished—because you would always in sanghas have those people who were there like much earlier, say those days, you know, in those days there would always be people talking about that—then you just start wishing that 'I wish I was there in those days, you know, you could just sit, have lunch with the Master or just spend time in small groups and be informal and all of that.' So I always used to feel like, you know, maybe there was a prayer here saying 'make me an early member of a sangha,' you know? So what happened here is then I became my first sangha member. I was the earliest member of this sangha where whatever was needed to be shared was as much for this and is as much for this sangha member as is for anyone else. And if we truly have that approach with integrity, then the ones who are listening can actually smell that, you know? Because even though they may not be able to notice at a surface level, somewhere you can smell these things. Our noses are very strong, our intuition is very strong when it comes to recognizing that.

So it's very important whenever God puts us in a situation to serve Him in that way, then that honesty is really important. So even if some words are coming and you must—suppose the words come 'you must be open and empty all the time'—and you notice that this instruction is also for me. So it's good to then say that, 'Oh, this is also for me because I'm learning to follow this, I'm learning this as well.' So then it doesn't become hypocritical, it doesn't become lip service sort of spirituality. And a teacher of God can always say that 'this is for me' because nobody's ever like fully done. If I say I need to learn servitude, it's completely true because I'm just a beginner in this. And I could have said that ten years ago, twelve years ago, and I can say this now because I feel that love, devotion, servitude—these are things which are ever-deepening. And the more you deepen in them, the more you realize that you're just scratching the surface. You haven't really gone beyond the surface of being truly devoted to God, being truly—having truly let go of living on our own terms, on our mind's terms.

So, and the definition of what is 'too much mind' keeps changing, keeps changing. So if I don't wait, if I rush for a few moments, then that is too much. If I rush for one moment, that is too much. So what we define as too much, we always keep changing. And that way the beauty continues because we see in this human condition the interplay, you know, the interplay. That's why I was saying that in a way it is to confirm, it is to commit, and then it is to live in that commitment to God to serve God empty. That commitment is not like a position; the commitment is just we empty of ourselves and then something, something, something, something, something, something, then something. And you're in. No, is that the frequency of that something is indeterminable, but mostly you will find that that reduces. So that which used to be something earlier and you were all in, really now inwardly, although outwardly you may still be like see, get what, inwardly you're still empty, not unattached, and yet the movement is happening. Just like these words are spilling out of this mouth and I have no idea what is being shared. But the heart has not really ever let me down in that way, so you can just deepen in that trust. So life is managed like that, and it can be managed like that till something okay, and then that something comes, the thought comes and you're in, you're in. And then what you'll find is that as your sensitivity increases, the feeling of suffocation...

You're still empty, not unattached, and yet the movement is happening just like these words are spilling out of this mouth and I have no idea what is being shared. But the heart has not really ever let me down in that way, so you can just deepen in that trust. So life is managed like that, and it can be managed like that till something—okay, and then that something comes, the thought comes, and you're in. You're in. And then what you'll find is that as your sensitivity increases, the feeling of suffering as a result of identity seems to get both intensified and become immediate, almost immediate, you see. So there may be a few seconds of feeling right like that, but it starts to crumble very quickly and you notice, you start to notice what really happened and you took on a position and identity. And then we return to the empty. So then you commit again and say, 'No, that was an error, not again.' So that empty, empty, empty, empty, and then something, you see. So it just keeps repeating. And it's not as oppressive as I'm maybe making it sound because those moments of emptiness are actually like living in heaven, you see. Living in God's presence, so beautiful, so innocent. So a life of insight, love, and servitude to God is a life being lived in heaven, being interrupted from time to time by the hellishness of the mind.

So I hope I'm not making it sound like, 'Oh, work, work, work, work, work, work, work, then you lose, then you get up.' And so it's not like a boxing match like Rocky Balboa, you have to fight the next round. It's not kind of, but it is a happier match. You come into the holiest light possible and live there, and then you take the invitation from the mind to become, to accept your individual identity. And hopefully the suffering or the alarm clock of that starts ringing very fast, and then you start looking for a way back quickly. And hopefully if it's nothing that strong, it's just, and then you feel that and you're just sitting and you're just in His light. All is seen very clearly. That's—sorry, I'm digressing a bit, but one of the beauties of this is that when we live in the presence of Atma, the world doesn't dim, it becomes brighter. It's strange, isn't it? So when you're living in the world, the world becomes dimmer. When you're living in the light of the Atma, the world becomes brighter. Like we never noticed light, we never noticed the eyes of another brother or sister before this. It can seem like that, which is the strangeness.

Like many people will resist coming to satsang because they say, 'I still want to live in the world, I have things to do in the world.' But who should tell them that they are actually not even meeting the world? We can't even see the world properly because they are so caught up in their identity and ego. So empty of that, empty of me, then in the presence of God, the beauty of every frame of this movie is much more apparent, you see. So life becomes beautiful in that way till the serpent is able to tell us a story which we believe. So that is the—when I said the job is to commit and fail and commit and fail, it can seem a bit like Sisyphus or something, you know? But it's really, really the opposite of that because what happens otherwise? Identity, identity, identity, like a Golem sort of life, you know, like that. And then few moments of—and the unfortunate thing is in the human condition, we have to go to some mountain or some waterfall or something to snap us out of it. These tourist attractions, we have to go and find something which we are not usually used to seeing in the realm of perception.

So we see Grand Canyon or something fantastic. Why does it work? Because the mind doesn't have the conditions yet to be able to respond to it. So that's why literally people say, like children will say, 'We are mind-blown.' What does that mean? That something came in the realm of perception—like if a pink alligator walked into this room right now—where is it coming from? But that is like emptiness in that moment. You're empty because your mind doesn't know how to deal with that. It doesn't know how to respond to that. So that's why even the warriors of the olden days used to say that it is the time before the war starts where there's so much fear and so much trouble and all of that, many of them. But when the battle would actually start, then many have reported that they were just observing, you see. The body would fight like that, the swords would hit each other, but they were fully in the moment and many have said that that is very joyful. So the point—I'm not suggesting that to anyone—I'm just saying that no matter what the circumstances may be on the outside, when we are empty, when we are not caught up in the 'me', then even the most oppressive sounding circumstances can be full of wonder, full of awe, full of joy.

One of the troubles that you can have in the process is that if you set a benchmark of 100%, 'It should not happen to me now because that day I came to satsang and I saw that I am pure awareness, so I should never get identified,' or 'I went somewhere and I did something and I did some practice and now I'm free from all of this.' It will never happen. Some of it is natural. Like after I sat on the hot seat, very few thoughts were coming and very even fewer, very few were being believed, you see. But one of the thoughts that was being believed is, 'I hope this doesn't go away. I hope I don't wake up tomorrow and I'm back to like that.' So something felt so precious and like a treasure had been found. But I've also seen it work the other way where we get so attached to the notion of enlightenment and it not going away that actually what was seen seems to be relegated to the background and it becomes about me having something, me becoming special.

So we've covered a lot of ground in this answer, but just inwardly quiet, inwardly empty life, whether it's chopping wood, fetching water, or something else, doesn't matter. But life experiencing its full vibrancy, and then the limiting voice presents a proposal that seems irresistible, so we buy that. 'Oh, I am right,' or 'This is wrong,' or something, 'I know this,' some idea like that, and then we are caught up. And hopefully because of coming to satsang, those times are shorter and shorter and fewer and fewer, but not to keep track and judge and benchmark. Why? More important than us coming to peace, more important than us experiencing the beautiful taste of this world, more importantly than all of that is that this is good for God's sake. And in fact, it's God for God's sake. It's not God so that I can get something. So that is why another name for God is truth. Another name for God is truth because it's when we are with God, it is truth for truth's sake.

Otherwise your mind may come up with the question saying, 'Is God that selfish that He wants us to devote our life for His sake?' You see, because these nonsensical things the mind can't understand, the depth of what is being spoken. So when we realize that God is the only truth, then the question then changes and says, 'For what would you want to live a lie? What would making a lie worth it? What would make living a lie worth it?' And that's the whole crux of like a movie like The Matrix or something like that. That man who has been told the truth, he says, 'No, I'm fine, I'm good thanks, because here I can drink my wine and eat my steak. There, do you have all of this?' So some will find the living in God's light without the seeming hallucination of individual control, some will find the notion of that more oppressive than the handing over and leaving it to God. And the fact is that it is a hallucination. If we don't have any control at all, the only choice, as Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi said, is that there's a stream of thoughts which is flowing, the only choice is to not dive into that and to stay away from that. And as long as you have any choice at all, or it seems like you have any choice at all, you must make that choice.

So I told you that there is a world in which you don't have to do anything at all, you don't have to decide anything at all, that God will do everything. Only trouble is that you will not have the outcomes that you think you want. Would that be okay? Everything is available, God will guide, God will move us, everything is possible, only you have to let go of what you think needs to happen. I see all the interconnectedness between all that is called various forms of yoga. It's all the same. To be unattached to outcomes is as much Jnana as it is Karma. So what we are mostly doing in the human existence is that to get the seeming semblance of control over outcomes, we're not allowing ourselves to fully surrender to Him. And you can identify for yourself what those outcomes are, and that then defines the boundary of your faith. That's why it's all very—it's already interconnected. So we talked about being unattached to outcomes, but that needs faith. And what outcomes you're not willing to let go of, that defines the boundaries of your faith. So that is Bhakti, Karma, Bhakti, all yogas are all part of the same sort of movement, the same way. And nobody is listening to what I'm saying, I confused everyone fully. At least I enjoyed it.

So in all of this talking, your question then maybe is, 'So cut all this out, just tell us what we are meant to do.' That I shared right in the beginning: empty yourself of me, empty yourself of identity. What will you get if you empty yourself of identity? The promise is what? That you'll get Brahman, isn't it? You get knowledge of the Self, true knowledge of God, knowledge of the truth. That's the promise. Bhagavan said the Self is not something that you will attain; when you leave your ignorance, then you will feel that, you will notice that it was always there. Okay, so empty of ignorance, empty of Avidya, then the recognition of this Atma is not just possible but quite apparent actually.

So we discussed the mechanics of how to become full of yourself. So to be empty, just don't do the mechanics of how to become full of yourself. Attention, belief, you know all that. Then some weird stuff happens. Weird stuff happens which in speaking is quite weird, but actually for us it is very natural. What happens when you empty? The world is there, but you recognize that not just the world is there. And if you think about it now, it may feel like, 'Yeah, but only the world is there.' But try not to think about it, just follow the direction of my words. You are perceiving this world, you see, but the one that is witnessing this perception is not alien to you. You're not sitting confused saying, 'There's a perception of this world, who's perceiving it?' And neither are you concluding that there's a pair of eyes, there's a brain processing it. You're not—empty of all of that. What is your direct intuitive experience? That the world, the perception of the world is there, but I am witnessing it. And the 'I' which is witnessing it is not here. Is not here, is beyond this world, you see. If you think about this what I'm saying or understand it, you're contaminating it. So the job is to remain empty and just meet it in an intuitive way, which means just be empty.

So can't, can't do it. You can't try with intuition. So just remain empty and with the innocence of the child, just tell me that: is there only the perception of the world, or is there also an imperceivable witness of it? I spelled it out much more than I usually do. Is there just the perception of the world, or is there also an unperceivable witnessing of it? What's the answer? Repeat the question. Remain empty first. Empty. Try to follow fully. Try to follow, don't get distracted because this is the promised land, you know, the Brahman which is promised. Remain empty with the innocence of a child, full innocence, nothing complicated at all. Can you say that there are just these perceptions, or is there an unperceivable, unperceivable witnessing of these perceptions as well? A witnessing which is not perceivable, which is perceiving all of these, which is aware of all of these perceptions?

Repeat the question. Remain empty. First, empty. Try to follow fully. Try to follow. Don't get distracted because this is the promised land, you know? The Brahman which is promised. Remain empty with the innocence of a child. Full innocence. Nothing complicated at all. Can you say that there are just these perceptions, or is there an unperceivable witnessing of these perceptions as well? A witnessing which is not perceivable, which is perceiving all of these, which is aware of all of these perceptions? Yes? Okay. Now, what is your relationship with this witnessing? At what distance is it from you? Is there distance?

No distance.

So that which is not distinct at all from you, and you can't find a boundary between yourself and this—we can even infer, but I don't want you to infer, but we can check—that this then is you. You are witnessing all that I'm saying. You are that witnessing. Now, does this witnessing get affected by anything that is perceived? Does that witnessing have a special relationship with anything in the realm of perception? How many are not able to follow at all? The problem is its simplicity. The problem is that it's not graspable in our mind, intellect, and in perception. So let me try again.

So, all of you are perceiving this. Your mind will even offer the name for it. You are that 'you' which is aware that there is sight. Are these words confusing? You are aware that there is sight, isn't it? This is sight. The words are being heard; that is hearing. You're aware of these modes of perception. That awareness, does it change based on the mode of perception? So, if it becomes only hearing and all sight vanishes, does that awareness change? If there's only sight but nothing to hear, does it change? If there's just some experience in the body, some pain or pleasure, something is there in the body that is being perceived, does the awareness change? It doesn't change.

So this awareness, this awareness which remains unchanging independent of what the perception may be, how are you recognizing that? Can it be perceived? It's fully non-phenomenal, isn't it? And that which is fully non-phenomenal, how can we recognize that? What he said there, the right sound effects for that would make it much more dramatic if this was to happen. Otherwise, everybody... but it is weird because we are never taught about this. How can there be a non-phenomenal recognition? It sounds strange, you see. And then when we are taught about it, like when we read from the scriptures and things like that, we just put it in the compartment of our mind. We think we are understanding, but we are not taught to actually try and meet this truth.

And what is the mechanism of meeting this truth which is empty of our senses and our concepts? And the second trouble is that when this meeting is going to happen, then the mind will resist it the most. And maybe the Leela and the Maya will also resist it the most. See, something will happen. We'll remember the most important email that we forgot to send, or something, you see, will come. And we are talking about the highest truth and we are thinking, 'What's for dinner? I don't know if I cooked. I wonder if I left my gas on at home.' You know, all this is happening. So all this distraction will come just when this kind of question is asked, you see, because again, because there's nothing to be grasped. Yes. Now, so much laughter is there in the room, so this is resonating. This is all that is happening. So these are natural forces—distraction—to keep you away from this simple, simplest, most innocent recognition.

Okay. Who can tell me till which part is clear? Maybe some of you who are new can start. So, start. This part is clear? Clear. Perceiving the hand. You're perceiving the hand. This 'you' that is perceiving the hand—why do you call it 'you'? How do you know it is you? Is there such a 'you'?

Yes, evident.

So evident means like it's evident what is in my hand. A phone is in my hand. It's evident, no? On what basis is it evident? You can perceive it. There is sight about it, and it confirms the shape of the phone. So you can see that, ah, there's a phone. If I said it's a lollipop, you'd say, 'No, Father, we love you, we trust you, but that is too much. You know, that is too much even for us.' Correct? Because they say in the world, seeing is believing. So you have seen it, and you will not even take the most credible one, hopefully, that you heard that one's voice—if that one says this is a lollipop, not a phone, you'd say, 'No, that I'm not buying. And you can say whatever you want, it is not right.' So seeing we have categorized as the most important way to confirm the existence of something. See, the evidence that makes it evident is the perception of it. And we'll talk about knowledge which is purely conceptual; all that we've done often enough, so let's not worry about that now.

This 'you', this 'I' that is aware of this sight, in what way is that evident? Is it in the same way like this? You lost in the words? It's a bit... it can seem a bit wally. Who all is it not clear for? Good, good. So perception through sight is clear, right? So you're confirming that this phone is a phone, and you will argue with everyone if someone tells you it's not a phone, it's a kangaroo. No? So it is definitely a phone and not a kangaroo. So you confirm that through... why are you so sure? Why are you so sure?

Yes, so you're matching. You're doing like a matching between what a phone is supposed to look like.

So what are you looking at? The qualities of the phone, isn't it? The quality, the shape, size, some features that you're able to tell. And you can categorize much more. You can say what type of phone is it, or there's a logo there, so you can decipher all of that and say 'phone'. Agreed? What kind of perception is this? Sight. Okay, this is sight. And the coding 'phone' and all that is coming from where? The concept. So if that was not there, you would say something... so if there's a concept of rectangle, you say... so somebody from the 16th century came before technology and phones and all, they'd say, 'Something rectangular in your hand, that's for sure.' So they know the concept of rectangle, so they are able to match that. And so this is sight.

Now, that which is aware of this sight is it... okay, let's take another example. You're hearing these words. You don't have a shape of them, no? It's not a sight. It's just a different feature, different sense which is sensory. So that which is aware of the sight and that which is aware of the sound, are those two or one?

Same one.

You see. Now this same one, is it you or your uncle?

It's you.

So this 'you', you're confirming 100%. 100% it's you. 100% more than phone, kangaroo, lollipop. That which is aware is you only. Now this 'you' that is aware, tell me one thing about it. What is its color? This had a color, you see. Voice had a color in the sense you could say male voice, female-sounding voice, male-sounding voice; it has some quality, some attribute. This 'you' that is aware of all of these perceptions, what is its quality? Any quality? Is it dark or light? Is there like an abyss inside you, like a dark empty place like that? That is because the extent of our attention is like that. So when attention is withdrawn, it can seem like you're in a dark empty place, but your truth is not a dark empty place. You are aware of even the perception of dark and empty. With me?

Okay. So this 'you', with so much confidence you're confirming it is you. So much confidence. Is that confidence coming from your senses? Like this is coming from your senses. You will fight with me also. If I say this is a phone, you say, 'No, this is the remote control.' So that confidence that it is you, is it coming in the same way? We still confirm it is you, no? The confidence could be my uncle. How do I really know? This 'you' that is witnessing all of this, that is hearing all of this, that is perceiving, that is seeing all of this—all this is happening—this 'you', you also said it is the same one. It doesn't change, you see. Whether it's sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, all of that, it doesn't change. And you're saying this, 'It is I, it is you,' you see. And you're not perceiving it. So are you just making it up conceptually, like an imaginary friend? 'Yeah, I have a friend called Bob. He's witnessing all of this.' Is it like that?

You don't know how. You don't know how many are doing that, you know, because we've heard of things or we've read stuff, so we want like, 'Oh, that is Brahman, that is this, that is Absolute,' you see. But the words are not important, you see. Before it becomes insight, 'Brahman equals Bob,' there is no difference. If you know Brahman or you know Bob, it's the same thing. In fact, better to know Bob, maybe. Okay. So remember that it's not about knowing the words. That has nothing to do with it. And in fact, Atmik sent a video of Richard Feynman talking about that. The knowing of the words is like... anybody can know any word. You don't really know anything just because you know the name of a bird. You don't really know the bird. It is in the pure witnessing of it, the pure perception of it, that knowledge can be gained.

Now, the thing with this 'you' is that you can't perceive it. You've tried and tried. If there was a 'you' which you could perceive, you would have found it by now. Whatever number of years you lived, you would have found that one is witnessing over there, that's his shape, that's his size. But you can't perceive it. Is the right sound effects today. So this one is also... it's right. It's also Shiva. It's also called Shiva. So this one, how is it known? How is it that you're all saying, 'But it's just obvious and we are confident,' and yet all of you are confirming that you're not perceiving this? Yes, the mic.

Yeah, so Father, maybe in relation to the body-mind, it may also appear that the witnessing could be like multiple witnesses, right? I mean, rather than seeing it as one witness, it could... I could presume that, yeah, it could be like multiple. Everyone could be having multiple witnesses. So how...

Yes. So first is not to presume any of that, but to confirm the mode of knowledge through which we are recognizing this 'I'. Now, when that is clear, then that mode of knowledge can be applied to everything. Okay? So that itself will tell you whether it is one or many. All of that will come from there itself. So that is why it's so important to establish yourself in this mode of knowledge, you see. So all of this inquiry, investigation, has just been to introduce you to that. See where you recognize that you are that one which is not perceivable, and yet it is so apparent that it is you that is aware of the perception of this hand, the hearing of this voice, the seeing of this object is you. And yet you cannot see this 'you'. Yes or no?

Same is the case. You cannot perceive the mind, but the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts. So can you perceive a thought?

Yeah. So when a thought comes, what do you do with it? You don't perceive it? I know the trouble you're having, which is to be able to categorize it, saying, 'Am I hearing the thought?' Some of you will say, 'I hear my thought.' Some of you will say, 'I see my thought.' Some will say, 'My thought comes like this, like this.' Some will say it comes like this, like this. Some will say it comes like this, like this. So it's all... it's not standard. I used to feel like it's standard, then one day in satsang a decade back, I said, 'Your thoughts will come like this, like this.' They said to me, 'Father, my thought doesn't come like this, like this. It comes like neon, like this.' And I said, 'No, I don't know what all of you are talking about because our thoughts are just heard.' But it's not really heard like sound. It's just heard somewhere. 'I'm not thinking in words at all. All I'm seeing is images,' which I should have investigated deeper. But all of these conclusions we can make. But whatever way it is, it is still a perception, isn't it? As subtle as it may seem, it may be indecipherable whether it is perceived visually or hearing or which way. But when a thought is crossing our mind, we are perceiving that thought, that the thought is crossing my mind. Yes or no? Yes. So there is no other mind.

I should have investigated deeper, but all of these conclusions we can make. Whatever way it is, it is still a perception, isn't it? As subtle as it may seem, it may be indecipherable whether it is perceived visually or hearing or which way. But when a thought is crossing our mind, we are perceiving that thought—that the thought is crossing my mind, yes or no? Yes. So there is no other mind to be found except these constructs, these energy constructs called thoughts. That's why Bhagavan said the mind is a bundle of thoughts. Now, so when there is no thought, we also say that that is the no-mind, is it? So the mind is not there because there is no thought being perceived. But that which is witnessing that there is no thought, does that go away? Who is there in the space between two thoughts? You are. Then you are witnessing that there is no thought, the silence. So that 'you' doesn't go away. If this whole waking state goes, sleep state comes, dream state comes—all these states will come and go. This witnessing, this awareness, does not change. It does not go away.

Now, this 'you'—are you having to presume it like you are presuming the mind? So that's the main distinction. You presume that there is a mind, but for the fact that you are witnessing the perception of this glass, is you. Now, this is astounding, you see, for many reasons. Most importantly, that we are not blown away by that—that there is a recognition of something which is beyond our sensory abilities, beyond our conceptual abilities. We have come to the recognition of something like that. So if I said to you there's a non-phenomenal cube lying next to the router over there, you see, it is a non-phenomenal cube, and only if you enter the sixth dimension then you can see that cube. But the strangeness is that this non-phenomenal, quote-unquote, object—although the words are contradictory—this non-phenomenal object is the one that you are calling 'I'. The most important one in your life. Before all relationships, before any world, before anything, this 'I' you're recognizing it is there. You are also recognizing that it's not perceivable; it doesn't have any phenomenal quality. Without having to do any work, just negating the false, keeping the false aside, this recognition is very simple, is it?

So you are this more than the sixth-dimension cube, because this one is not in any dimension. It cannot be captured in any dimension because it has no quality. This 'I' you are referring to—the minute we say 'I', it is individual and it is limited. We are perceiving it that way. The question is, are you perceiving that? Like, we're trying to process it as... okay, first tell me whether what I'm pointing to is being recognized or not?

Yes.

Yes. So you are recognizing that there is you who is not phenomenal but is witnessing all that is phenomenal? Yes. You're not imagining a dark, empty place, not making any visualization, even an empty visualization. And if you are, then just ask yourself: who witnesses that? What witnesses that, you see? So if it's all emptiness, emptiness sounding very blissful and nice and all that—no, it's not that. It is what witnesses even that. Is it dark or light? Is it colorful? Is it big? Is it small? None of that applies. Now, why you call this one 'you'? Why you call it 'I'? Just asking for trouble! How do you call it 'I'? If you discovered something the Absolute, you should have called it Absolute. If you discovered God, you should have called it God. If you discovered Brahman, you should have called it Brahman. If you found Bob there, you should have called it Bob. Why you call it 'I'?

Closest. Not even distance.

Yeah, but I sense what you're saying. But okay, so I was in a school bus which was fully crowded, and my friends were all squashed into me. Like, people seeing us together would see there's a clump of kids there. Which one is my kid? I don't know, you see. Suppose you are that close, would I call them 'I'? So what distance of closeness must it have for me to be able to call it 'I'? Although what you said is, in terms of words, close to what we can say, isn't it? So whatever leads to be known, it knows. I know.

So, like, the way I kind of relate to it is... so I know, you know, the sensations of... I mean, leaving the external world aside, getting a little bit more into the inner world. So I know the sensations of the body and its qualities, right? So everywhere where the body is, every aspect of it, I'm there as the subject, right? So I'm everywhere there. And then all of us here, you know, since we are now aware of presence, then I also know presence. So just think of presence just like another body. It's okay, it's like it's got a different feeling, but okay, it's just another thing that can be perceived. So now if I know it, it's like I know the body. I can say, okay, the perimeter of the body I know I am. I can say, okay, presence is also another kind of body; it's infinite everywhere. I know it because I know it. I mean, I know whatever it is. So I'm there and there's no distance between the presence and me. So I know it's me because I can witness something like that. That's why I call it the knower. That's the way.

Yes, but then... good, very good. Now let's take the final step, which is that: how does the 'I' know 'I'? We got to the presence and subtler than even that, because you're right that from the level of pure awareness, even presence is like a phenomena, is it? So I may not go as far as to call it a body, but yes, all in the category of phenomena. Body, presence, all in the same category. Now that 'I' knows even presence, but how does 'I' know 'I'?

Intuitive.

That is intuition. Purely intuitive. And why are we saying purely intuitive? I'll describe in a moment. But purely intuitive—no matter what microscope you have, what quantum telescope you have, no matter what instrument you have that costs maybe billions of dollars, that will not bring you this. You may dissect everything in the world, you may get to the realms of outer space; in either way, you will not come to this through whatever instrument you may find. That is why it is the most pristine Atma Gyan. Brahman was said to be reserved only for the highest practitioner. Till then, you do seva, you do learning scriptures, you memorize things and all that. Then you are fully ripe for it, then you will leap into this. Now this, we just have to trust Grace to make that filtering in whatever way happen, you see.

So this 'I', how is it recognized? You may say presence is present; there's a quality of presentness or presentness about it, 'he-ness' about it, 'am-ness' about it. So I recognize that this 'I', which is am-ing or not, or sleeping—this 'I', how is that recognized? And if you don't know, you still call it 'I'. Everyone in the world will call it 'I'. Nobody says that my neighbor is witnessing the world; I am witnessing the world. So although this kind of conversation may have been had in secret in the past, the knowledge is universal, which is also the absurdness of it. Did you get something new in this conversation? In the sense that, is it a question of acquiring some new knowledge, or did this 'I' suddenly come because you looked? Is it the observer effect? You will in fact say it's always been here.

How do you say that? Yeah, but on what basis can you say it's always here? With what instrument? With that same instrument. Same one, you see. The same one which confirms it is 'I', the same one is also able to say this one doesn't leave. Otherwise, how to? Is it just a conjecture of the mind saying if you extrapolate it in time, it doesn't change? Are you inferring this thing? Are we ready to move to this question? So intuitively, some fall into the trap to say, 'Intuitively I can only know the Self, so I will refer to my intuition when it comes to coming to an intuitive insight into myself.' But what they don't realize is that when your Self is known, then everything is known. Everything is known.

So now if I say, when did this 'I' come or when will it go? You say it cannot come and go. On what basis can you say this? This is the question that always has trouble with. Were you born? Was it born? Because what is the basis? The same basis of calling this 'I'. Is it here in sleep state? You can infer and say, 'Okay, the witness has to be there, otherwise the contrast between waking and sleep, who is there to tell?' But you don't have to infer because you know you are there. The body, the universe may be sleeping, even the being may not be there. Are you going to die? You know over here that you will not die. The body may die, will die. So this intuition is what we can rely on for everything, be it spiritual or worldly.

Now you had two choices. One mode of knowledge told you that you are a clump of flesh. The other mode of knowledge showed you clearly that you are the undying pure awareness which is independent of anything that may happen in this universe. Which mode of knowledge should we follow? One which is true. Now, what does your mind think of the one that is witnessing? Let's determine the trueness. You said, 'I'm 100% confident it is I that is witnessing.' What does the mind say is witnessing? Some senses are working, there's a brain there, go through the retina, light is coming, all that stuff is happening and the image is forming, you see. So that is what is happening. What is your level of confidence in that? Nothing. It's conceptual. I say bet your house on it—no way, because tomorrow some other discovery will come, you see. You say that it's basically your brain in a jar which is imagining all this—very popular theory, right, that philosophers have conjectured with, have had thought experiments about, you see. We don't know any of that.

But this, that you are unperceivable and you are the witnessing of all of this in this moment—you may say, 'I don't know who that one is,' but that it is 'I' is undeniable. You know this truth more than you can know any truth. If I said to you, 'You are not aware of the hearing of these words,' you would say, 'It is I.' You see? Willing to bet anything on that: it is I. What that 'I' is, you may argue with; you say it's a brain, something, it's whatever. But that it is 'I' is not in question. So if your intuition is telling you the truth about who you are, but then decides to lie to you about everything else, that seems a bit far-fetched. So for self-discovery be intuitive, for everything else go to the mind? That seems a bit convoluted and very mental.

So that which is pristine enough to give us a darshan of that which is beyond perception—and even if that needs faith, and maybe that is what needs faith, to trust that more than you trust your senses and your mind—to live intuitively, whether you call it live in the Satguru presence, live in Atman, live in Atma Darshan, live the Holy Spirit, live with the holy word, live with whatever terms you want to use. To live like that is what I've been calling the way of the heart. So you don't have to just make an expedition there saying, 'In satsang time I will let go of my mind, I will come into the no-mind and I will come to self-recognition.' But what else is it good for? The only good is that which comes from that. So don't get pushed around by your mind in this way. If you are that, then what is the true intelligence of that? Can it be the trickster who is telling you that you are not that, you are just what you eat?

You can't ever lose it.

Yes. And how do we know we can't ever lose it? I mean, do you have to infer it, or in the same place where self-recognition is possible, you also know that time is nothing for it? So it's not just that you can't lose it, it's that time is nothing for it. So when these sages from thousands of years ago wrote things, and now science is coming close to sort of saying similar things, what knowledge did they rely on? The same. The same intuitive insight. They did not have Einstein, he was not born. They did not have instruments, they did not have the mathematics, they didn't have all that. But they are the ones who make sure that ever...

You also know that time is nothing for it. So it's not just that you can't lose it; it's that time is nothing for it. So when these sages from thousands of years ago wrote things, and now science is coming close to sort of saying similar things, what knowledge did they rely on? The same, the same intuitive insight. They did not have—Einstein was not born. They did not have instruments. They did not have the mathematics. They didn't have on that level of all the—the ones who make sure that everything was invented here will fight with me on that—but the level of sophistication, mental, intellectual sophistication which is there in the world was not there at that time. And yet, hearing the holy voice, hearing the Shruti, they were able to transcribe such beautiful truths, which include a small portion called the Upanishads. The meaning of the Upanishad is that which is shared, and you're sitting close, shared in secret almost. So it's not open knowledge, you see.

Other parts of the Vedas, the Karma Kanda and all of those, which can keep people busy doing all those things, but once you're done with all of that, then you come to these thin-seeming books of words, hundreds of them, maybe more, so many we've lost. So just all of these which are found at the end of the Vedas, they are called the Vedanta—Veda-anta, at the end of the Vedas. Then these Upanishads were found. So what happened then is that—well, let's not go fully historically—but basically try reading the Upanishads, especially without the commentaries. Some of us have tried and it's not at all—you have to refer to your intuitive eye to understand. But once you read along with the commentary, of course, it's manageable.

But so in a way, Krishna's gift to all of us is to make all that vastness and confusing and contradictory and all of that stuff which is there in the Upanishads, make it available in the Bhagavad Gita. He distilled all the main elements of the Upanishads and provided it to us in his simple words to a warrior prince. That is the importance of the Gita, Bhagavad Gita, in that way. In the same way that Jesus did with the Jewish law, the Torah and all of that—some six hundred-something commandments, some beside the ten main ones, and there's so much what you're supposed to do, what you're not supposed to do—so he said, love God with all your mind, body, and spirit. Love God, and then love your neighbor also like that. He simplified it. And of course, the rest of what he said, like the Sermon on the Mount and all of these things.

So a similar project in a way was undertaken to simplify that which is so—because when it's built up over centuries, then it's very difficult to have a coherent view of what was being shared. So Lord Krishna—and in a way I'm drawing a similarity which is to make it available—Lord Jesus and Lord Krishna made what was available, which was so complicated before that, make it clear. And these are the things that have gone on for thousands of years. These conversations have happened and we are having the same conversation here as well. And it's a privilege to have that. This conversation never gets outdated.

So at the center of it is the recognition of the absolute reality, whether you call it absolute or highest or Nirguna Brahman or whatever words you want to use, or God. Although in satsang usually we refer to Consciousness, the Sat-Chit-Ananda aspect as God, but it's all God. You can say God, that's fine. But remember, it is this conversation—the worst use of it is to just make an understanding out of it. It must lead to a true meeting. And today we started in this direction; we started from the absolute and then say, okay, now if you are this, then for you what arises in the waking state? You can take the conversation forward like that. That this 'I' is now 'am,' is now conscious. I am. What is this 'am'? What is this Consciousness?

If you stay in the same place where you recognize this 'I' and you ask yourself, what is this being who wakes up? What is here? Who is here? Then if I was to ask you, what is the boundary of this being? Yeah, intuitively that answer may come that it is boundless. It is boundless. And you start to notice that although awareness and Consciousness are the same in the play—so it's like the 'I' is the same, no? The 'I' is now 'am-ing,' is dancing, whereas it was meditating earlier. It's the same one, you know. You would not say, 'Oh, now there are two of you.' So Shiva is doing the Tandava and earlier he was meditating, so he's being Nataraja and earlier he was in silence. No, no, then that would mean there are two Shivas. No, this is the same Shiva who is now—this is the dance of Shiva.

So what is the difference in the dance of Shiva and Shiva in silence? Okay, and to simplify, what is the difference here now? What woke up? The 'I' woke up. But the 'I' that never sleeps is aware of the waking up of Consciousness. And you say, what is the boundary of this Consciousness? It is boundless. How do you know? Same way. You cannot perceive boundlessness. You can only imagine some space-type thing. It's very limited. You cannot perceive it, you cannot imagine it. You can only conclude, 'Oh, there must be more that side, there must be more this side,' make some painting in your head and say, extrapolate conceptually. But in reality, the confirmation of the boundlessness of Consciousness, of being, is confirmed in the same way that you know that this awareness is you.

So from the pure Nirguna arises a boundless being which is also unfathomable to the mind and beyond perception. And in this being, the world, the universes, they play, they dance around momentarily and they vanish. As you come to this recognition of the boundless being, you'll also—some of you may say, but there is like a hum, there's like a vibration. It seems to be like the core essence of everything. The I-am-ness is not the pure silence of awareness; there seems to be a very subtlest—so that very notion has led to the concept of the primordial vibration called Om. What is that? It signifies—it's a word, it's like the 'I am,' the word through which you can meet the boundlessness.

And most of you will experience that in your heart. It will seem like it's in the physical heart region, although it's not physical. You may feel like all the love sprouts from there, all the joy sprouts from there, but actually all of this universe sprouts from there. Everything is this and it is great grace. So you can meet this as a vibration. It's like half vibration and half not. Shiva and Shakti together in one. What does it mean? The yin and yang together in one representation. What does it mean? It can represent the highest reality, but it can also represent this. Because if it was fully phenomenal, it would be like this here. It is—you see, a doctor could, a surgeon could go in and say, 'Ah, here, this is your primordial vibration, Om.' Can they find it? No, they can't find it like that.

If it was fully phenomenal, it would be objective like this, like an object. If it was completely non-phenomenal, then for most of humanity it may seem unapproachable. Like the Saguna Brahman and the Nirguna Brahman, it may seem fully unapproachable. But because it is half and half—and you can't really say half to phenomenal and non-phenomenal—but like the yin, like Ardhanarishvara, it is both phenomenal and non-phenomenal. That is your Atma. Is there a distinction between Atma, which is this primordial presence, and Paramatma, that boundless being? Not really. And yet, yes, because of this—although it is one, although it is like what, ocean and wave—and yet there is a great advantage because of this wave. Because for those who are not able to relate to what I pointed to earlier in terms of the absolute and it just sounds like strange intellectual talk, it may sound like—then they can at least grasp onto this presence of God within ourselves called the Atma within, the Holy Spirit, the holy word, what word we want to use, Satguru presence.

You don't have to understand, you don't have to have read the Upanishads, you don't have to have done any inquiry. If you just are not selfish, are truly looking for God and are humble, you can find the love in your heart and that source is this very presence. So we looked at the portal from that way into the universe, but for most of the world, the portal will be used this way into the absolute. You look at this because this itself again should astound us. The Atma, which is—is it an object? Is it an object, your Atma? But is it here? Yes. See, this is the strange stuff. Because for awareness we can conclusively say that it is unaffected by any of this, not participating in any way. But for your being, you can say it's here. Not in the body, but here.

So you see, it's like the meeting point or the birthing ground of the universe is the birth of this Atma. That's why Bhagavan said that even the light of the sun is experienced in the light of your Atma. Without this light, there is no universe. So you may think about yourself like little old me, but within yourself your true self takes birth. This light, this primordial Om, this light of the universe. So Nirguna, Saguna, and Atma, which brings us to the recognition of—that's why we call it the Satguru presence also. We call it that because the true Master is this. The holy guide is this one, the Atma within. The outer Master is just an instrument of that because that still seems obscure for most. That's why we need a window, we need a doorway to that, which is the instrument of the body that we call the Master. It is really just a servant of that Master within you, okay?

And this guides us, can guide us in all matters. Even the question that you asked earlier, which is that, 'How do I know that there is not a separate awareness everywhere?' Stay with your inner guide because you know what your outer guide is going to say. It's all one. And he's going to say, 'How do I know? I know because that is what my heart tells me.' But you can have faith in those words, but more importantly, you must contemplate these things and come to your own insight about them. That is why contemplation in Vedanta is not to think about things, but is to take that question and bring it into the silence of our being and let the answer arise intuitively from there. In that way, you're the same then as the sages of the past, because that was the only thing special about them. Everything that is good about this man is all from God and all belongs to God. The silliness I bring into the picture. So that is the power of your Atma within.

And it is the same across cultures. So you may say Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That's exactly what I described the whole thing to you today: the absolute, the boundless Saguna, and the presence of Atma. Even the representations are very similar. Like in India we say, and you say the spirit has left the body. It's the same. It's actually—it's not like that. It's just all of this is the play, the projection of Atma itself. But it can be said like that because for an observer it may seem like that. Actually, just the Prana Shakti leaves and the body functions stop.

It's like the body leaves the soul.

Yes, in a way. In a way. Like in the movie now, like some scene may happen, but what does it mean for the projector and the witness? Not really much. But we can say, yeah, in the movie something happens. I think this Nirguna, Saguna, and Atma is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It's the same thing. So in the beginning there was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So this word is which one? The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit, the presence, the being. They say, you know, that in the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So actually they are saying the non-distinction, distinction, the same thing. Ajata. So the same Atma, the word. The word is referred to as being, and the presence of that being is the Holy Spirit. So the whole construct is there. So Nirguna is the absolute, is God in that construct. The word is the boundless being, and the presence of that word is the spirit which hovers. They say the spirit is hovering above. So this is the same one which has played all this game of time and space.

Actually, they are saying the non-distinction and distinction are the same thing. So the same Atma, the Word, is referred to as Being. And the presence of that Being is the Holy Spirit. So the whole construct is there. Nirguna is the Absolute; it is God. In that construct, the Word is the bound as Being, and the presence of that Word is the Spirit which hovers. They say the Spirit is hovering above. So this is the same one which has played all this game of time and space.

So, what is the—I'm being a bit academic also today somehow, I don't know why—but the construct is that when there is too much suffering or evil, or people are just full of ego and on their own trip, living only on their own terms, then the Being itself comes in the form of an incarnation. So whether it is Ram, whether it is Krishna, you look at the main job: it is to clear up, to just clear up a lot of the nonsense and just bring it back into some sanity. That's what they say, no? Like when I grew up, my Nani and my grandma, people used to say like that: that the pot is full of sin in the world, the world has become too egotistical, too proud, and too much atyachar. You know what is atyachar? Torture. Like just too much suffering everywhere created by humanity for humanity. Then God Himself comes—Ram, Krishna, many of them before.

So in the same way, then, that Jesus came, the Word Himself came. The Word Himself came, but they did not recognize Him. The world that He, the Word Himself, built, the world didn't recognize the Word, which is the nature of this play. I'm sure many refused to recognize Ram, including most importantly Ravana. He said, 'Oh, he's just another boy prince.'

Can you talk about how to rely on it, the same place, intuition? How to rely on it for other stuff?

Yes, yes. I'm always talking about it, but you're being conceptually empty. What do you rely on? Let's take a simple example. Just be empty. Are you here or no? Are you still alive? I mean, are you still present? We know all of this from where? You may say, 'My dictionary is from my mind, my words, my concepts. I can't say alive or here, you see, or even I am, I can't say.' But that knowledge is inherent before the words. The Being, the presence—that you are present. Suppose you didn't have to say it to anyone; is it still that self-knowledge is there? It's just natural, intuitive inside.

So just like that, live in full reliance of this. Live in the presence of this. The tip is to at least—well, you can't even say initially, forever is also good—just remain in the presence of Being. That means that your Being should be palpable to you. Your Atma should be... do you live in Atma-bodh? Empty. You know how to do: front door open, back door open. Somebody posted on the group also, yeah. Let all visitors come, don't sell them tea. Easy. That is 99% of it.

Then, are you still here? If I say you're not here, you're not hearing these words? 'I'm hearing you.' You are hearing. So this 'I am' is the one that I'm talking about. So you contemplate this. When I say, 'Can you stop being?' this Being becomes apparent. So stay in the power of that.

How do I take another—like, how do I take another question to it? Like for another question to it?

You heard, 'Are you aware now?' See, one is, 'Yes, I must be aware because awareness is always there, whether in the waking state or dream state or sleep state, whether it's whatever.' Then you can think about a question like that, or you can just say, 'Am I aware now? Was I born? Can I die?' See, so Krishna said you are that which will never—which is never born and will never die. Was it supposed to just be mentally understood? 'Oh, I was that. Know this, Arjuna, I was never born.' But my mom said, 'You were born in wherever, Haridwar, wherever.' So then something is wrong. So it can't be mentally understood like that: 'You were never born and you will never die.'

Suppose those words don't make sense, then we just stay with that. Like, the way to explain it, although words fall short, is to just carry the slightest intention of that question. 'Was I born?'—like that. If that is the question, or 'What should I do?'—carry that, but don't dwell on it. So leave some sort of vibration, like a subtle aftertaste. Like every question leaves a sort of aftertaste, isn't it, in your space? 'Was I born?' Even after it's gone, it's still alive somewhere, like the scent. So keep that scent there, but don't think about it.

The question—should the question I take also be... I should be empty of that?

Yes, except this what I said. Just like that. So ask yourself something and see what happens. It's like—I don't know, this you all can notice like that—you ask yourself any question, then it can remain alive without you thinking about it for a while. That is the contemplation. Is it like, 'Was I born? Oh, was I born? Was I born?' There's space within us to be contemplative like that. It means relying on intuition, which is beyond intellect and thinking.

Einstein said, 'When faced with the most challenging problems, I would think and think and think and think, but when thinking would stop, that is when the answers would start to appear.' It's not a superpower, and I'm not betting on anyone becoming the next Einstein in this room. It's not meant for that. Although if it's naturally playing out that way, of course it's fine, but don't get distracted by any sort of seeming abilities that it can give you. It's not for that. It is so that we can live in God's presence.

Can you give a live commentary of what happens when I ask you a question?

All is live commentary. Just with the question and taking it that it is... yeah, somehow I take your question. Do you feel like—and if I do that, I should stop—but do you feel like when a question is asked, do you feel like, 'Oh, I'm sitting and thinking about it? No, this one, that one.' I hear the question, I hear the answer. In between, what happens? I don't see. Yeah, I should slow it down. You'll have to tell me. I can't see it even if you slow down. I'm hearing this, and then I've said often that I just feel like this is like a heart-to-mouth communication that happens, which is a different instrument.

For example, if you said, 'What is 7 into 77?' you know, like that, I can see a different instrument at work, which is mind-intellect, versus when a question is asked. And that is why you come to Satsang. That is why you come to Satsang, because all these answers you'll get in books. In fact, the answers are much better in the books. Okay, let's take another example. Did you ever see cricket sometimes? Sometime? Did you ever see Sachin Tendulkar batting? Yeah, I was going to say no chance, but Sachin, right? What is a good shot that Tendulkar used to play? The cover drive, really well. He still probably does.

So you can look up a book. You can say, 'Oh, hand has to come like that, head has to be like this, feet have to be like that.' You can understand it, and you can understand cover drive means like that, and you can visualize, you see. But when you're watching it being played, are you thinking like that? Only later when the commentator says, 'Ah, like that, like that.' But the beauty of it is just in that moment you don't have time to think. The shot is played in a fraction of a second, and the body has moved like that from that same emptiness. That's why some of the great players, they always said that they have more time than the others, because they're empty. They're in the so-called zone.

So it comes from that, and you go to admire the beauty of that. Or when you see Messi playing, or at least how he used to play and still like that, where he has not looked up on the field for like 30-40 seconds, and without looking up on the field, he passes the ball to the right player. So I'm using scientists and sports people as examples because we can relate to that. So we go to see that kind of magic because we recognize somewhere that that is not natural for a thinking human to do. There's something else at play, yeah. So that's why we call them geniuses, or genius out of the ordinary. The hand of God—you can spot it. Hand of God is there in everything, but uncontaminated by 'me, me, me,' success, outcome, all of that stuff.

A question like 'Who am I?'—the fundamental inquiry question—can be answered purely intuitively?

Can only be answered intuitively. I mean, you can answer it conceptually, mentally, but those answers are not answers. Bhagavan said, 'Ask yourself who am I. When the answer comes in the form of a thought, ask yourself who witnesses that thought.' See? And if the answer comes, 'I witness that thought,' ask yourself, 'Who is this I?' So it takes us away from the conceptualization engine into a deeper looking.

For years, I probably looked trying to find an experience of this 'I.' Who's this 'I'? Who is witnessing this thought? When will I come to this 'I'? When will I come to... why is because I was expecting some objective finding, some fireworks, some band-baaja, something to happen. It's not that. Only sitting in front of Guruji that day, outwardly all the drama was happening—laughing, crying—all that is not important. But I saw, 'Oh, you recognize the most obvious and yet best-hidden thing.' It's like in the treasure, and you hide the treasure right where the treasure hunt starts. Nobody looks at the start, they start running. That is our intuition.

All of you confirmed intuitively. I said, 'Is it you that is aware of the perception of this I am?' You say, 'It is I.' You can't see that 'I.' You're not just presuming, 'It has to be I, what kind of stupid question?' You could answer like that also, but you're not doing that. You're saying, 'Yes, I am aware of this perception called sight. I'm aware of sight. I am aware of hearing.' That's why for years I kept asking, 'How do you know this one?' 'I just do.' So what is that 'just do'? No, no, no. First it was, 'Because I am it.' The answer used to be, 'Because I am it.' So I said, 'So what if you are it? How would you know then?' Just like—what was that example?—just like an eye cannot see itself. Some Vedantic would come like, 'No, no, cut all that out. How do you know right now you see?' 'A knife cannot cut itself.' All this I heard. So just like a knife cannot cut itself, an eye cannot see itself. This is not an Amitabh Bachchan movie. Keep all that. How is it that you can say for sure right now—not even about saying—how do you know?

Now I don't get so much of that. I've become scarier in my beard and old white hairs. I would get a lot of this stuff, maybe also because the numbers have increased. Which one? Yes, yeah, that you are aware of the perception of this hand. How do you know? One way to know is perceptually. There's a phone. How do you know? You know perceptually. Let me ask everyone so that... how do you know? Phone? Perception plus mind matching of categories: rectangular shape, this kind of shine, all that. Phone. That this 'you' that is aware of the perception of this hand—can that be perceived? It can't be perceived. It doesn't have shape, quality, color, size, none of that. And yet we give it the highest, most important relationship. We call it 'I.' How? That's the question. How is it known?

Another way to say it is: where is it now? How? Where? Not here, not here, not here. Yes, yes. So that mode of knowledge which is independent of reference to anything—there's another characteristic to it. What happens to it if you refer to another mode? If you were to refer to the mind, it seems to get hidden. This is the Maya. It seems clear with eyes closed. It seems clear with eyes closed, eyes open. Yes, yes, yes.

Gopala used to keep saying that it's okay, initially it will seem like that. Then as more and more you are living like that... in fact, he was not here when you asked this question, but Gopala used to say that it's become so apparent with my eyes closed, almost with tears in his eyes he asked that, 'It's so clear with my eyes closed, but the minute my eyes open, it's all lost.' But as you settle now, if you were to ask him, 'No, not lost, nothing happens.' See? So I was saying that. So one way to look at it is to say it's always there. Then I can do whatever I want. There is no avidya, there is no ignorance. Whatever self-knowledge is not lost. But the instant you go to your head, what happens?

He used to say that it's become so apparent with my eyes closed. Almost with tears in his eyes, he asked that it's so clear with my eyes closed, but the minute my eyes open, it's all lost. But as you settle now, if you were to ask him, no, not lost, nothing happens, see? So I was saying that one way to look at it is to say it's always there. Then I can do whatever I want; there is no avidya, there is no ignorance. Whatever self-knowledge is not lost. But the instant you go to your head, what happens? All this pristine inside seems to get lost. So although the absolutist in us would say, 'But in reality nothing changed,' yes, but you're here because you want to do something about your life. Let's be honest, that although in reality for awareness, which is your absolute reality, nothing has changed, but we are here because at some level we are suffering from something. And that something may even be the absence of finding God, all the truths anyway.

So the point is that Bhagavan didn't say that whether you like it or not you have self-knowledge. He said self-knowledge will not be a new attainment that you have; all you have to do is get rid of the avidya, you see? And you have to do it, you see. And then the disciple said, 'But how can I do it?' He said, 'Like this: you are it.' A very frustrating sort of loop, of course, but you can see through it, no? See, because what is being meant is drop it, drop this, you see. So it's not a mode of knowledge which we can just take for granted, you see. We must be free from the lies that are on us: the lie of egotism, the lie of separation, the lie of individuality, selfishness.

When you say, how do you know it is me who is perceiving, the only answer that can be spoken is it knows itself. I know myself. But how? Yeah, yeah. And isn't it the same place which actually knows everything also?

Yes, truly yes.

Like if I see a cup of water, I pick it up and drink it without thinking or understanding anything. So it's the same place that knows it truly, right?

Anything. Anything can be as simple as drinking a cup of water. As simple as drinking a cup of water to as seemingly complex as running this universe; both are only known over there. All intelligence of all creatures, even objects, all physics, chemistry, biology, everything comes from that. Yes. Now do you know that the knowledge is it, huh? Yes. So you, the knowledge is it. So this knowledge is from where? Huh? Yes. So it could have also said, 'I am the unborn,' you see. Where is that knowledge from? The knowledge itself is all-encompassing.

So all this, even to the extent of—we talked about this in the past—that I have to come to satsang today. Like my mind didn't want to go, but I knew I had to come. So is that a different, just like a confusion in the mind when we say like that?

It could be. For the world, it can sound like a confusion in the mind: 'Go, don't go, don't go, go, go, don't go.' I decided to go. But when we say in there, a difference there, the mind with all its mind is saying don't go, sometimes the reverse. But I know that I have to come to satsang. So that to take that universal intelligence is like to take the whole ocean and find pearls in that, is it not? Pearls may not be drops of the ocean in that. So although it's not really distinct, and yet it can be distilled in some way. The nature is not just like a glorified brain or something, in the sense that the nature is to be itself in a way beyond even being and not being. But its attributes are this knowledge, self-knowledge, self-effulgence. Yes, yes. Even the being with all its play of so many universes arises, is made up of it itself. Yes.

How is all this known, that the universe is born within the self? To the mind, to science, to all of that, it sounds weird. Yes. Your question really, as I'm hearing it, sounds like: can we confirm that intuition is a mode of knowledge, or are we just using another term for awareness itself?

Yes and no. Yeah, yeah. No, that's good because it cannot be qualified like that. Because it can be qualified like for conceptual knowledge, we can say that concepts which we learn from a book or we hear, those are stored in our memory and we can use that as conceptual knowledge, you see. Perception, we can say sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste—that is perception. Inner perception: memory, imagination, all that thinking, all that. Now when we say intuition, we can't grasp it except in—it's like the intelligence of the self. Now is that intelligence universal or discrete? It's both. It's discrete in the sense that—why I'm emphasizing this point is that because I don't want the mind to create a category to say that for self-knowledge we can go to intuition, because the non-phenomenal recognition can only happen intuitively, you see. So for that I must be intuitive.

But for worldly stuff, what can awareness do? How can it tell me whether to go to satsang or not? Can it, see? So that ability to tell you, to guide you, is called intuition in a way. Maybe the Satguru presence is a good name for it. Does it have the Satguru presence? Okay. How do you recognize the non-phenomenal self? Is it possible to come to that recognition without the presence being palpable? That is why it's said that only in the light of the Satguru can the self be revealed. What is the Satguru? This presence itself, the Atma. So this Atma gives us whatever guidance, insight, whichever is needed. So this is the intelligence of the self itself being received through the grace, the presence of the Atma. Maybe that's a good way to put it.

So let's look at it this way: can the self ever forget itself? Can we forget the self? Are we not the self? And yet it is possible. That is the Leela, that is Maya, you see. So this is ignorance. The ability to pick up avidya is present in the human condition because of this play of Maya where it seems as if the self is forgetting itself. But when we come to the recognition of our self as awareness, we realize it's impossible. Now this one who can get confused or can get deluded and get into avidya, who is the best one to guide it? The deluded one? The presence, you see. So this presence, yes, yes, yes, it does. So the presence itself takes on the condition 'I am.' 'I am' itself takes on the condition 'I am something,' you see. But when the 'I am' remains empty of those, then what happens? Exactly, exactly. Now is that guidance only remaining in the unborn? Exactly. So that is intuitive. Where does it come from? We can say from the presence if you want, if that helps.

So how is the self known? In the light of this presence, the self knows itself. And yet we may be confused although we are the self. That is the game of Maya, no? The same non-duality, duality like this. Does the self need intuition? The thing is, you know that—one second—so what will happen now is that naturally you won't feel like taking any of these questions to your intuition, you see. You feel like earlier when we were children, we go to the temple and say, 'Please give me good marks, I never studied, give me good marks,' you know those kind of things. And then later you just feel like just enjoying the present so much that you're not really saying what's going to happen.

That is why all this astrology thing is—if you had no fear of what the movie is going to bring, we would never go to an astrologer. In fact, we'd be upset with the astrologer like we get upset with a friend who tells us the ending of the movie, like spoilers. I'm going to watch, but you're watching this movie. If somebody came and told you—like those they used to say, Nadi Shastra and all, they write down the whole thing and it's there spoiling the whole movie. But what does it help? You feel like, 'Okay, now I know nothing so bad will happen,' or 'After some six years some bad news is going to come, so I better enjoy myself then.' It's going to happen, you see. So it becomes sort of a predetermined thing. But predetermined is not that there's a script that is writing all of this. That would be to put Consciousness in a very limited box.

Consciousness writes a script and this part's life is going to be like this: day one, day two, day three, all is written. Like Consciousness is fully alive and fully playing out every single possibility in every single expression. What does it mean when it's said that Consciousness is unlimited? We think it means unlimited in this space. It's not like that. It's unlimited in every potential, every possibility, also in the expression of every possibility, you see. If that which is no-thing had to express itself as something, how would it express itself? As everything. Is it just how we say, if you break down light, how many colors can it be broken down into? Infinite. So if that is for one aspect of Consciousness, which is physical light, then what about Consciousness itself? It is because our minds are like this hardcore who did like linear time, the arrow of time. You think God has to conform to an arrow of time? Arrow of time meaning it only goes in one direction; once it's shot, it cannot be pulled back like that. You think there's only one direction? If even light can have infinite colors, look at the life of Consciousness.

That's conversation for one of those when we rarely have retreats. Then after the end of a long day, and some of you have had that experience, you're just sitting around and I'm very tired, so I'm just saying all kinds of mumbo jumbo like that. That's it.