The Truth Is Right Here, Right Now – 15th October 2021

The senses and even other perception which we may not be able to decipher which senses we are using. Like you can imagine things, you can have impressions called memories which we are perceiving independent of our physical, apparently physical eyes, isn't it?

So, don't go there because all perceptions come and go, and that which comes and goes is not real. It is not reality, isn't it? Now the trouble is, once you've taken these things out, then what is like judgment? The subject. Subject. How would you know that?

The feeling that you exist and you can perceive. Yes, not the perception but the perceiver.

Yes, but this feeling, is it similar to other feeling like anger, greed, you see? Is it frustration? Is it a feeling like that? I have a feeling, there's a feeling here that I am the witnessing or I am awareness. Is it a feeling like that?

Just a constant presence.

How is it known?

I am. It's known by itself. It's known by itself. It's known by itself.

Okay, everybody saying it's known by itself. All those who are saying that, raise your hand. Okay, bear with the school teacher today; maybe it's a permanent which I don't know. So, by itself, and it is just known. And whether we call it intuitive knowing or just known, it is the most primal knowing, whatever fancy or basic terms we may use. Then what is the concept of search in regards to the Self? If the question is clear, if it is just known, if it is just like that, apparent without moving an inch, without taking a step, if it is clear, you see—and in fact, taking the step makes it cloudy or blurry—then what is the relationship of the motion of the search for the Self? What does that have to do with discovery of the Self?

Nothing. No, there isn't a relationship. It's like the what you said, like the cloud. What does the cloud have to do with the car on the road?

That sounds like a metaphor I would use, yes. So, why is that? Because as we just said, the search is possible only in which realms? The mind. You can search for concept. What is the right answer? 24 into 68? Or what is the capital of Timbuktu? You know, where was I three days ago? Like that. Go to the mind for these kind of answers. So, the mind we go to for these kind of conceptual answers or interpretations of perceptions of past, future, all of these things. But we already said that all of you agree that not possible to find the Self in that way. Where else is it possible to search? Where's your phone? There's a phone, see? But suppose it's not there. You can say, 'Okay, where did I come from?' You can look perceptually for an object, but the Self will never be an objective discovery, isn't it? Where else is search possible? And then you're trying to come to a conceptual conclusion which you're hoping will be the resolution of the search for the Self, you see? Like we try to do with other problems. We try to find some conceptual conclusion and say, 'Ah, that's it.' Why is the world so unfair? 'Ah, okay, because it is...' whatever. We try to resolve these existential things, intellectual things, mentally, and we find a conclusion that we can rest on. And then we say, 'I feel a bit better. I've resolved this.' Until that quest keeps burning like that, it keeps, it seems to be unsatisfied or unfolded. And the spiritual quest—many of us as spiritual seekers are stuck in that kind of quest, trying to find a conceptual resolution or a perceptual resolution, experiential resolution to the search for the Self. But once we close these two doors—like they can remain open, whatever has to come can come—but if you're now clear that the answer cannot be found in these two ways, then what does that leave us with?

Within.

Within. What is in what? Within the body? Within what can we do? Don't get intimidated at all, and this, I'm just plotting this project. So, we may settle for a conceptual resolution which says, 'I have to search for the Self within myself.' And you may have heard that in satsang itself; it maybe is the most popular thing that all spiritual teachers may say, including this one. But let's go deeper than that even today. Let's not leave any stone unturned. So, when it is said 'go within,' within what? There has to be an outside and an inside. And what is the boundary between outside and inside? See, because if you were going inside the body, then we would be like an x-ray machine: bones, blood, flesh, those things. So, that is not the 'within' that we are talking about. So, within what do we do? Thinking about it. So actually, the instruction to go within is to leave the without. To leave the without in the sense, the same thing: leave the perceptual realm because you will not find the solution or the answer in the realm of perception, isn't it? So, that is what the instruction is about. Now, the mistake many of us may make... please. So, the mistake many of us may make is to consider the perceptions that show up once we close our eyes those to be perceptions from the within. So, they're still perception. So, where not to go to search for the Self, does it not also include those perceptions that we notice once we close our eyes? It has to. Does it or no? Or is it that, 'Okay, now this I call the outside world and then once I close my eyes, okay, now this is allowed because this is the within part'? So, if there are fireworks happening or there's some constriction happening here, so those then I'm allowed to take to be real? Is that what we're saying? No. So, including these perceptions also cannot count in the discovery of the Self, you see? So, this part is clear. It'll save you a lot of time and misunderstandings. These simple basic things are made clear first. How are we doing online?

When you ask where should we go, the question 'where' it somehow implies like a location. But the closest we can say, maybe it's here. Like a location, it's here.

But here, it's that here is where? No place. It's not a special thing at all. No, it's not an object. If it was in space, then it would be an object. An object is a question of perception. You have to be able to perceive an object; therefore, that cannot be the Self, isn't it? So, when we say we go, we are answering mostly where do we not go, you see? And we're basically saying all of space we can look at, but we cannot find it. So, any thing in this perceptual universe, you may go to everything and see it, you see? But that will not be the Self. So, we're looking for a discovery which is not in the realm of time and space. Now, what is our direct insight about that which is not in time and space? Has any of us had something like that? Keep your hand up on the video if you want to come up. You can keep your physical hand up. Okay, hello. Have you had the... so the question is that if you were to audit every element in time and space, you recorded every element in time and space. Now, that would be objective in the sense that it'd be a question of perception, isn't it?

I miss some word what you say, Father.

So, I'm just saying that every object in the universe is just—we can say it is there because there's a perception of it. Now, have we had an experience of something, quote-unquote, which is not in this time and space? Any sort of insight into that?

Yes.

So, what is that insight? What is that insight? So now, we can look around. Where will we go to check? We can look around in the room, we can look around in the repository of what we call the past called memory, or we can try to conceptually have the answer because conceptually you know the right answer.

No, no. Of course, I can't find it in that way.

So, how can I testify to its experience from the past? So, it has to be checked right now. And check for yourself whether you have some such discovery at this very moment. Yes, the stream of thoughts may become compelling at this point and may start saying, 'Uh, there's something, something, it's not relevant, forget about it.' Stay with me as much as you can actively, as actively as possible, so that we can really look together. So, right now, is it just your perceptions that you are aware of? What about the one who is aware of the perceptions?

The immediate discovery is that everything which is in time and space appears in it.

Appears in it. In what way? Is it like there's a bigger space, you see, which there's a smaller space? But is the bigger space perceived? No. Is it? It's beyond perception. If it's not perceived, then is it just metaphorical when we say it's a bigger space? Because it's a direct experience that everything appears in it. Everything which can be perceived, which is in time and space, appears somehow in it. Yes, but that in which it appears, what can we say about that? How big is it? How much bigger is it?

It has no limits.

No limit. So, is it like the sky is almost, we can say, let's say limitless, but there's a bigger sky which is even more limitless? Is it possible to visualize it like that? No, not that, isn't it? So, if I was to tell you it's not bigger than because it's actually smaller than smallest, would that be right or wrong? So, is bigness an inherent property of it as opposed to smallness? No, it's not appropriate. These measuring tapes, it's just not appropriate to talk about big and small. Yes, so we're trying to just use words to point to it. But as long as you're clear that you're not imagining some super vast space which is, you see? So, if the mind is throwing that visual at you, ask yourself who's aware even of that, and tell me if that is big or small. So, when we say it appears in it, in a way it is correct, but in a way it's not correct. You're getting? Otherwise, what happens is the mind gets the ability to visualize such a motion and says, 'Oh, universal perceptions, but there's a bigger space in which there's a universe of perceptions.' But it's not in that mold at all. So, even when we say it shines in the light of that awareness, it is true in a way, but it's more of a poetic representation because neither light nor... and that is why, because the mind can only deal with qualities, the mind is now completely helpless when it is dealing with things which are bigger than biggest and yet smaller than smallest at the same time, both light and dark at the same time. The mind cannot compute this. That's why it starts sounding like a Zen koan, because the mind cannot compute it, and yet intuitively in your heart, it is apparent to you what is being said, where it has been pointed.

Poetic representation because neither light nor... and that is why, because the mind can only deal with qualities, the mind is now completely helpless when it is dealing with things which are bigger than biggest and yet smaller than smallest at the same time. Both light and dark at the same time. The mind cannot compute this. That's why it starts sounding like a Zen koan, because the mind cannot compute it. And yet, intuitively in your heart, it is apparent to you what is being said, where it has been pointed to. So, if you have questions which you want to ask me after this conversation, keep the Zoom hand up if you want to participate in this conversation right now.

It's just like a quality-less experiencing which is always there. It's not that it appears or something; it is always there. But when during the course of the day, when I'm working, when I'm doing whatever I'm doing in the regular course of the day, the mind is so busy with dealing with the outside situation.

Let's pause. So right now, what is your experience of that? What is your direct insight of the truth? It's always there, you say. So right now, it must be there.

I am. I am that who is aware even that you are. I am, yes.

And this 'I', are you perceiving it? No. Are you just thinking? Are you just thinking this because you heard it from the masters, 'I am' and 'I am that'? No. So you don't perceive it and you're not just... it's not a product of your thinking, and yet you're saying authoritatively, 'I am, I am.' So this 'I', that knowledge, that intuitive insight, it is not perception and it is not conceptual. That is self-knowledge. That is self-recognition. Is it super simple and yet the most complicated? Okay, let me look around at both the screens and see if someone wants to jump in. Is that a hand, Paula? Is that...

There's a question, but you said that this 'I' we don't perceive. But when I was looking right now, I feel that there is a kind of perception of this 'I'. That it's not objectively, it's not an object, but still there's a kind of perception.

Let's look together at this. So, to perceive something is to be able to perceive a quality. At least one quality has to be there. There is a perception. Can you try to shine some light on what is the quality that you are perceiving? Some attributes, some quality, some shape, some size?

None of those.

None of those. Then what is it that you're perceiving? And remember that that is present. Maybe remember that dark and empty are also perceptions. So you're not talking about those. Now talking about when you're looking at the 'I' which is being, the 'I' which is 'I am-ing'. And some of you in Satsang will not get confused by that; the others, don't worry. So the 'I' which is aware even of Beingness, what is the perception that we are having of that?

No. No, maybe I was referring to the Being. The Being that I can recognize, yeah.

Yes. So we may be speaking about a sense of presence which is palpable, which seems perceivable in that way, although it is on the cusp of perceivability and unperceivability. So we cannot really say, 'This is how I perceive it,' even that, you see. But that which is beyond even that perceivability and unperceivability, there's something which is completely unperceivable and therefore the mind cannot interpret at all. And yet, somewhere deeper in the heart knowledge and intuitive knowledge, it is apparent that... and like all of you said, how do you know that? You just do. You just do. So, a side question to that is then: Is there anyone who doesn't have this? Everyone has it. But what happens to it? It gets clouded by the notions that come on top of it, starting with the primal notion, the primordial notion that 'I am'. Then on... until then, no trouble. Because saying 'I am' is the same as saying 'God is'. So till then, there is no trouble. Consciousness is. Now, after that, if you say 'I am something', 'I am body', 'I am mind', 'I am woman', 'I am a person', all of that has taken us away. Our belief in that, that Consciousness is belief in itself being objective, has seemingly blurred the true insight which is so natural and everybody has it, you see.

And as long as we remain in a quest to find it, remember that where are you finding? In the wrong playground. You will never find it there. And that's why seekers can go on for years and years and maybe lifetime after lifetime searching for themselves. But if search is possible, then the finding of the Self is not possible, you see. And if finding is possible, then the searching is not possible. With me? Because where you can search, you cannot find the Self, and where you can find, there is no possibility of search. You can search only in the realm of perception, and that realm of perception also includes the conceptual mind, you see. So can you look for it in concepts? And you can look for it in objects, but the Self is not to be found there, you see. Searching is not possible beyond these two. Beyond that is only the discovery, is only the insight which is there. So the spiritual search... okay, income DP, can you hear me?

Yes, yes. So this thing of seen is like it's the person or the this that is seen. I repeat.

Yes, yes please.

So I tell that, I say that this search, no, is seen. This is the thought that I thought, that is a... I know already that I miss something or something. It's not quite dead, yeah.

This is... okay, pause there. Pause there. So if we keep aside everything that is seen, everything that is perceived, then what... what else is known?

But there is nothing known as a form, no.

Yes, nothing known as form, because everything that is perceived has a form, as a shape, as a size.

Yes.

So, how is the formless known? Is there something like the formless which is known right now?

If it's formless, that means that no form can relate to this.

Yes, yeah. But now your intellect... don't use your intellect and just check right now. Don't use intellect, check right now. What do you know about yourself which is not in the realm of form?

I exist, but not...

So let's keep the sense of existence also aside. Let's for a moment take it to be perceivable, although it is not truly there, but let's put it in the basket of perceivable. But I want to know, which is the 'I' which exists independent of existence or non-existence? The formless one.

Yeah, okay. The only reason that I can't say right now, it's like I exist before born. I saw this body growing, you know, and now that I've changing all these things.

No past, no future. Right now, right now, right now. What is the formless aspect of yourself and how is it known? Is there such a thing, a non-thing?

No, is not such a thing. Not such a thing. There is a... there is also existing... sixty-three minutes... this identification...

Come back in five minutes. Just look at it deeply and then come back when you're ready. Come back when you're ready. Yeah, it's fine. Come back in time. Okay, let's go to Keisha. Okay, there's someone sitting here. Just give us a moment.

Yeah, sure. Everyone says that the Self is very blissful.

No, no, we are not quite there right now. So, if you put it in a temporal story or a narrative, it will make the point of what we are saying right now, you see. So, and a lot of that for sure, because the first time I see you in Satsang, I don't want to put you off completely, but at this moment, see if you can meet us here. So what we are saying right now is that we are looking for the Self, but to look is not possible because to look is to look in the realm of perception or in the realm of where we are going just now, which is the realm of narrative, stories, mind, thoughts, all of those. Now, the Self will not be found there. So is there something about yourself right now that you can confirm which is not in the realm of form?

Yes.

Yes. Okay, let us speak for a moment, then we'll come back to you.

It seems like the way to get that... you can't... it's not a knowing that... it's only knowable because of the things that are seen within it.

But is it... is it whether it's a knowing or it's an insight or it's an intuition? Let's keep those terms also aside, but let's use the term 'known'. So is it known?

Well, it's not... it's not known, but it sees. It's a scene like...

Let's use the term 'insight' then, if that is better. So is there an insight about it or not?

No.

No. Is it apparent or not? Is it that it is 'I' that exists? So are we confirming that it is 'I' based on what? And whatever term you want to use is fine. Don't try to worry, don't worry at all about the term, whether the term is right or not is what I'm saying.

So if you want to say it is seen, the symbolism that it's coming up is like a glass lake that just everything is seen through.

Very good. So the unique aspect of the seen is that there is no quality seen, and yet it is confirmed, isn't it?

Yes.

It's not really what we would call a perception, because perception needs an attribute of quality.

Yeah, yes, yes, yes.

When we talk about this as insight or intuitive intelligence or Self-knowledge as capital K, capital S, it sounds very fancy. So this is all that we are talking about. Okay? And also I will tell you that the mind will try to checkmate you by saying, 'Is this it? What's the big deal in this? What will I get with this?' And it says, 'So what? Yeah, but what?' So it cannot play this game with you because you may not realize it, but what you are discovering yourself to be is beyond space and time, beyond birth and death, beyond attack and defense, beyond all qualities of this universe. Nothing here can hurt you. All this play can come and go and you remain untouched by it. It does not need to give you a material benefit because all material for you is child's play, Lego blocks, you see. It doesn't matter for your reality. You are discovering yourself to be the Absolute, unchanging reality in which these measly universes, they come and go. So that is what you are discovering. So don't let the mind checkmate you with this kind of like, 'So that's it?' Okay? This kind of that way is so pristine. Don't go to your mind for any certification about its validity or how it will help you, you see. There is no deal that the Absolute is meant to help the non-existent one. You try to squeeze it into the frame of reference of yourself being the one who doesn't exist anyway and then say, 'Okay, from this perspective, how does that help me?' That is obviously going to be an absurd sort of question because there is no illusion, there is no correlation. How to help the non-existent one? Can you help the cat which is sitting there? If I kept insisting, this guy has lost his marbles or something. So don't have the cat viewpoint. If you have the cat viewpoint and look at the discovery, the cat will say, 'This doesn't help me. I would rather have a bowl of milk.' But if you drop all such references and look at yourself in this way, then you find that this world may come and go, it may set itself on fire, everything that you can perceive may go to the... but you remain untouched. You may have the highest siddhi in the world, you see, but you will only use it in Maya. The highest siddhi in the world, can you use it outside of Maya? No. You will only use it in the illusory realm. But this discovery is the only discovery beyond Maya.

Yes. And mind wants to play in that playground still, though. And the... you know, where do thoughts come from? Where does the... all the forms come from? Where does the word is like... all that I see come from? Like, it wants to know.

No, yeah. So if you discover that all there is is water, then where do ice cubes and snowflakes come from? If you discovered that everything is water, then all forms... where does the snowman come from? Where does the snowflake come from? Where does hailstorms come from? Where does ice come from? Where does mineral water come from? So to recognize the Absolute, which is all there is, then is the negation of any sort of dualistic question which can propose there being two of any sort. Like, any sort of distinction is not possible anymore because snowflake is water and a piece of chunk of ice is water, a snowman is water. It's all water, water, water.

Where does the snowman come from? Where does the snowflake come from? Where do hailstorms come from? Where does ice come from? Where does mineral water come from? So, to recognize the Absolute, which is all there is, then is the negation of any sort of dualistic question which can propose there being two of any sort. Any sort of distinction is not possible anymore because a snowflake is water, and a piece of chunk of ice is water, a snowman is water—it's all water, water, water everywhere. And you can drink it. This is also a problem, you see. So this is an important spiritual trap which the mind will set up for you. It will say, 'Hello, you started as just a person, then you came to spirituality, you became a spiritual seeker, and you wanted to find the Self so that you could be happy, peaceful, whatever. Now, Mr. or Mrs. Seeker, are you finding all of that for yourselves?' So the false will get reinforced even with this kind of checking, because what you are discovering about yourself is the absence of any such reference points that would tie you into a clump of food or some narrative about your past and some hope about some apparent future. All these things are blown away, isn't it? Okay, who's with me or who's not with me? Either of you can come.

Wow, such a beautiful insight when you said something about what is known, who knows something. And it was just like nothing—nothing is known because there's nothing to know. It doesn't need to know anything, and nothing is known. And it's so freeing and beautiful. So, thank you so much.

And when she's speaking like that, it's beautiful because what she's talking about is a conceptual knowing. And in the absence of conceptual knowing, you are not lost. She's laughing, she's smiling, saying it's so beautiful, you know? And to someone who's not meeting her there, it may sound absurd. That just sounds dumb. To not know anything in the world is a confirmation of being stupid or dumb. But she's saying nothing is known, nothing needs to be known. That's so beautiful because in our conceptual emptiness, when we are open and empty conceptually, our true Self is fully apparent. And that is what she's calling—it doesn't need to be known in that way, but it is known in the heart, you see. But conventionally, we don't use the term 'know' for that, although in Atma Gyan, that is the knowledge that is being spoken about, no?

But it's just like, what is the knowingness? Like, there's nothing to know. Yeah, there's nothing to know here. I don't need to know anything.

So beautiful. Because the world's way has become to make progress by knowing more and more and more. And to see 'I don't need to know'—it doesn't need—why would it need to know anything? Because it is everything. But it's not associated with anything known. It's just...

Who knows? And it's just coming... is it in the reading that Guruji says, 'What is known? Who is not something?' Anyway, it's just such a beautiful... I hear his voice with the actual words. What is known and who is not something? Anyway, it's just such a beautiful... it doesn't matter because it's just the vibration of it. Anyway, if you come to... you can come back and share that. I'd love to hear.

Completely lost? What's going on here? What is he talking about? Anyone like this? Don't feel there's no peer pressure. Raise your physical hand if you feel like, 'What's going on?' I don't see any hands. That'd be good. Okay, there's one. You want to say? Okay, you come.

Actually, I just want to know... when you were talking to Paula, then I could sense that, yes, there is a presence. But after that, again, I lost it. Again, I was in body-mind or trying to sense it, where it is now. And then there was a...

Let's look at this together because the narrative is not important. The truth is right here, right now, so we can look at it fresh. Don't write. So, you could find the experience of a presence, even as subtle as it may be, or you don't find the experience. But what is the experience of this 'you'? Let's forget the presence and absence for a moment. The 'you' that is able to find and therefore be able to report, 'Yes, yes, I can find this presence,' therefore it must be distinct from the presence itself. And then the presence went away, you see. But I am still here. The one that is aware of the presence or absence is still here. And therefore we are able to report that even the presence seems to be coming and going or getting replaced by body-mind experience, something like this. But who is the one that is aware of both of these?

There is some sense, actually, like I am aware. But how, I don't know. But there is some sense like I'm aware of my body.

Yes. So let's leave what's on that side of 'aware.' So, 'I am aware of...'—what comes out after 'of,' let's leave that, you see. The 'I' which is aware—how are you aware of that?

I don't know.

Are you aware of that or no?

Yes, right now.

That's it, you see. Now, this is the most important point, but for the mind, this is the least important point. So it'll try to pull you away from that, you see. So I said, 'How is the I which is aware known?' You say, 'I don't know.' Exactly. You don't, because it is not traditional in the means of conceptually or perceptually. And yet, then I said, 'But are you aware that it is I?' Yes. And there's nothing else we can confirm like that. Are there glasses in my hand? Please repeat it, I missed your point. Are there glasses, spectacles, in my hand?

Yeah, yes.

Because you are able to confirm it perceptually, you see. Yes. Now, did you wake up this morning?

Yes.

And you are able to confirm from memory or mind or whatever, yes? This 'I' that is aware—is it confirmed like this or like that? No, not like that, isn't it? So this kind of knowledge is a unique knowledge which we have neglected most of our lives. But this is Atma Gyan, see, which is just immediate. It's like that. Can you get better? Can you become better at Atma Gyan? Like some have this idea that 'I have to become more and more and more and more aware.' Can you do it? Is it only in seeing? And that which you are discovering yourself to be—this 'I' which is aware—is beyond birth and death, beyond time, and beyond shape, size, color. You are all of this because you are what you are discovering in this one moment. Your mouth may not immediately move in this way where you can say, 'Oh, this is what I'm confirming,' so don't make that a benchmark, you see. Don't say, 'Oh, Anantaji is saying like that; if I have had the same self-discovery as him, why am I not speaking like that?' Don't worry about any of that nonsense. It is irrelevant. These are just phenomenal benchmarks which you don't know. It's important. See, okay, if it's always like this, then mustn't you naturally be it? So you may be believing that 'My attention has to be fixated on that to stay in it,' but it has nothing to do with your attention. So attention can go here. Okay, so let's do a live experiment now. Clear? Clear. Now leave it. Try to leave it. Pretend you're in the office or watching a movie or whatever those circumstances are. Leave it. Can't leave it, you see. Actually, you can never leave it. It is just the functioning of consciousness which has the power to believe, you see. The power to believe is to take itself to be limited. This is the consciousness playing in this game of Leela. Maya has given itself the ability to take itself to be something that it is not. So it's like children—if you play with Lego blocks, you may see those characters there and say, 'I am that fireman' or 'I am that one over there,' you see, the guard in the castle or whatever. So we have the ability to do that. But because we take ourselves to be that, nothing has changed in our reality, you see. And that reality is always accessible. Suppose that you were completely deluded and you came to Satsang just now and you saw that. Now, was that awareness different because you were deluded for ten thousand lifetimes? So you're not making any dent on awareness in any way. So therefore, you're not making any dent on yourself in any way. But if you go to that perspective which is that 'I am this, I have this life, I have this narrative, I have these things to do'—now, from that perspective, how can I hang on to this? That will never work because that is like—I say often that that is like trying to keep one foot on the runway and the other in the airplane, see where the airplane is. So you have to lose concern about the non-existent one and just see that you are this one. And then again, you will get this concern again, you see. And that's why you have Satsang often, because the mind will not give up most likely that easily and will shower you with conditions and 'but' and doubt. And then you come to Satsang and in a moment of just true self-recognition, so what can happen is you won't worry about your progress and how much you are marinating in it and how much you are progressing, how much you are being just yourself or a person. Let that be my problem, you see. Whenever you are open and you find yourself open and not completely identified, you become open and empty. That's all you have to do. Now, whether the amount of identification you are having on a daily basis is reducing or not—if you start maintaining those report cards, then that will become the biggest aspect of your identity. And that aspect is what most spiritual seekers are suffering from, you see. So can you let that be my problem? Yes? Then all of you, you're very good. If you can do this, I can tell you that the spiritual seeker identity will also be quite light. Otherwise, among identities, it is one of the heaviest because it is full of what it knows or spirituality, you see. And it reinforces that knowledge which is actually ignorance because it hears the same words in Satsang also, which is probably the most credible source. So then you feel like... so it builds up on that knowledge and then it paints a picture of ourselves which is this perfect human sort of idea—that if I'm enlightened, then I could be watching Squid Game or something, my home chances that, and I go to work and my manager is shouting at me but I'm just, 'Bless you, my child.' And then my subordinates are not doing their work—'It's okay, you are the Self.' We can paint these kind of pictures about ourselves, and maybe for some of you it may play like that, but it doesn't have to, see? It doesn't have to. You could go into every relationship or every situation and consciousness can work freshly and play whatever role it wants in its supreme intelligence, you see. It doesn't need any assistance from our painting of how that should be. Ready? So the 'I' which you're referring to yourself as—is it the same one that you're discovering yourself to be, or is it the fixed moment? On a daily basis, there are certain moments where everything's perfect and then the day just catches on and where it goes you don't know, because you know the day is caught on and you've just been in the motions. So first, throw away the idea of what is perfect. Can there be anything in God's will which is not perfect? If not, then can there be anything which is not invertible, you see? So the mind will make this distinction and will say, 'Okay, this very good, this not so good.' And if you look at what I'm saying from a personal perspective, it is going to sound absurd because you say, 'How can I accept this that happens in the world? I can't accept this that happens.' But the problem is what you take yourself to be, not what is happening in the world. So there are moments where you'll be identified. When you're deeply, deeply identified, then be identified. You will suffer. That is going to happen. Accept it, it's fine. When you're like mildly identified, it means there's some space. You can say, 'I'm getting caught up in this.' Then use a pointer that you've heard in Satsang, like 'open and empty' or 'who am I?' or 'who is aware of my being?'—anything that really gets you.

The problem is what you take yourself to be, not what is happening in the world. So, there are moments where you'll be identified. When you're deeply, deeply identified, then be identified; you will suffer. That is going to happen. Accept it; it's fine. When you're like mildly identified, it means there's some space. You can say, 'I'm getting caught up in this.' Then use a pointer that you've heard in satsang, like 'open and empty' or 'who am I?' or 'who is aware of my being?' Anything that really gets you. If there is space, just inquire, and then the identification will start to fail you.

So, deeply identified? That's okay. Suffer. All of us suffer to some extent. Suffer through it. Don't beat yourself up about it later. You see, that happened; it happened. Over, you see. Let it die in the past. It's fine. What most spiritual seekers do is they may have one moment like that in the day, and the rest of the day, what are they doing? Feeling bad about that. 'I should not have had that. I am beyond this now. I have been to 200 satsangs, Father, what's going on? I am useless. I am hopeless.' But that one moment was fine. No, finish. What about the remaining ten thousand, a million more?

So, identification will come. The tentacles of Maya are strong. The greatest beings have come into this realm and got identified, which is even the Avatars. So, a moment or two of identification will happen. Don't worry about it, you see. What about the rest of the time? Your concern is only that. If you try to belong to the perfect painting, then the narrative of the perfect painting itself will be the chain around you. So, that is where surrender and devotion can play a little bit of a part, where if you just say, 'Yes, I am surrendering to the Master, and whatever happens in my day, whatever happened in my life, is his problem to deal with, her problem.'

Otherwise, what can happen is many spiritual seekers also fall into the trap of learning to accept what they call the outside—their relationships and people and all of that—but they become super harsh on this one, which is also as much a part of the realm of appearances as everyone else. So, there's no reason to put this one to some greatly high standard and say, 'Now this body-mind should exhibit itself with a halo all the time.' There's nothing like that. This one is just the same as that one. There's no difference. So, don't get into that, because what will happen is that you will still take yourself to be this. You still take yourself to do this.

So, when you say, 'Why doesn't my day go like this?' we are not talking about the universal day. We are not talking about that which we are discovering ourselves to be. We are still talking about one body-mind and their apparent experiences, which reinforces the false identification in the garbage spirituality, which is even worse. At least if you do it in the garbage materialism, then one day spirituality can chop that up. But if you do it in the garbage spirituality itself, you will hear the Master speaking, you'll say, 'I know this, I'm not hearing anything new,' and then you can keep going from satsang to satsang, Master to Master, and just feel like, 'I've heard all this,' you see. But we're meeting it at the wrong place. We're meeting it here, and we're trying to find a resolution here, which is where we started—that you cannot find a resolution here.

And if you're putting yourself in a narrative of time, then you must be operating from here. Don't operate from there and tell me how you are in time. Did you have a yesterday? I'm not pressurizing you into that answer. You just step back from your mind and tell me: what was yesterday? Is there a yesterday for awareness? Is there a tomorrow? So, one point I want to make is that yourself, you see, you cannot remember because it has no attributes. To remember, you need to have an attribute. So, you may be able to remember a pointer which helps you to come to the insight about the Self, or you may be able to remember the byproducts in that discovery—'Oh, there was a lot of openness' or 'there was a lot of peace' or 'there was a lot of bliss.' Not that this stuff needs to happen, but usually what we put into our memory is things like this, isn't it?

Can you remember the Self? Is the Self stuck in time? If it is not in time, then it cannot be a product of past or future memory or projection. With me? So now, right now, what do you need to remember? And what are you right now? You are aware that you don't know. That which is aware is who? This you know. You only said, 'I am aware that I don't know.' But that 'you' doesn't look like anything. It doesn't feel like anything, you see. And yet it is so apparent. The desire that is aware... because you're trying to... if it is feeling difficult to accept, I'll tell you what is happening. You're trying to squeeze it into a very small container called the mind, you see. So, there is no way that the tiny box called the mind will contain yourself.

But acceptance and rejection is just a product of that mind-intellect. Where can acceptance or rejection happen? In which aspect of your being? So, let the mind not accept. Are you the mind? So, when you say, 'I can't accept' or 'I can accept,' we are taking ourselves to be what? There is no memory possible here. There is no intellectual confirmation or non-confirmation possible here. None of these things are actually applicable. It is the same level of simplicity. But as long as we want something, as long as we want something, both can seem very difficult or either can seem very... so as long as consciousness is taking itself to be someone that has a desire, you see, then we still have some hope that, 'Okay, now the mind will offer something which will be able to solve my problem or give me an answer.'

Why is leaving the mind difficult? It is only difficult if you feel like, 'I have to weed out all the nonsense and take the valuable pearls that may come someday.' Now, try it right now. I often refer to it as a road that you don't have to cross. And once you don't have to cross it, then does it matter how much traffic is there? So, don't have a relationship with your mind right now. Tell me, what is it?

Well, I know that she always starts a bit well, but my daughter is seeing me from behind, so that skeptical face and the smile will come any moment and that's already... see what I... instant, like from five seconds ago to this one, it's like there's a light put on.

If you don't want anything, the mind will not be attracted. And the wanting could also come in the garb of 'I want freedom from the mind itself.' So, don't even have that condition. Long distance. So, it's very good that you don't want anything, but your heart is getting into satsang somehow, which is good enough.

We were just talking last time, why did someone show up to satsang? Just phantom. It's like this is the first one that Guruji actually referred to and said, 'Oh, my disciple is there in Bangalore, will go visit him.' So, in fact, a big part of this whole satsang journey starting from here is because of that letter that he wrote. 'I want some help.' How are you all? Does this happen? Why did it happen? The 'whys' of the universe are too big for our mind to fathom and are nothing for our heart. So, if you ever find yourself like, 'Just why, why?' then know that you're being very mindy. Your heart has no problem with the apparent cause-and-effect relationships of why and why not. It doesn't live in time.

But this is the quickest fix you can have. Go for a quicker fix. Go for a quicker fix. Anytime you feel like you have a quick fix, go for an even quicker fix. It stops. But you have to stop. You stop now. The others, they can't hear so well. Actually, some of them are speaking so softly that even I have to strain my ears to just pretend that they are asking your question. The answer will still work. Okay, so that the discovery or the immediate insight into the nature of the Self—who is it not clear for? Raise your body hand. Okay, let's go. I see one hand. Madalina. Who is it not clear for? Madalina. For Madalina, who is that which is aware that the mind is saying, 'It is not clear to me'? Who is that? Is it not you?

It's not a difficult question. You must be aware of that, that's why you're reporting it. But I'm reporting it from a mind perspective, because otherwise there is nothing to report.

That your mind has this perspective, you do. Who are you taking me to be? Father, let me give you another question to answer this in a different way. The one that is aware that this is the mind perspective, is that also in the mind?

Yes.

Okay, and who is aware that that one is also in the mind?

You.

If 'you' is good enough, if you meant it... believe that 'you' is good enough if you meant it. Is that 'you' experiencing your problem anymore?

It's all my problem if you really meant it to me. It comes from mind.

Okay, okay, let's make it simple. I ask everyone this question every week: who's aware of the perception of the hand? Who is aware of the perception of the hand? Who is aware of the perception of this voice? Don't change the question. Don't change the question at all.

I can sense some vibration about that, yeah, yeah. And there is some vibration and tendency to go to the past and complain.

And the prayer of the perception of the hand? It's not difficult.

I'd say I am.

Why would you say that?

I learned in a previous satsang this answer. It's not someone else next to me telling me yes.

So why would you say it is you?

What's the difference between me and my mind? Because my mind has so much knowledge that thinks it's aware of your hand.

Just to have a better question for you right now, ask me all your best questions, Father, and don't leave any mind here. Who do you trust to have the better question for you right now?

You.

Who is aware of the perception of this hand?

I am.

This 'I', how is that known?

It's not known. It's not known means you don't have... it's not conceptual, is that what you mean?

Yes, yes, yes. So the report that 'I am aware' is not just something which I have heard before, learned about from the teachers and things like that. It is something that I can report fresh. Is that true?

I don't want to answer from the mind, that's why I'm silent now. Just answer whatever you feel like feels true, rings true to you, the moment where it is coming from.

Okay, okay, that's true, yes. So this 'I' which is aware, can it be seen?

No.

Are you just reporting about it because you heard about it?

It is a possibility.

It is so good. So look fresh now. Who is aware of the perception of this voice? Who is aware of this perception that you are hearing this voice? Am I aware of... you don't have to change the question, right? I figured that out halfway through the question. If your mind plays to distract you from the hot seat, so to speak, because now it's in the spotlight. Are you not aware of the perception of this voice?

I'm aware.

You are this. You are perceiving it?

Yes.

What is the quality that is being perceived, or is it an unperceived, unperceivable recognition? If it is perceived, then it must have a quality, an attribute. The only recognition which is recognizable beyond perception is the recognition of the Self. So when you say, 'I am aware,' this is it. Is it an objective recognition, like it has a shape, it has a size?

What if it's my mind? The aware mind doesn't have a shape or size.

I know it's a question, but yes. This 'I' that is aware, are you aware?

I am aware.

This 'I' that you're confirming is aware, is it seen? Just answer this question. Don't answer any other question or don't ask or give value or relevance to any other question, okay? Is that 'I' seen? Is it perceivable?

Okay, let me see if I can make it simpler. Are you confirming the 'I' which is aware the same way that you can confirm these spectacles? What is the difference in the two statements: 'There are spectacles in Ananta's hand' and 'I am aware'?

Exactly. So this is perception, and that one, that 'I am aware'—but we usually call experience also perception. 'I had a very nice experience with students,' that is also perception, you see. But what is this experience? Is it a feeling? Is it sight, hearing, non-...

Okay, let me see if I can make it simpler. Are you confirming the 'I' which is aware the same way that you can confirm these spectacles? What is the difference in the two statements: 'There are spectacles in Ananta's hand' and 'I am aware'?

Exactly. So this is perception, and that one—that I am aware—but we usually call experience also perception. I had a very nice experience with students; that is also perception, you see. But what is this experience? Is it a feeling? Is it sight, hearing? None of that. But when you ask me if I'm aware of your voice, something goes to my hearing.

It doesn't matter. Are you aware of this voice or not?

I am aware of your voice.

This 'I' that is aware—it doesn't matter how it came to be aware, keep that aside for a moment—this 'I' that is aware, how is that known? How are you confirming that it is you that is aware? Is this through a logical conclusion? 'There is no one else to be aware here.' Are you doing it like that? Every time you look at something and you see that, 'Oh, I'm aware of this,' are you saying, 'Because there is nobody else here, therefore it must be me'? Is it like that?

No, no. It's simpler.

You would be super, super tired if that's how you were living. Everything that you watched: 'I am watching this; I know that because there is nobody else.' Nobody lives like that. It's so natural, easy. It's so natural, it's so simple. There's no actual reason to make it complicated at all. You're trying to do more than the question requires you to do, you see. You're trying to do more than the question requires you to do. The question is actually very simple: Are you aware of the perception of this voice?

I am.

This 'I' that you're confirming is aware, this 'I'—how do you know about it?

I don't know.

Very good. Very good. So, 'you don't know' means that in your mind you don't have a good answer, isn't it? Isn't that what 'I don't know' means?

Sure.

And yet, in the rest of you, is this not clear? So, if you keep that area where you don't know, keep it aside, because it doesn't know anyway, you see. That's why 'I don't know' is a huge leap. It's beautiful. So it doesn't know, so leave that aside. Now, what about the rest of you? Is there any confusion about who you are, except the mind?

Father, I want to add something here to this current discussion. So when we say that, you know, how do we know that this is 'I', what is arising is that there is knowing, but to want to say that it is 'I' is probably at the southern level, bringing it to the concept.

So don't worry about the saying part of it. I'm worried about the seeing part of it.

Yes, the seeing is very clear.

Okay, but to perform, to put an 'I' to that—does that one that is seen have this problem?

No, no.

Then don't invent another one, yeah? Because then that will put itself in some spiritual quandary or another and then say, 'Okay, now...' But in the seeing, it is apparent. The minute we put it into words, it becomes convoluted and all of that. But it's not for you, no?

Yes. What I also mean is the moment constraints of language—the moment I say it's 'I', that is also in a way creating a separation because that is whether it is not the same of anything that creates any separation.

It is the belief in any notion that creates an energy. If I was to believe every word I said in satsang, I would create separation. But not in the saying of it, because in the saying of it, you're just pointing to that which is beyond what can be said. But in the taking it to be true in itself is the potential for false identification, you see. Otherwise, no scripture would ever be written, no satsang would ever be spoken, if in the saying of it itself, inherently, the problem was included, you see. And that's why I keep saying, and all the masters like Guruji says, 'Don't make titles out of my words.' I am saying I'm just speaking nonsense. I keep reminding everyone of that because the words in themselves are not the truth, but they are pointing to that which is what? Which is beyond any perception, beyond any conceptualization. Let's go to Madeline. Where are we now with this?

It's become... there is an inside. That 'I' is a concept in itself.

More innocent. Go to the age before you knew this, what you were going to say. Just become that age before you knew this kind of concept that you were going to see, and speak from there. I ask the child sitting there who's hearing these words: Is that child going to say, 'Oh, it's the concept of I that I became'? No, no. 'I am.' And say, 'How do you know it is I?' I won't give you that answer, but the child will answer it very well. You can try with your kids.

One is non-verbal.

Anna is non-verbal? Okay, she doesn't know 'why'. So you answer—you know what I'm saying—so you answer from that innocence. This is the question that I've used to, in a way, I can say, frustrate all of the sangha for a long time, but it's also a question that burnt up a lot of nonsense. So I value this question a lot because, as the ones here, they will tell you that there was so much irritation, you know. One sangha member shouted at me one time saying, 'We are not letting you go from satsang today until you tell us what you mean by this question of this: Who is aware of the perception of this hand?' And when you say it is apparent, the Self is apparent, you tell us today how it is. Again, I'm stopping, sorry, second time I'm doing that. Remember the first thing I do, I'm usually very nice because I'm on the first satsang in the honeymoon. But when you are saying 'experiencing it,' can you confirm already in your first satsang that it's not a phenomenal experience? It's not a phenomenal experience. Which is the lack of any experience at all? Is the confirmation based on the absence of an experience?

No, not neither.

So anything could be happening in the realm of experience. As she said, it's like a grass-like thing. You just... okay, without that metaphor, suppose you forgot that, Ma. Are you aware of the perception of this hand?

Yeah, yeah.

Isn't it? Yeah. It didn't need that metaphor. It didn't need any glass. It didn't mean any other thing. And it was not a phenomenal experience that you had about the 'I' itself. You did not see that over there, 'I' was sitting over there, it's a shiny white architecture. Apparent in a way. Now, if like this you did not bother about the byproducts, you see. So use the metaphor of darshan and prasad, right? So if you had the darshan of the Self but you did not worry about whether the prasad was sweet or salty, whether you were not worried about the taste of the prasad lasting for a long time or a short time, you see—which was the part that you were coming to. It's very beautiful, you see. It doesn't matter because it's not... the minute we're able to ascribe even beauty to it, we have gone to like the phenomenal byproduct of this instantaneous, immediate darshan that we are having of the Self. So if you were not to be concerned about any of the phenomenal byproducts, that's my question I've been asking myself.

So I have some news for you, and it's actually very good news but very bad news for the mind. Our mind is too tiny an instrument to be able to grasp the Self. If the mind was big enough to grasp the Self, then we should be all worshipping the mind, you see. So accept—and that acceptance will give you a lot of space—accept that your mind can't understand it or grasp it. But you can. You can grasp yourself. Your mind can't. But if you take... if you keep using that as the instrument, it's like using a hammer like a nail cutter. You just can't do it. And the mind itself will tell you, 'But my mind is not trusting this.' But who said, in which spiritual book is it written, that ultimate satisfaction will be when your mind has grasped the Self? It's never that. The mind is too tiny an instrument. It is the measurer of Maya. It is saying, 'Okay, this is this big, this is this small, I like this, I don't like this.' It is meant for these tiny conclusions. To expect that the mind will get a grasp over my Self, then that would be... the grasper is greater than the grasped, isn't it? If your mind could grasp the Self, then the mind would be greater.

Now, your being itself is coming to a recognition of its own source. Not your... not the mind aspect of your being. Your Atma itself is recognizing that it is Brahman, and therefore there is no distinction. Don't try to squeeze, because otherwise what can happen is the mind will do this, and I call this kind of inquiry 'spiritual sightseeing.' 'Oh yes, this is coming, very good, and my inquiry is going.' Somebody came to me the other day and we had a very good satsang about this when I realized that most of the sangha is doing the inquiry all wrong, you see. And I'm glad you asked this in your first time here because I realized that what we're saying is... a child came to me, she said, 'My inquiry is going so badly these days.' The air is good for the sound; it's thundering here in Bangalore, I hope it's... so this child, she said, 'My inquiry stopped working for me. It used to work so well, but now inquiry stopped working for me.' So like, inquiry can never not work. So what do you mean by 'stop working'?

She said, 'Earlier when I used to inquire, just ask "Who am I?", what bliss, what spaciousness! Now I may keep asking "Who am I? Who am I?" and where am I? So the mind keeps saying some nonsense, no bliss, no peace.' And I heard this report and I said, 'But what about the inquiry? Who are you?' See, that is forgotten in the chasing or the experience tracking. It's nothing to do with the inquiry. So independent of the experience, of the feeling, of what is showing up in the realm of phenomena, the question is still valid. And if you ask yourself, 'Who is aware of this perception?', show me how it cannot work. It is you always. That 'you' is always there. But that 'you' cannot be bottled up into any concept or any perception. That's all I've been saying all satsang. But if you're expecting it to be like a cheat code in life... now there are things, you know, 'My partner fights with me and my manager shouts at me, my money in the bank keeps running out, I should just be able to ask "Who am I?" and bliss.' It's not a promise that you will live in... many times I say the CG should have left it. It is, you know, then everybody focus. But this is not the answer. It cannot be quantified. Okay, nonsense. That is not possible.

So you don't doubt yourself. I have complete failure. How would you be here so many years? Eight years? What is it? Not five? You wouldn't, huh? Okay, so not even six times is possible, forget six years, if you are not looking for the Self. Could you hear this absurd nonsense for hours on end more than once? Because that's not the only thing you want. I'm not saying... I'm saying you want the Self, but maybe it is not the only thing you want. Okay, don't want anything and suffer. You say, 'I don't want anything,' but a lot of suffering is coming. Can you suffer without wanting? Whatever you suffer from will show you your attachment. That is what you're wanting. It's like a mirror. If you are suffering from something, if you are suffering from something, then you are attached to it, and that is ignorance. You cannot ever say, 'I truly don't want anything, but so much suffering is coming up,' because you are an abuser if you don't. There are pros and cons to every format, and if there is one thing you could learn from this, this one, it is not to be so affected by chaos. Chaos is the way of the world. The dance of Nataraj will always happen in a way that through the mind it always seems to you... so don't try to sanitize your experiences too much. Enjoy the chaos.

We can't hear clearly? Don't hear clearly. Who is doing even that? God is doing it. So don't make anything like a prerequisite because it's in a completely different level. You may hear one sentence in satsang which can blow up conditioning from lifetimes, you see. But if you miss that sentence because you feel like audio has to be Dolby quality, something, something...

Initially, not just at a mental level, but when I used to ask myself, the answer would come that I'm everything. Yeah, so what is... maybe mind was also throwing it. So what is the need of this enjoyment?

That God is doing it, so don't make anything like a prerequisite because it's in a completely different level. You may hear one sentence in satsang which can blow up conditioning from a lifetime, you see. But if you miss that sentence because you feel like audio has to be Dolby quality or something, something...

Initially, not just at a mental level, but when I used to ask myself, the answer would come that I'm everything. Yeah. So, what is—maybe the mind was also throwing it—so what is the need of this enjoyment? Because I'm every chair, I'm thoughts, feelings, sensations that we feel, because these also are in... I mean, you know, you know. But then what I realized is that, no, initially it is important to follow the inclusive way and then it is kind of, you know, coming out in that explosive. Isn't that correct?

I'm going to say something because I love you, okay? Now, because I love you, I have to tell you that this garb that you're wearing, you have to drop. This garb that you're wearing, you have to drop. I don't know whether you can see it or not, but it is apparent. So, the truth you are discovering beautifully—the truths you are discovering beautifully—allow that to speak nakedly. If you mix it with like what you think you know and into some framework or something like that, then it will become all convoluted and you'll lose your figure. You can teach from the discovery that you're having; very good. But if you try to become too deterministic about it and you get too attached to 'right or wrong' or 'is correct,' it's going to cause you a lot of trouble. Because the truth that you are discovering, you can't put it in the box. Is it right or wrong? You can't put it. It's just way beyond this thing. Training programs, all of that is there. So if you open, then you can just spot it like that. Then ready.

So, okay, can we have a little finger and look at how tall Manika is? She wakes up. I feel it's quite good for Delano, and I've had like a full-on feature mode on. So everything that you need and everything that you need to hear, I've already said, you see, maybe a hundred times in one session. So it's all there. So remember that the fireplace in which all the falls can be worn, all the falls can be worn, and use that fireplace to burn it all if you have the sense that my mind can always determine the best. Okay, Gemma is really keen to come.

Thank you. Today I had a meeting with a social worker to see if I can arrange, if I can get a flat for as... Did you see a flat, like an apartment? If I can get an apartment as a disabled person. I have to explain to her all my story, my history, my things, and I keep wondering why. No, no, I could... I keep wondering... Okay, I keep wondering. The point is that I keep feeling very angry and very sad because of my old story. Yes. So you see, like, like, like, I feel sorry for the world, but I feel: who the hell has took me all these years? Who has to have took me? Look at me, took me. Who the hell took me all these years from 33 to 60 that I've been going to the hospital once a year and they tied me and they dragged me? And I've been feeling very bad. So who has been doing all this? Because if I leave my human nature to grace to unfold as its own destiny, it's been unfolding at its own destiny all this time. So all this suffering that I've been feeling is thank you to grace? And so I'm very angry with grace and I'm very angry with—and sad, actually. And I see all other people who are feeling the same, who are having the same feelings, and it's... I'm angry about this. My question is, how, or if I don't have to resolve this, how can I forget this?

Yes. So I'll give you an answer which may surprise you. As long as the protagonist of our love or our anger, our tantrum or our embrace—as long as that is grace or it is Ram, which is the same thing—everything is fine. So if you're angry with Ram, angry with grace, be angry. It's okay. It's completely accepted that you are. And it is also grace's problem to deal with it, because also grace is probably in the future. So you have come to the right one. You have identified the right one. You have identified grace. So some will say, 'I always thank grace.' Another may say, 'I always blame grace.' One boy used to come to satsang, he'd say, 'Always blame it on the grace,' you see. We never use the term grace for that, but as long as it is the right one, which is grace, you will be fine. You will be fine, you see. So if anger is coming towards God, anger is coming towards grace, it's okay. Be angry with God. It's fine. Okay?

Yeah, but it has to be a moment to dissolve all this... It must be a moment to dissolve all this pain. This pain is not suffering, is this pain of what?

In your acceptance. In your acceptance. In your acceptance of your anger or your resentment towards grace or towards God, that is the first step towards the healing of it. Otherwise, what can happen is that somewhere you say, 'I am angry with grace,' but somewhere then you also want a resolution to that. So just accept this anger and say, 'Yes, there is big anger here with God because why in this life all these things have to happen?' You see, it's understandable. Keep that anger. As long as you keep it with God and not any of the non-existent ones which are just figments of our imagination or mind, all the resolution will happen in that. All the resolution will happen. As long as you're not resenting your other brothers and sisters on this world, it's all fine. So keep your anger with God.

I will, but I'm not... I cannot say that, but I can... I'm not sure. I'm never going to... I'm going to be...

Acceptance of your anger. In your complete acceptance of your anger, that complete acceptance itself will ripen into forgiveness. Don't try to mean acceptance like I told you. And in that acceptance that 'I am angry with God,' that itself will naturally ripen into a forgiveness without you trying to do it. It is your trying which is making you tired. It is your trying when you're actually experiencing anger and you're saying, 'No, no, but I have to learn how to forgive,' you see. All of that is causing the contradiction and the problem. So if you are angry, be angry, as long as it is with God. And you see, automatically, if you don't judge it too quickly or you're patient with it, then you will see that one day that forgiveness would have happened naturally. Don't try to forgive.

Yeah, but for me, right now at least, the idea is: I have this short time in my life that is like, who stole this part of my life? Who stole this? Because in this part of my life I could have this and that and that and that and that, and I couldn't. So, yes, of course I'm angry, and the anger is translated in sadness sometimes. And even if I can feel better now and I can feel, 'Okay, I'm better now, I understand many other things,' but it's still this here. Like one example, very stupid, but I had a dog, okay? I love that dog. But what happened is that I had this time of a lot of anxiety and I thought, 'I cannot take care of this dog and I have to give this dog to other people who take care more or take care better of the dog than I can.' So I give this dog away from me and I give it to a family. And now I'm thinking, 'This dog is my dog. I want this dog. Bring me back this dog.' And I point to God and to grace also to say, 'You took this dog from me, so give it to me back.'

And it's fine if you're angry with God. So that is fine. But who gave the dog to you?

I took that dog. I got the dog. I went and took the dog and the dog took me and I took the dog. What's the point?

Yeah, you see it. So one man, he came to me many years ago. He came and stayed actually in my house from the sangha. What happened is he said, you know, he was going through some relationship problems. So he said to me, 'You know, Anantaji, when this relationship started, it was pure grace. It was purely the will of God, you see. It was running through it.' And I said, 'So what happened now? God is on a holiday or what's going on?' So either we take everything, everything to be the will of God, or we take completely everything for ourselves and say, 'I did this.' But it's the middle-middle, no? Half-half. So, 'I got the dog, but God took it away.' That is what causes the trouble. So either God is the complete doer and experiencer, or you are. When you try to do both, half-half, then more trouble, you see. More...

Well, I'm not in this point right now. I'm not in this point right now. Okay.

So you need the pointing. If you already are at the point, then you don't need a signboard or a pointing. The pointing is to show you where you could go. So my first pointing for today is that if you're feeling anger, feel it. Don't try to forget too soon. If forgiveness comes automatically, let it come naturally. Don't rush into it. And the second thing is that, see, at some point you may be able to accept this, but I want to see it with you today, which is that either see that everything is God or take full responsibility for everything. Can you be please... because I was a bit...

Yes, yes. So the second pointer which I gave you is that if you feel like God's will has some power, then attribute all power to God's will, you see. Or if you feel like it has no power and you do all of it, then take all power from God and make it all about yourself. But it is this middle-middle problem which causes more confusion. And I realize you may not be at that point at this moment, but the point of a pointing is to show you the point that you can get to. It is not to just show you the point which you already are. Yes. What should we hear? This is very popular.

They said somebody said they love your frozen moms. Saying hi to you, this is Danika, and there's the third baby we have in Japan today. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Baba ji.