The Transparent Self (Ashtavakra Gita 2.15 - 2.18) - 12th October 2016

A child is playing on the swing. He's not trying to understand the mechanics of the swing. He's not trying to figure out what is the angle he should swing at for him to get the perfect swing; he's just enjoying the play of the swing. So all our mental knowing has been trying to figure out how to make the swing work, you see? 'How does it cause me enjoyment?' You're trying to conceptualize these things instead of just playing with this realm, instead of just allowing it to function. And nothing that you have to do to experience the enjoyment of this world; it is natural, it is automatic, except when you sit and think about or try to get some concepts about this phenomenal appearance. Better first to get a deeper understanding about who you are, and then all of this appearance will be seen to be just what it is: just an appearance.

Verse 16: Looking at one and seeing many is the cause of all misery. Beautiful. Looking at one and seeing many is the cause of all misery. You see, all of this—'this is my son, this is this one, this is this one, this is this one, this is the Master'—you see, all of this labeling gets us nowhere. In fact, it is the labeling which is the seeming separation in this one appearance. So what does it mean, looking at one? We are only looking at one. Seeing many means interpreting this one to be as if it is many, you see, is the cause of all misery.

Then what happens? When we see something, we feel like, 'Oh, that I want.' You see? So then that becomes an attachment. 'I want to keep it that way.' You see? So that causes misery because nothing in this realm stays that way; it is constantly changing. See? So he says, 'I want that.' You're picking and choosing between this one appearance and saying, 'This I want, this I don't want.' And the desire causes suffering and the aversion also causes suffering. You say, 'Okay, all this is good, but I don't want this.' You see? Many times it will happen in Satsang also. We say, 'I want all the good stuff, but I don't want to experience any frustration. I don't want to experience any so-called negative emotions.' But how do we know what it is for if you don't allow them to really be, and we just keep repressing them? You see? That is aversion.

So both the wanting of something specific in this realm, which is universal, and the trying to push away something specific in this one appearance—both are the cause of misery. Both desire and aversion make us miserable. Looking at one and seeing many is the cause of all misery. So then what should our attitude be? And both are fine. One way is to look at this one appearance and say, 'This entire thing is fine. I accept everything that appears. All is one appearance.' Then we are not picking and choosing our experiences. The other is to turn inward from this realm of appearance and say, 'What else is here? What else is here?'

So this to accept everything as is, is surrender. To accept everything as is, is surrender. A way to say it is, 'Let Thy will be done.' Meaning what? Let everything that has to appear, let it appear. I'm not making a distinction between this or that. This is acceptance, this is openness, this is surrender. You see? The other way is to say, 'Okay, all of this realm of appearances is here as one appearance, but who am I in all of this? Am I here? Am I an appearance?' You see? Who is the witness of this appearance? See? So in either case, when we take this apparent realm to be one—whether we become completely in acceptance of it or we start to inquire who is it appearing to—it will bring us to the realization of the one truth: that I am awareness, that solitary witness.

The only cure is to realize what is seen is not there. What does it mean, 'what is seen is not there'? It means it does not have a tangible existence. It has no permanence. And we looked at the definition of truth where we said that only that which is unchanging can ultimately be called the truth. Everything else is a relative truth. See? So what is appearing? The only cure is to realize what is seen—that means this phenomenal realm doesn't really exist in the way that the reality of 'I' exists. This awareness, you see, is the unchanging, the eternal one in which all these realms come and go.

This realm appearing, it is seen now. Sleep comes, everything dissolves. Then another realm comes. In this waking state, we call that dream state. If there was memory of this waking state in that dream state, we would call this a dream. You see? So all these appearances are coming and going. Who is that witness to all of these realms and to the 'no thing' which is sleep? I am one, aware, blissful, immaculate. You see? So this awareness is one: unchanging, unmodified, unlabelable Oneness.

Now, what is the bliss that is spoken of here? That is the same as the bliss of sleep. Why is it that when we get tired, we want to experience this bliss of sleep? Is it like the tasted bliss that we talk about in this world? No, there is nothing in sleep, you see. But even to rest in that nothingness is being described as blissful. That is why Papaji used to say that you could be on your wedding night in the arms of your beloved, but when sleep comes falling and you've had enough of this realm of experiencing, then nothing seems attractive to you and you go to sleep. That which is beyond this bliss that can be experienced in this realm, see? Immaculate. It means that there is just no attribute. That which has no attribute cannot have any change; remains as pure as ever, unchanging.

Verse 17: I am unbounded awareness. Only in imagination do I have limits. Reflecting on this, I abide in the Absolute. The unbounded awareness—we saw that it has no boundaries. Boundaries apply only to that which is phenomenal, to that which is an appearance. To that which all appearances are appearing, that itself cannot have any concept of space. And that which is not subject to the concept of space cannot have any boundary. Only when I imagine myself to be something limited, and I imagine myself to be surrounded by this body. Very popular presumption, isn't it? That I am something which is enclosed in this body. You see? And we have... it's such a silly idea and it is so popular because no surgeon has ever found this 'I' that was sitting inside the body. Nobody ever found this 'I'.

Then somebody will say, 'But what if it is the brain which is creating consciousness, which creates all of this?' You see? But what would that mean? That would mean that first there was a brain without the rest of the world. You see? Just a brain and there was no world. But where would the brain appear? You see? So sometimes the mind gives us such tricky things, but when we really look at them, what would it imply? So the brain creates consciousness, and I admit that consciousness projects this entire world just like the dream world. But how do I know that I am not that dream? But if you were to just look, is it possible that prior to consciousness, which creates everything else, there is this substance called the brain hanging about in nowhere, in limbo? You see? How would that brain... is that not also made up of consciousness? And anyway, which brain are we talking about? If a surgeon was to operate on a dream body, would he not find a brain there? So is that the brain that is operational, or this one?

We see that even this idea which tries to hold on to some sense of individuality or some sense of body reality is absurd, actually. It's impossible to just have a brain in nowhere. See? So all of this—all the organs of this body—are the projection of this one consciousness. First 'I am.' Various bodies I have had; all of them seemingly had functioning organs. So only in imagination do I have limits. How many of us now see that it is the body which is within the 'I am,' or how many of you now still feel that it is 'I am' contained in the body? Most of you see that it is this cloud of the body which is appearing in the sky of being, and not the visual that the mind is trying to give you—that it is this being which is contained within the body.

So then what did Bhagavan mean when he said 'Heart'? He only meant that seeming point of origin of the sense 'I am,' which is for many of us, or most of us, it seems like the sense 'I am' emanated from this heart. But it is not a physical heart, is it? It just is experienced this way. Some of you don't have this experience; you feel that 'I am' is just everywhere. So you get confused when Bhagavan said 'Heart.' What does it mean, 'Heart'? You see? Because for most of us, the experience of amness seems to be centered around this non-physical heart region, you see, and yet it is boundless. That is why Bhagavan used the term 'Heart' to describe this non-physical consciousness, this non-body-restricted sense of being itself.

So it is... and the mind will say, 'You're using your imagination to pretend as if you're the Absolute,' but it is the other way around. We are using our imagination to pretend to be bound by this body. I am neither free nor bound. The illusion of such things has fallen into disbelief. Though I contain creation, it has no substance. That which has no attributes cannot be bound, you see? That which cannot be bound, the concept of freedom also does not apply. I am this awareness which cannot be said to be in reality free or bound. But if somebody puts a gun to our heads and forces us to pick, then we will say 'I am free' because bondage is completely impossible for that which we cannot even place in time and space. The illusion of such things—which means the ideas of freedom and bondage—have now fallen into disbelief. They do not apply, you see? Though I contain creation, it has no substance. So all of this creation is contained within me, but it fundamentally has no reality to it. It has no substance to it.