Then Even the Label 'Truth' Falls Away - 23rd October 2018

Possibly my favorite question of all time: Are you aware now? And your assertion, where does that come from? What is the basis of that? Immerse yourself into the moment. You regard the words themselves seem to corrupt it, yeah. Like what? What is the corrupting aspect?

They don't really seem to actually describe it.

Essential. Yeah, think essential as it must be, or essential is full of essence. Presence, isness, awareness—all of these terms all do have actually qualitative differences. But really, if you were to keep even these distinctions aside, what would we say that we need to get or find or become? And if there is nothing that you need to get or find or become, then you notice all the offers from the mind are only about getting, finding, becoming, either in the positive or in the negative.

So, he says if it is the body-mind, it can make all this, but it can never realize it. You think because it doesn't have a capacity, in a way, for this sort of understanding? Is it like a programmed device or an object should come to the truth of all there is, or the truth of what you are? So, if it cannot do it, which is the body-mind instrument, then who can? Okay, so let's make it easier. So, there is body-mind, and what else is there? There is a perception of it. And who is the perceiver? Consciousness. And what is this consciousness? To be, to exist, i am-ness. But even the term 'being' has an opposite, which is being and not being. So, this stays open like 'I am' and just 'I' without even 'to be' or 'not to be'.

Nisargadatta Maharaj says 'before I am'. As it is even said, forget about consciousness. Of course, it depends on how we use it also. If you use the term in this way, that consciousness implies being, i am-ness, then it is definitely up for exploration as to who this 'I' that is being is, and can this 'I' also not be? Not in this way. Now, we already have said that the body-mind instrument cannot help us with this. So, the mind's concepts, the sensory perceptions, they cannot help with this recognition. What other way do you have to recognize? If the senses can't help, then what can? What is left?

Some like inference process, but then finally you say that the inference surfaces in it.

He says it's an inference process and then you see the thing. So then, then you see. Then you see, or see, see. Then you see. So, what is this seeing? That is the question. It's not a normal seeing.

Yeah, words.

So, he says it's not a normal thing, which means it's not a sensory perception. Then what kind of seeing is it? It just has to be something that sees, but mentally, physically... mentally takes your point. So, mentally—sorry, it takes you to a point where, hey, everything's being perceived, so there has to be somebody seeing it. It's not the body or the mind. And then sometimes you visualize yourself being a point, everything is around you and you're a point, and you disappear into nothingness. Or the other extreme is you're everywhere and so everything is seen by that. Either you disappear into nothingness or you just see that you are everywhere. Both of these are seen by which one? That you can't describe, that it is indescribable. What is its relationship with you? You are there. So now, is there any way in which you can not be that?

Also, is there a distinction between the seer and the seen? I think there is. Then what is needed for that distinction to seem like it is valid? Let's experiment with this now. So, there is a seeing which is untouched; let's call that the seer for a moment. And there is all this that is seen, the manifest. Is there actually a division or a distinction?

There is no natural distinction except later when you contemplate it. You realize that in the waking state, it's one.

Yes, and yes, the other states, whatever it is, it's still there. See, it is part two. In the waking state, it's one, so there's no distinction. Or rather, is there one? You're saying it seems to be that because whatever you perceive has to be you. You know that you are because you perceive things. I know I can't explain.

Is this valid, that you know that you are because you perceive things? If one by one all your senses started moving—one day hearing went away, smell went away, touch went away, taste went away—then with which sense could you not know now that you exist? Which sense going away would make you now not know that you existed? Refreeze more of seeing phenomenal things. Yeah, the senses that phenomenally see the thought that... yes, it's what I'm saying. If nothing is seen, suppose the room became completely dark right now and all sounds vanished and no taste was there, no touch was there, you were in this special chamber, would you not know that you exist? You would still know. So, you are this knowing which is separate from conceptual knowing. Perceptual knowing is independent of our sensory perceptions or even this seeing in the perception of memory, hearing, imagination. So, we don't actually need objects to confirm our existence. In fact, the truth is one, at least it says that we never perceive an object unless we are. Now we're exploring this knowingness which is independent of any concept or any perception, independent of any inferences.

And what is visibly seen in this? Let's use it to forget for now. What does it mean for this idea of 'me'? Just position appears. The 'me' is... is it even an appearance? The body, body sensations, perceptions are appearing. But even in the appearance of these sensations and perceptions, is there a 'me' found? Keep going. Yes, it keeps coming in. What do we do? So, if it is not found in perception, can you find the one who wants freedom? For example, perceptually, as an object, find the one that wants freedom. You can say it is not here. Obviously, the body wants freedom, but the body is free. Nothing is binding the body's movement. The sensations are free; they come and they go freely. So, even perceptually, basically, can we find this 'me'?

This is very strange. Is it that the one that seems to get so much allegiance in our life, and we seem to be catering to all the needs of 'me' for so long, seemingly we cannot even find it this way? And the one that is being pointed to in satsang, that one you cannot miss. Isn't that astounding? That the person that we seem to want to be rid of so much, in a way, it is also personal, you see. That one we can't even look at. And the Self, which we seem to be searching for, the self-realization, we cannot miss. So then, why does it seem like a struggle? What is the seeker then? If you cannot miss this, then what is it they're seeking? Very happy if you mean consciousness having fun playing this. Yeah, that's why this is found. It is one very direct route. If a route is needed, it is to see that the idea of 'me' depends more than anything else, more than appearances, more than emotion, more than sensation—it depends on these thoughts, these notions.

And it is not the appearance of the notions in themselves which seem to cause identification with this 'me', although many have prescribed many things to not even allow these notions, like trying to control your attention. So, although many have prescribed various ways in which you can get some mastery over your attention, be it mindful breathing or chanting or various such methods which you would not even give any attention toward the mind, the same here, it is naturally... this is more natural to express in this way: that even if these notions appear and disappear, unless you give your assent to them, unless you believe them, they do not cause any identification. So, it is this identification which is the cause of the clinging onto notions, and because this clinging is what suffering brings, equals.

So then, all we have to check is: can I remain without this clinging? If the clinging is something and there's no other way to suffer except this clinging, then all we need to then check is whether it is possible to remain without clinging. My proposition to you is that it is, because I have seen that even to see that, 'Oh, thinking seems like it just happens automatically,' is also clinging onto some notion of it. But there are most times really independent of that. No, you're not clinging onto anything at all. This we can experiment with. So, what happens when we identify that which is all-powerful and pure, that is just here, it is clear, it is just being? You see, it is prior to being, all of these good things were said, and it is just apparent. We hear it now. Then what happens when we identify while clinging onto something? What is it that we identify as? It will be some factory as a person. Then you're sort of a regular fit, yeah. But what is this person? It's again just natural. So, he looks a lot... it's like an imaginary, a mythical entity.

Now, is he like a mythical entity, as meticulous as this monster or something like that, which seems to get a lot of ownership over these four categories of things which we often talked about, which is relationships, health of the body, security, and even the search for meaning or freedom? I think it seems to operate in these. It seems to be the owner, for example, of the money that we have, the relationships that we have. It seems to own this body also. 'My body is not feeling so well today. I feel...'

This identity now, is he like a mythical entity? As meticulous throughout this monster or something like that, which seems to get a lot of ownership over these four categories of things which we often talk about, which is relationships, health of the body, security, and even the search for meaning or freedom. I think it seems to operate in these; it seems to be the owner, for example, of the money that we have, the relationships that we have. It seems to own this body also: 'My body is not feeling so well today. I feel I must rest my body. My body is a bit tired.' He seems to be the owner of all of this and also wants like a name to this suffering itself, which aims toward the end of the suffering through freedom or some ultimate meaning.

Now, this one is the one that we identify with, but it is impossible to identify as that one unless we're using some concept—at least one concept. And in one concept, all concepts are contained, you see. But this prerequisite is there. As Bhagavan said, all problems, everything is completely resolved in a moment. All things are completely resolved. Then the birth, which is then implying as the birth of this emotional 'me,' of this identification as this mythical creature... so wouldn't it be really cool if they could just not identify?

So if it is like this, there are two modes of existence, which is empty of this identification or full of this identification. It could not be that at the root of it, you yourself are an identified one, because identification itself needs to happen, isn't it? So the primary you cannot be a pre-identified one. That is why I call it the play of consciousness itself. Consciousness in choosing to play with this as this deluded one, and choosing to step out of the delusion. So the choice, the will of consciousness, somehow feels different from when we feel like something is happening in a personal way. But actually, there is no such thing as personal because we looked even just now; we saw that we can't find even objectively this person, isn't it?

When we say that all things happen through the will of consciousness, so we say 'Guru Kripa Kevalam.' What is he? We say that there is an underlying intelligence to the movement of things. What is that? Even how do plants do, how flowers flower? Who is making the heartbeat or the breath function? What is that underlying intelligence? So another way, another term to use for the underlying intelligence is the will of consciousness. There is no distinction between the primal intelligence and that which we call heart's will.

This one, you see, is playing that game of, in a way—these are just terms in the game—of identifying as something limited and playing the game of stepping back from it. So that if you stayed wandering and find, yeah, that it's just God. Much of this is speaking with consciousness, you see. Why does it have to be done? No reason. It is all part of the design of this play. Just like in this play, there are millions of shops which are selling you the story of identification, there are a few shops which are selling you the story of disidentification, isn't it? Now, who is to do that? It is the only one that is here.

Does it need to be reminded? Absolutely not, you see. Does it need an objective reminder to come in the form of the outer form of a Guru to say 'stop identifying'? Absolutely not. In the play, it seems to be that way. Just like there's so many who are saying, 'Okay, this will be good for you. You will become a better person if you do this. You will become a better person if you do that.' There are some reminders available in this appearance which seem to be saying, 'But are you a person?' It's like to wake up from the dream, what appearance has to come within the dream? Nothing more. Appearances have to come within the dream. Many times it can feel like in the dream itself you might have an experience of jumping off something or some strong experience where, oh, that would be so... is it possible that an object within the dream can make you wake up out of the dream? Actually, it doesn't seem like it is logical, and yet the play seems to play that way.

Satsang is a good way to describe such a thing; it is consciousness speaking with consciousness, actually. But even then, you cannot say it is unpleasant because everything is consciousness speaking with consciousness. But most conversations of consciousness speaking with consciousness are seemingly for the betterment of the identified one. And there are some conversations which have nothing to do with the identified one, with the personal identity. It is like a removal. That is why I think it's perfect, satsang, or the best path, because what wakes us out of the dream? What has to appear within the dream to wake us out of the dream? Or even if it seemed like the sound from outside reaches us, what needs to be said to wake you up from outside? These things we cannot see.

Going away, Ramanama, she said that as long as it feels like we have some choice... because many times what can happen is that we are feeling like we have many choices, but only when it comes to like this choice, like 'don't go with your thoughts,' then we feel like, 'Do I here then have a choice?' We make the choice of believing this question about choice only in satsang. In the world, we still believe there is choice, and choice makes her identity. So he said as long as it feels like there is some choice, make the choice not to go with your stream of thoughts, and then you will see that even this so-called choice was actually the jet stream. It seems to be this way. We cannot really actually define it, but it seems to play in this field that consciousness makes that choice of identifying and then it gives up on making that choice, you see.

Then there comes a point where even choice or no choice is meaningless, because it doesn't mean anything. And that point can be right now. And I said 'there comes a point' doesn't necessarily mean sequentially. Like I was telling you, it's here to play that even this choice or no choice was actually a dream that's available here. Identification is consciousness believing a notion about itself. Even the arising of notions are from itself. There is nothing outside of it. Even this play of identification is within it. And although there is no actual explanation for why it happened like this, you see, but we can say that you derive some sense of joy or some sense of enjoyment from this getting deluded and then even the oscillation of delusion and freedom. Usually getting stuck in the play is easy.

Just like we talked about movies. You don't like movies with just abrupt endings. Like if you were only in prison for 20 years and then somebody just came in and opened the door and you were left free, you'd say, 'What kind of movie is that?' In the movie, the protagonist was unfairly imprisoned for 43 years and then only the doors were open. You can see the one who opened it. Nothing is free. Would such a movie... oh, this even further for 43 years. Imagine that we were in a prison and one day they just woke up and this all... there is no clear end of movie. But you watch it, you want some drama or to beat up some bad guys, then it could, you know, have some just thing. So that is the way consciousness plays it. This movie also, if you like, our prayer is suffering and it feels like we struggle, we come out of it a little bit, then we get stuck back again. Then something happened, then we come out. You see, it seems so much like a movie. And none of this has to be this way. This is more definition like that they say that from whatever experience of appearances we have, it seems to play out this way.

Father, they seem... the feeling of stress and frustration. I don't know whether it is depression. It seems to come to the surface more while doing satsang. There seems conflict in the intellect. The intellect seems to be crashed. You feel like that you are speaking a break after the broadcast was not until yesterday where you can seem very frustrated because something is taking away all that that we can stand on, all the concepts that we can hold on to, getting rid of all these tensions. So when the mind asks this question, 'So what is it? What are you learning? What are you getting?' you find that there is no answer to this and that can seem very frustrating.

But this is what the mind will label the situation. As I was reading from the book the other day, this openness, this not being able to rest on a concept, this letting go, this even tension of not knowing—it can feel like the stress of not knowing, but actually it is doing a cleanup job. Because it's a great, great opportunity to see things for as they are instead of what you think they are. So that which the mind will label frustration or just like stress, because it can feel like, 'But what is this? What am I getting? What all do I know now?' See, now these are the messages from the mind. If you let them come and go, they remain in your local dance and not landing on any concept, you can feel like you're floating in a void for a while.

So let this mind get frustrated. You allow it to come and go and you will get more and more used to this not needing to rest on a concept. As you see, then not having to come back to the nest of our ideas and our intellect, then you are just actually anywhere. Whatever might be coming in home here, it is natural because you are not a slave to your intellectual creation of waters. So this so-called conflict in the intellect is good because you leave it behind. You will find that your intellect has never actually solved anything. It has just given new conclusions and its reasoning for things which actually you cannot conclude or reason about. And it is these conclusions which, if you had to subscribe, have taken away our sense of spaciousness, of openness. So let the intellect be contradicted and collide with its own concepts. You rest in your neutrality, a little deciding to fire from personal.

You say don't believe our next thought, but there are hundreds of thoughts in a minute. How can this work?

Okay, so what you have to do then is you have to express these hundreds of thoughts as they come. Just say them out loud. So they are too fast? Is one thought 'they are too fast'? Then what is the next one? You count later. Just make yourself completely open to all thoughts to come right there. In fact, you say, 'Okay, what do you want to say now?'

And in the second thought is, 'I can't detect some of them.'

So don't worry about those. You already... your problem is simpler. First you detected hundreds of thoughts in a minute. Now you're saying, 'I can't detect.' So that which you can't detect doesn't exist. Forget about it. Now you take on the milk and let everything in come and go. You count how many thoughts can you say. Some of them I have...

It is images.

Don't worry about images. They just right now concern about my... suggests something that is saying something. And welcome all these images also. If they are not interpretations, let them come and go. It is very, very, very good actually to release this imagery, which many times we are scared of facing, this imagery.

So right now, one, two, three, four... four thoughts. Like the images seem to have underlying messages.

So that's the thought: 'The images seem to have underlying messages.' That is the thought, which is fine. Don't have any fear. Imagination, any perception, any memory, and allow all these interpretations of all of them to go, to come and to go. Don't... so empty. And if you feel like they are hundreds, it's good to create an open space for that.

What next? Is a persistent thought that...

It is a persistent thought is also a thought. Just allow it to come and go. Let it keep saying 'what next, what things, what next, what things, what things, what things, what things.' And you are until the idea of 'next.' When you are looking for everything from the future, then this heart will not push our working so much. What we have nurtured and cultivated for as many lifetimes, that seems to get the most belief, most identification. If, for example, if you have talked to someone who, you know, in Christian spirituality has never been to satsang and you see you're...

Let it come and go. Let it keep saying 'What next?' for things. What names for things? What things? And you are until the idea of 'next.' When you are looking for everything from the future, then this heart will not push. We are working so much on what we have nurtured and cultivated for as many lifetimes; that seems to get the most belief, most identification. For example, if you have talked to someone, well, you know, in Christian spirituality who has never been to such a satsang, and you see you're just being a person right now with me, yeah? So mark it. But if you speak to somebody in Advaita satsang and you see here he is being a person there now, wait, that is the biggest... wait, I'm sorry, why would I? Just to see him. Look, the content of the thought is the same. The concept is the same. It is just that we have identified with the notion of not being a person, and also we have doubts about whether we are succeeding in that endeavor. So when somebody comes and tells us there is this being a person, it pushes a button, you see? But for most of the world, it doesn't seem like a concept at all. Definitely like something to be fixed. Of course, I'm a person, holding me like that. So how can it be that the content, the concept, is the same, but because of an existing belief system of what you believe should be or should not be, then these thoughts can come and press our buttons?

So if you can let go of the entire band of concepts and not even expect that the wind will give up and not play these tricks—don't even expect that. Let the wind do whatever it wants. In the way it is like that 'boy who cried wolf' story. And the boy says, 'The wolf is here, the wolf is here.' First time, you go. Second time, you go. Third time, you go. But fourth time, you started becoming a bit skeptical. In the same way, the mind keeps offering up the story of what's happening to the person, or what the person wants, or what it is offering wrong. But the more and more you see that there wasn't a person—you went looking for the wolf, you looked for the person, you saw there is none—so how long will we keep running when it calls? It can't last forever. We give up on the story of this ego, voiceless.

So for those thoughts which seem especially persistent in this way, depending on your temperament, you can inquire into them or you can surrender them. For some, to surrender it seems more natural, and for some, to inquire seems more natural. So if you say 'What next?' is a persistent thought, honey, then you can pull this into your inquiry. Inquire: 'What next for whom? Who is here on which time actually? Is myself changing with time, or affected by time, or concerned by time?' And if the Self is not concerned by time, then who is concerned by time? And so the more you check, the more you will see that the potency of this thought 'What next?' will reduce. So whatever comes regularly in the way of your motionlessness, it seems to keep making you dance. See those buttons on the remote control that keep making you dance every time they are pressed? Those you can volunteer for inquiry and just ask ourselves: 'Who is it for?' And you will find that these persistent thoughts are not so many. All of us have only maybe two or three of them that really press our buttons.

Very good, very good, Father. Anger, it is rising during satsang. It's not so uncommon. I am watching the mind wanting to analyze while also wanting to hide this. So exposing this now.

Yes, anytime we don't realize how much of a figurer we have become. How much even those with seemingly devotional temperaments—anytime they don't realize that how much they are trying to figure things out. 'Why is it like this? Why is this happening to me?' Like, we can convince ourselves that we are surrendered to the Master's grace, but the surrender is not the time to understand what I am. That is giving up of the one. So to surrender and keep asking 'Why?' is not surrender at all. It is like saying, 'God, I handed over my life completely to you,' you see that? And then every few minutes you're like, 'But I handed over my life to you completely, so why are you doing this to me now?' But it's not a complete handover. So it's very good that you're noticing this and exposing this. With this figurer, 'I like this, why like that?' Why go this way? Is it a tire now? Because no more. So as to 'Why?' are really coming. Motive also seems to be coming in some holes on exterior taken away.

So you're not getting any concept to rest on, and this is bound to frustrate you. First frustrate you, then let you get fully tired. Get fully, fully tired of this intellect. This 'Why, why?' Don't you see that there is no actual answer to this 'Why?' Then you will see that this 'Why?' does not actually apply. There is no 'Why.' It just is. There is no 'Why is it?' It just is. Also, it is important to see there is no power in the 'Why.' Let's try a different spot. Cool, yeah.

And the fact is that we don't know why anything. I keep asking certain details. Why, why? Do you know why you are? And if you are the basis for all experience, all appearances, and you don't even know why you are, why I am... if you don't even know why I am, then how can we say anything about why everything after this is? My appearance comes and goes, you can't see. So all our 'Whys' are actually to speed up. We don't even know why we ask your mind, 'Why do we have to know why?'

I enjoyed this poem very much: 'If you're going to hunt for it, got to fly, man. Got to ask himself why, why, why? Tiger got to sleep, worker got to kill himself.' He understands. Have you ever seen a bird think 'Why?' I don't know. He wouldn't move. It's after language is first there, and you won't find little children sitting around saying, 'Why has this happened to me?' It's only after they're three or maybe like young children when language starts to develop. The vibration is not so attractive to let us have made them. Everything becomes 'Why?' 'Why is the sky blue? Why do I have to go to school?' It is really very that whole... and then based will be the answers. It's kind of like individuality develops. Maybe we hang on to these reasons when we feel like, 'Okay, in this way now, why it makes sense.'

So all of us as parents go through that phase. We have current which was worried, but wasn't there when they were really small. And then language developed, and then for a while it still didn't seem so this. But when these strains of individuality start to really relate the thoughts, 'Why this? Why that? Why was that right?' And there's a certain box that is created full of all of these answers. 'I feel like this is my worldview. I should be honest because of this. I should do my homework or not do my work because of this.' Whatever the reason is, when this forms like the framework for the seeming person, all these concepts that we become, and then we keep refreshing like blogs every day, a new life. And we discard some more reasons because the new reason is called a known concept, become a new concept. And this keeps going on till we come to a point and we see that: What is all of this about? Is there anything really valid in my box of concepts?

We start looking at everything. 'What is this? What is this?' And we start looking at 'What is this? What is this? What is this?' We see that how there was so much conceptual stuff here, so much emotional ideas here. Things like what we were taught when we were really young. Things that we were taught: up and down, we were taught good and bad, we were taught right and wrong. And it seemed like a life could not function without these ideas because we have to know how to live. And then we came to spirituality and we were taught how to be good seekers. So as we throw all of this aside and don't pick up the opposite position—this is the trick. We throw one thing, then I'm not here attracted to the opposite of that. Everything has to be. Once we see that there is no such thing as bondage, if we want to hang on to the claim that 'I am free,' but if you just throw and leave it empty, what did they throw away with the kings? Divest everything of its conceptual meaning, of its emotional charge. In a way, everything is charged, and how much we have charged it also determines our magnetism to that particular concept.

Even if you charge the notion 'I am free, I am free, I am free, I am free,' you keep charging this notion 'I am free' and it becomes like a special motion fuse. And 'I am free' doesn't mean anything. What you mean by free? You feel at an attack, you see? So in any end of the spectrum of opposites, if we identify so much with that, then it can be pulled, attacked. But as we remain empty of all of these opposites, all that we think we knew, all that we think we have to know, all that we think we have to figure out for life to...

So all that we think we know are just subtitles about life. And in a way, we got so used to these subtitles that we feel like then we cannot run without these subtitles. But it is not like that. In fact, because these subtitles seem to make this movie more blurry, unclear, as we let them be, we let them come and go, we start to experience this movie in a completely unique, different way. Empty of the burden of a, empty of struggle of individuality. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Guru Kripa Kevalam.