There Is a Greater Place From Which You Can Know - 23rd August 2023

Yes, thank you. Thank you for sharing your perspective. So recently I've had the darshan of death in my family in two very close instances. And of course in India it's very popular, the notion that if you remember God in just the last moment, okay, then you will find a place at His feet or in heaven or whatever we want to call it. When you find a place, you just have to remember God in the last moment. I know it's not exactly what you're saying, but this is coming up for me. But in both instances, in both instances at the moment of passing, God was not in the picture for them. And what was in the picture was what the deepest conditioning that life was spent in doing. So if the deepest conditioning is the notion of a 'happy me,' it seemed like a humble enough and a fair enough plan for lives, then it is not going to happen magically that in the last moment you will come to the notion—I mean, it can happen in God's grace, everything is possible—but most likely odds are that it is not going to happen. If you spent a whole life obsessing with the notion of a 'me' which we have never investigated fully to find whether it even exists, it is not going to happen that at the last moment we will come to God.

So suppose that there was a truth which was hidden in plain sight and suppose—okay, let's take another metaphor. Let's take the Plato's Cave. You know this Plato's Cave metaphor? In Plato's Cave, what happens is—and Plato came up with this metaphor thousands of years ago—what happens is that there are a group of people, let's imagine thousands of them, who are tied up and imprisoned in a cave and they're facing the end of the cave, and the sun is coming from the mouth of the cave. Okay, so what happens is when the sun rises and it sets, then they see some shadows at the end of the cave and they feel like they're living their life as they are the shadow. So each one has identified that they are that shadow, you see, and they're living that life. And some movement happens every day in the life and they feel like that is their life, you see. And maybe they have the goal to be happy with whatever that movement that happens is, and maybe they have set themselves this goal.

Then one day one of them, for some reason which is unexplained in the story, escapes the chains and runs to the mouth of the cave and sees a blazing sun over there. Okay, he sees the blazing sun over there and first he is blinded by the light because he's never seen it, he's never seen light directly. He's only seen the second-hand light from the shadow, you see. So first he's blinded by the light, but slowly you get used to it and he notices that outside the cave there is a life that happened in the light of the sun. So what does he want to do? He could have said, 'My brothers and sisters, they are not going to listen anyway. Let me just enjoy my life and if they have to escape one day they will escape, otherwise let them be stuck in that misery which they call life.' So he decides that, 'I cannot do that. I have to go and tell my loved ones that there's a greater reality that you are missing out on and actually it is not very difficult to find because all you have to do is turn around and you have to look,' you see.

So what happens when he goes back? He says, 'Come, come everyone, this is not true. Your life is not that shadow. That shadow is actually non-existent, it doesn't exist. It is just a play of light. So come, come with me, I have a greater reality to show you.' What do you think that they all say to him? Resistance in many different ways, you see. So first they will say, 'You've gone mad because there are thousands of us and you are one of you, and you must be hallucinating or it must be some strange experience you're having. Maybe you lost your mind.' Then others say, 'Okay, it's working for you, no? It's working for you. You keep quiet. We are happy with our life. Be happy with our life, leave us alone. Why you want to trouble us?' Others will say, 'But if I turn, what will happen to that shadow which I take to be me?' You see, 'I take it to be me, so if I turn, what if that one becomes a mess?' You see. 'So I believe you, but I'm not sure whether I'm cut out for this,' just to return to today's question. 'Am I really cut out to meeting the truth?'

And this one says, 'All you have to do is turn around. I'm showing you how to do it.' And all the Masters have given us the tools. One says inquire, find out who you are, is there such a 'me'? Another one says if you find a Master or if you find some devotion to God, surrender everything to that one. Another one says breathe in a particular way, you can do some pranayama. Another one says sing devotional songs to God. Another one says chant God's name. So now, are these ones because they claim to have found the sun and are inviting everyone else to come and see that there is something like that and it's not difficult really to find—it may seem difficult but can be done—and most of them will say that if there's a fool like this one, if there's one that is got really no extraordinary talent or skill or even devotion, not faith or love or anything like that, if with God's grace it can happen to this one, there is no reason it can't happen to you.

Okay, so but that is something that the ones who are listening to this man who escaped from the cave, they cannot be forced. Is there a way in which this one can force them? No. So the best that he can do is try and remind, to invite, to provoke, to compel. So that strange gathering is called satsang. So we may say that, 'Yes, but as long as I'm happy, how does it matter?' And the sage may say, 'But you, who you want to spend your whole life catering to the happiness of one who doesn't exist? It's just a shadow which is fleeting. It's fleeting, it's ephemeral, and before we know it, it is gone,' you see. So they may invite you and say, 'Okay, find out who we are catering to. Who is your reality? And is that one happy? Or are you talking about the emergence or the perception of some feeling which we can say as long as this feeling is there, I'm okay with that?'

Okay, but we've also been told that every perception, it comes and goes, you see. There's no stability in the realm of the mind and the realm of emotions, in the realm of this body. The only stability is in God's light, or in the metaphor, the light of the sun. So that can seem uncomfortable because we may be strongly in a construct that God is not for me. Can you see? Fine. But then we still have hope because many sages have told us that they went looking for the 'me' and while they were looking for the 'me,' they found God. Many went looking for God and they found their true Self. So I would say that even with the scientific temperament, even with the scientific temperament, you would say don't just settle for an idea that you are this body. Because even those who are very rational and scientific somehow don't really accept the concept of death that easily. Most people say 'RIP.' Even the atheists, when they hear that somebody has passed, moved on, then they write 'RIP.' It is very convenient in the age of social media, don't have to do anything, just send one 'RIP.' But who are they wishing, who are they saying 'rest in peace' to? The body is not going to be in peace either; it is going to be burnt on a fire, which doesn't look very peaceful, or it is going to be eaten up by worms or whatever under the ground, which also doesn't sound very peaceful. So if they are talking about something other than the body, then what is that? And if there is something like that, what stops us from discovering it now except the seeming trouble to turn the direction?

Anything, just send one RIP. But who are they wishing, who are they saying 'rest in peace' to? The body is not going to be in peace either; it is going to be burnt on a fire, which doesn't look very peaceful, or it is going to be eaten up by worms or whatever under the ground, which also doesn't sound very peaceful. So if they are talking about something other than the body, then what is that? And if there is something like that, what stops us from discovering it now, except the seeming trouble to turn the direction in which we are facing? The trouble is to turn the direction in which we are facing because we have valued all of this. It is ephemeral, and we are now being invited to turn to something which is timeless or eternal. So this is a very accurate, I feel, metaphor for the human condition.

You were saying on the beginning, like just simple human experience, human life. Um, like you would not know, oh God. So I'm, it's like opposite these two things. Um, in non-duality, in Vedanta, it's so deeply rooted, almost like deny the body, deny even like in a sense life, renounce, um, hiding cave in monastery, ashram. The world is kind of not that, it's not that. But if actually just with that, um, renunciation, just renounce everything, and there is also no life, no nothing, no, it's just empty, empty, empty. And if you start again kind of wrapping or desiring, you're in organic conflict. Basically, what I'm trying to understand is like it's some kind of, I was also listening to Rupert Spira, and it's something and I'm also saying in my own experience that it's like some kind of misunderstanding here. Because it can be to live now with this understanding you're not the body, but to live fully as body as the just completely simple human experience. So this I'm looking and I am, I find myself in this kind of little conflict because I'm pulled in kind of in non-duality and then I'm pulled kind of in that way. So what is here? Do you understand?

Actually, from this perspective, it is even much more confusing, even much more than you have defined. Because in the West, probably as Shuddha means pure only. Yes, God and Atma are one, so really there is no difference. But there is a difference. So Veda means difference. Hmm? There's a branch called Abheda which is very similar to pure or Kevala, but there's also a branch called Bheda. Between that, there is difference and there is no difference. So difference on non-difference. I find that my expression has become more and more like that of a Bheda-Abheda within, mostly in expression. Um, one who says that there is no distinction, always one, but also that there is a difference.

So the ones who follow mostly will say that this distinction/non-distinction path of Advaita Vedanta we cannot really formulate or conceptualize in our head. But in satsang the other day, some sort of words came through so to put some try to put some light on this, which was that there is no one that we are aware of that was successful in getting rid of the individuality 100 percent, getting rid of the ego 100 percent. Even the sages have all said that a little bit, a tiny amount of ego, it remains. So I suggested that let's not ever get into the presumption that we are going to be the first one to be egoless 100 percent, because that sounds more like spiritual ego than an actual report.

So if that is the case, some idea of separation will remain, and it remains for the highest sages. And it's also said that even when the Avatars came, we had a few moments of individualization. The incarnations of God themselves had a few moments of individualization in this world because that is the power of Maya that God has created. So given that that is the situation where I think you're also saying that although ultimately in reality there is no distinction, that I am That, but the part of me which still remains as a somebody, that one must be made to realize that the only true position left for that one is in service to God. Because if that one ever starts identifying with 'I am That,' then that one is going to wreak a lot of havoc in this world as we've seen many times happening.

So both are true. Awareness with reality, absolute reality, that I am That in which even God takes birth or Consciousness takes birth, depending on how we refer to God, as I am That. That is true. But it is also true that really I am just a servant of God, not even worthy enough to be called a servant of God. Which is more true? You cannot say it. Yeah, I can't keep seeing this but it seems it's not coming. What is the trouble with this? Sorry, I'll just add some more. The trouble with this is that to the intellect this is not palatable and possibly the least popular form of Advaita because like, is it Veda or is it Abheda? How can it be both, you see? And especially with Western logic it is not possible because from the times of Aristotle we got used to a very linear sort of logic. If something is true then it cannot be false; if something is false it cannot be true. Those are called the first two corners of Buddhism, you see.

But in Buddhism the room has four corners, like most rooms. What are the other two corners? It is both true and false, and the fourth is that it is neither true nor false. But the truth is in which corner? In the corner called the fifth. So do I have an absolute and a relative life? The fifth. Okay, now I go ahead that because it wants to know and it feels so many, the fifth seems like it is a cop-out. He's not answering the question, so he's just saying whichever inconvenient question comes, maybe he only doesn't know the answer, so he says fifth. Okay, is it the Fifth Amendment or the Fourth Amendment in America? No self-incriminating evidence can be forced. That joke didn't land.

So, so now suppose that in pointing to the fifth, one is not saying that it's unanswerable, it cannot be found, but one is saying that find another place in you where the answer is known, but it is not the intellect. Is there such a place? So if you notice the questions in Vedanta or in Zen, or a question like this for that matter, it can only be known intuitively or in the light of the Satguru presence within. We cannot make a determination or an understanding out of it now. Most of us will make an understanding of what I just said. Okay, yes, I understand now that I can only know it intuitively, and you will rest in that understanding instead of trying to reach that intuitive insight.

That is why, because the need to know and the need to be right is so strong that we will latch on to that and we'll forget the more important part of what we're just saying. It was that there is an intuitive intelligence within us, and in fact I called it the Satguru presence within us, which makes all these answers available to us. But rarely when I've spoken like this does one say, 'Oh, I want to live in that Satguru presence or in the light of the Satguru presence.' Mostly the response that comes is, 'Okay, and now I understand that, but now I want to understand whether...' You missed the cake for the little cherry. So because it is so tempting to want to know or want to be right, we miss the cake, which is that he has just informed us that the highest intelligence in this universe is available to me to access, and that is the only place where I can truly know. And instead we will jump back onto, 'Yes, yes, I understand that,' or 'No, no, I don't understand.' So we're back to the intellect because that is our comfortable home. So my invitation is to leave that home, be uncomfortable for some time. Oops, don't rush to understand, don't rush to know.

So yes, like just to leave it aside, that that kind of understanding, and then it's like just...

But I'm not saying just merely leave it aside. I'm saying there's a greater place from which you can know. Somewhere we don't meet that, yeah. So what can happen is that it may sound like what I'm saying is just leave it. I'm not saying that, although that is the first step. Leave it here so that you can truly know it here. What does the smell of burnt rice look like? Huh? What does the smell of burnt rice look like? You say, 'What kind of question is that? It's absurd. It's the wrong sense.' You see, I should be asking, 'What does the smell of burnt rice smell like?' So this is the problem in the human condition, that that which can be met in the heart—not as emotional, but the spiritual core, the Satguru, like God's light within us, self-knowledge within us—that is the only instrument in which that which is valuable knowledge can be known. But the mind will try to make it another compartment in the head itself.

So if you leave the head, are we then lost? And is the emptiness of our head an empty life? Asking because it may sound like... but if I'm just head empty, Zen masters again said, 'No, head empty, heart full.' Not just head, also like heart, like just nothing, just like all, like everything, not just the head. That is the difference between nihilism and Vedanta or Zen. Nihilism means nothing: head meaningless, heart meaningless, God meaningless, life meaningless, love meaningless, you see. It may sound like it, but I'll tell you this is a huge difference, you see. So that is nihilism, which is what you're countering, you see. You're countering that and saying, 'But there has to be a fuller life, it cannot be empty like that.' That is nihilism. That is not the Vedantic or the Zen position. The Vedantic position is that beyond concepts, beyond the ability to grasp in the head—and the Buddhist position is that this grasping is suffering—beyond that is a great truth, whether we call that Shiva, we call that the Buddha nature. So it is not if you're hearing something like, 'Okay, this is be empty, empty, heart empty, head empty, empty, empty,' and that is not the intention.

What you're saying is empty in a higher way. But I also, um, I found it like that it's not kind of, it's like a somewhere in the middle there. It goes further on from this, um, to live with this in the body. So because here what you're saying, it's like also to just drop the body basically.

Um, in just... I worked out a day before, I ran for eight kilometers, no? Okay, I'm lifting some weights also. Drop the body? So here I am. It's like some, some, I think like I'm exploring like after this what is happening to see it as it is. You have to clarify the point further. It's difficult. God gave you a beautiful car as a gift, and it came from God, that much is apparent to you. And all you have to do is maintain it a little bit, take care of it, clean it up. Then would you do it? Okay. But there's a big difference between taking care of the car and taking yourself to be a car. So if 'drop the body' means I've become nihilistic again about the body and say, 'Oh, just body, not bathe for three months, it's just, it's not me, it's just about me, about it.' If that is what it means to drop the body, then that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is apparent to me that this body is an instrument. It is a gift, if we have to categorize it in some way. None of the categories are absolutely true, but the one that comes close is that it's a beautiful gift. But I am not this. I am not this flesh bucket here. So you may say, 'Yeah, because I have the ability to take myself to be a flesh bucket,' and most, it's a very popular idea among seven billion that everyone is a flesh bucket. But I have clearly seen that I am not one. I don't know how I could do it and say, 'But yes, I should take myself to be it.' It's almost like saying that because the world takes the truth to be that everybody sits on the ceiling and not on the floor, then you must take that to be true. But I have found very clearly that it is not true. So how to take it to be true?

What have you found clearly? If you abide in your heart, in your peace, and sometimes there are little like pull-outs, but if it's very strong, it's very... then quickly kind of back. And if there is no more kind of... if you're very clear when the pull is out and you say and you're aware of it, you can see it, then in this case would be kind of end of suffering. Would that be kind of...

If you find it in your heart, in your peace, and sometimes there are little like pull-outs, but if it's very strong, then quickly you are kind of back. And if there is no more kind of—if you're very clear when the pull is out and you say and you're aware of it, you can see it, then in this case would be kind of the end of suffering? Would that be kind of a correct understanding? I just always come—even if it's a pull, they always come back. Or in that moment, why am I to not be caught up in the mind? Is the end of suffering?

This is true, but I've never seen nor heard of anyone who has come to the end of suffering—therefore not being involved in the mind completely—without coming to the realization of themselves. And that realization only happens in the presence of the Atma, which we may call God's presence. So we may use some other word. Is it not possible? Again, it may be possible; everything is possible. But I have neither seen nor heard of anyone come to the end of suffering or, like you were saying earlier, live a completely happy life without coming to the recognition of who they are. And the thing with this recognition is that it can only happen in the light of the Atma, in the Satguru presence, or whether we call it Holy Spirit or presence of God's light, whatever we may call it.

So here I have like a continuation. So love is like it's melting it; the mind melts in the heart and it's gentle. And it melts the mind, but it's not always gentle, no? But then it's this burning, huh? And so when kind of the experience comes, at least now I'm seeing this, that because I was just knowing zero, so it happens like I would be pulled out a little bit and I feel like I'm going in that direction of some kind of burning again. And I have such—now it's like, is it possible that you would just say no? And it's no, like you don't go anymore there? Like would that be kind of like—is it that I am, or is that like another form of ego?

The trouble that comes is when there is a third 'I'. Not this third eye, not in the middle of your forehead, but a third 'I'. Which is that I've said that 'I' is the Absolute reality, I am that. And there's an 'I' which should be in servitude to God and therefore an acceptance to God's will and a follower of God. If there's any other 'I' which is not one of these two, it is bound to cause trouble. Just your kind of 'not go into the burning' is not possible unless you are in servitude to God. You go kind of back into it. There is a—in that place, let's say place, in that state—there is no burning.

Yeah, so this is what I'm looking or seeing.

Yeah, but one who is in servitude to God is in acceptance of whether it is peaceful or burning. But we cannot use it that way. It's not—is it? It's not felt in that way. It doesn't seem that it's felt in that way. Have you met true servitude to God? Can you go—what does your heart say without further explanation? Can you repeat it? Have you met true servitude to God? Served completely by God?

Because it's not me who is doing it and I have to obey. I mean, I obey you in that way. It's like a forced servitude because I have to.

Something is coming up to say for everyone on this point. So in this play of Maya, and God is playing in this way, it means non-distinction yet distinction. We, the seeming distinct one, the jivatma, can say that I am separate. And God accepts that—that seeming separation. The Buddhists call that suffering; the Christians call that hell. So hell is nothing but when we in this place say, 'I only live on my own terms. I will be separate. I will decide.' God lets us. That way, it's not like you said, real life alive. And then the other option is because that which we call 'my terms'—this is that which we call 'my terms'—is not actually my terms. It is the terms of the mind. Okay? And if there were terms that were just mine, then I would not need to get a phone call in the form of a thought to tell me 'this is what I want,' you see?

So that in this Maya, again, that which is designed to convince the narrator in the video game... so you put on a video game, the game starts and we just start playing. You're just like, 'this is no fun.' So first the story has to be told. You are Mr. James Bond. Your next mission is to capture this—you know, heiress has been kidnapped—and your mission is to rescue her from the kidnapper. Then the game starts. 'I am James Bond.' And you know, you can replace your narrative with that James Bond and everything. So without that, it's just a dance of perception. So the mind is just that narrator which is contextualizing everything in the realm of Maya to convince you that you have an objective life in this play. Without the mind, what is the narrative that we buy?

So this is a little bit what I was referring to. In that place, there is no position. And it's not burning in a way. But yeah, not the same as that burning like of ego or the mind, even though there is another.

Tell me something from beyond this place, beyond the intellect. Going back to your first question on the worldly life, if that is a choice. Can you remind me my question?

Yeah, yeah. So your first question—ah yes, yes, yes. 'Am I cut out for this?' Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in that flow, you asked if there was this beautiful life, worldly life, would you still want the truth? And you asked us this many times. And in the allegory of the cave, Plato's Cave, the fundamental setup of that allegory is that the folks in the cave are missing out on something grander. Whatever grandeur means—the sun is bright, whatever, or the air is better and so on and so forth. The setup itself is saying that there's something better out there, right? So that's the allegory of the cave.

But your original question was: would I still choose a path of God if everything was amazing or good or whatever that word is? So that—I don't—you asked us this many times and I looked inside, tried to answer it from the heart. It's like, I don't understand the question in the sense that, like, for me to appreciate the sun, there has to be empty black space. That is the nature of creation. So that contrast will always be there, and there can't be a world where there is only sunlight. That would be—I don't know what that would be because there's no contrast. So is it—my intuition is saying that that is just not possible, that hypothetical. And I know you're using it to maybe provoke something or to get into a different dimension, but yeah, I don't know what that means.

Let's explore which aspect of our existence relies on the contrast to make the judgment. Because that's what you're saying in some sense, that unless I've tasted salty, how can I know sweet? Unless I've tasted bitter, then I can't know sweet, whatever metaphors we use. So is there another part to us? And it was interesting to me that you said, 'my intuition is telling me.' So let's explore that together because our intuition is one match. Do I need these opposites or categories to know the better or, to refer to Plato again, to know the good? Better is just a derivation of the good.

So it is true that most of the mind's proposals are: 'what is, is not good enough. If it was like this, it would be better.' So if I had this better body, if I had a better relationship, if I had more money. So all of this stuff is—the proposals are 'better.' Now, is there a different 'better'? Yeah, so if you position the experiment to be that in experience there is always contrast, and if you try to cling on to so-called better, it's not possible because better is only possible when there is not better. So if that's true, then the only respite is to go into a different place, and that place is God. That intuition is very clear.

But what we are changing, and we've spoken about this, is: what is the viable place to make the determination of goodness or betterness outside of better and not better? If we're going to make a determination of goodness or rightness, then it is automatically the determination of better over worse because we are saying good or right is better than bad or wrong. And if there was no such determination to be made at all, then all the talk of following God's will would then be meaningless, which is what is again a very popular Advaita away from the position, which is that everything is God's will. So why are these people telling us to follow God's will? Don't they know that everywhere everything is God's will?

So you will just take a slight digression. When Nanak Ji said the only way out of this web is to follow God's will no matter what, he said that basically in the way that is his highest teaching. Which means he has written this: that the way out of all of this stuff is not the 'siapa,' which is the smartness of the mind, not meditation, not love, not any of this, but to follow God's will. Now his contemporaries or his disciples also could have told him, 'But why are you telling us this? Everything is God's will only, don't you know?' You see? So if he is proposing that the better way of life is to follow God's will rather than not following God's will—because that is the pathway to suffering and trouble and egotism and this circle of life, whatever—then is there a way to determine that which is God's will and therefore better or good?

It's like your video game analogy, right? To quote-unquote participate in the video game, which is the analog of worldly life, I have to believe the story of that character, his mission and so on and so forth. And there'll be joy on collecting points, suffering when you get shot, whatever, whatever. But like you said, the fifth place is the place where I know I'm playing the video game, and that can't come from inside the video game.

Yeah. So when we know that we are the pure witnessing or the pure awareness, do we know over there what is God's will? Or is it two separate things? That's a good way to contemplate this. So would it be two distinct things to come to a recognition of your true place and then to be in service to God or following God's will? Or is it actually non-distinct, although initially in the mind it may seem like it is two different things?

So if you look at again all the clues around us, why is Hanuman so revered? Many say that 'I am not a Ram, I am a Hanuman.' Beautiful also. But why do they say that? Why is he so revered? Because no matter what Ram's will was, he was ready to do it, you see? He did not go to Ram and say, 'Everything must be our will because you're God.' He said, 'Command me, God, oh my master,' you see? Now, so in the Hindus, it's a very beautiful sign; we call that trust in God's will and the love for God combined—we call that devotion. Trust and love; it's called devotion.

In the Muslims, a Muslim is who? Here the definition of a Muslim is one who follows God's will. A Muslim means that he is one who follows God's will. A Christian is only a Christian if he follows that 'let thy will be done.' Let thy will be done. And servitude and being an instrument to thy will is what I want. It doesn't say—Christ doesn't say, or the Old Testament doesn't say—that everything that is happening is your will anyway, so let anything be done. Then specifically: 'Let thy will be done.' And in Sikhism, the highest pointing is 'Hukam,' which means—it is a stronger term actually—the command of God must be lived.

Now if all of this—sorry, I just finished—so if all of this was already a given, then why did all these sages and masters and all of us spend so much time reminding us that we must follow God's will? Therefore, then our first fundamental question upon hearing all of this should be: 'Okay, how do I follow God's will? What is the way to follow God's will?' And the way is like this: empty of self-concern, self-importance, and self-will. It is empty of 'my way.' First we must become empty of 'my will.' It doesn't mean that you automatically pick...

Already given, then why did all these sages and Masters and all of us spend so much time reminding us that we must follow God's will? Before then, a discount. So therefore, then, our first fundamental question then, upon hearing all of this, should be: Okay, how do I follow God's will? What is the way to follow God's will? And the way is like this: empty of self-concern, self-importance, and self-will. It is empty of 'my way' first. We must become empty of 'my will.' It doesn't mean that you automatically pick the opposite. When you say 'I wanted to go left' so now you've said be empty of that way, so I went right—no. So that is just a trick, right? So it doesn't automatically mean that you must do the opposite. Be empty of your desire to go left. In that emptiness, you will notice that there is a presence which moves everything, the whole universe. So in fact, the whole universe is your body, but that may seem too far-fetched at this point. So let's say that in that emptiness, you will find that presence naturally moves the body.

That is the simple way of following God's will. And reason Masters have said 'head empty, heart full' is the way to live. And they've also said, 'Before Enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water; after Enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water.' It means that it doesn't have to change, that our heart can guide us as to when to chop wood and when to fetch water. All that outdoor stuff can remain. And I always add 'or not' because we should not fall into that trap that life should be exactly the same after Enlightenment.

That is the first way, but the second way is the Hanuman way or the Abraham way, which is that they received guidance from God and they knew it was coming from... what is that? That is what we call intuition. That is what we call the Satguru presence. In fact, all of you come to satsang hopefully to hear that guidance from this instrument in front of you, but it is your own heart which is speaking. It is guiding you, isn't it, in words? So don't fall into that trap that everything that the heart cannot guide in words, it must be only the mind. Initially, of course, it's too early to be fantasizing or imagining then God is speaking to you, so it may be best to stay empty. But there will come a point where it will be used by this presence to guide everything, and that everything includes this body or those who come into your presence.

So there are two: how to follow God's will. First, we empty, allow presence to unfold everything. In fact, the whole universe is unfolding in the light of that presence. Allow that unimpeded by Maya. Usually, the usual flow of this is that as you get used to that—and there may be in those phases, there may be conclusions like the mind will still operate once in a while saying, 'I never want to share, I just want to sit quietly, I don't want to talk to anyone about this.' All of those conclusions are usually made like that. And then one day you find that somehow Grace makes those things happen where these words start coming to you, and you notice there's a different quality with these words.

So when they started flowing, when these talks started coming, I was hearing the words and I was tasting such sweetness. I was enjoying hearing those words, which is the opposite of the reaction I was having those days to the mind, because all this was so fresh. So for the mind, it felt like a contraction and a limitation. But as these words were flowing, then there's a great beauty, a great joy being held, you see. So I recognize that there is guidance which comes which is not of the mind. So that is put in simple ways, although it's not as straight a line as that—nothing ever is—but we can look at it as two steps to follow God's will.

Still on that same point, the other answer that comes is that it is just life's experience. I've not met anybody who fits in that situation which is leading a worldly life and there's no problem. So that's just them empirically. I'm 50 now and I've interviewed enough people to know that that's not true. So it doesn't need any thinking anymore. Yes, and there's so much evidence of that. And in fact, the Buddhists have said the world is suffering. It means that anytime we give credence to the idea of the world, which happens through thinking, then suffering is inherent in that.

And I was listening to a satsang with Sri Mooji Baba and I was very, very moved by... I mean, he said very clearly and in several, several satsangs actually, that you cannot be a mind stopper. You cannot be your mind stopper. And that is where I think this whole worldly thing and this... I mean, it's okay to take it like a self-help, like 'I will now, I will, I will not listen to my mind and I will keep myself, I will keep myself open, empty, I will stop my mind, I will live in the now.' And none of it is really possible. And I think it is that when it is really known, that is deeply... yeah, it's a... I have sensed a huge shift in the deepest understanding of this, that I cannot.

And I had a beautiful experience actually yesterday. I just want to share because, well, it's, you know, something came into my work life which I would have some years ago been so thrilled about and, you know, I would have, I would have said, 'Wow, I mean, what an opportunity.' And it sort of was offered on a platter, the whole thing with... and then a lot of talk about how much fame and how much write-ups and this and that.

Personal branding. Yeah, yeah.

And it was very beautiful. I felt that it was not an effort there this time for me to know that, to say with a lot of, with a lot of love actually, that 'No, thank you.' But it was with a lot of love and it was so...

I'm just, in case somebody's getting confused, so I'm not blessing the fact that you have to say no to job opportunities or something like that, because that can be confusing. So what I'm saying is that I'm blessing the fact that we have the courage to follow our heart. Now your heart could say take the job, it's fine. But in this case, clearly I'm sensing that the heart was clearly saying, 'No, thank you.' And sometimes when the temptations from the mind are strong—that you will become famous, you will be in the paper—if anybody reads the paper, I don't know. So then those temptations can be strong. To be able to stay in the heart and to gauge what the guidance is and to follow that is very beautiful. So I don't want to create a misunderstanding. Just some of us still have jobs, including this one. So I don't want to create any misunderstanding that I'm saying you must say no to job opportunities.

Well, it just feels like expressing that the way it feels is that until I felt presence, it was living without a dimension. It's like discovering the desert—there's a dimension. That's the first step, right? So the hidden dimension. You know, it's like for instance if you lived life looking in a mirror and you felt two dimensions and then you discovered, 'Oh, there's depth, there's a third dimension.' So that enlarges your experiencing. And then there's the understanding that this new dimension is living. Oh, that's the other thing, right? So that's the big shift. Then you, when you, when you accept that it's living and you accept because of, you know, the energetic presence it has, you start to compare then the other sensations. Of course, the sensations and all, but they don't... they seem flat, like etchings on something living.

Then that's another... so that's, I think, once you, you know... I may say that, you know, once you start to see that, then you're giving, you're shifting truth value. And then you start to sort of feel like, you know, like the body, body is there, great, but it's in a vast expanse which is living. And then the body sensations, like, you know, when you start to then be aware of your dreams, you're like, 'Okay,' you know. I mean, honestly, last night I had a crazy dream. I was somewhere in what felt like China, not speaking the language or anybody, searching for a restaurant. You know, like crazy stuff, right? Then you're like, 'Okay, you know, that was an experience, now this is an experience.' And then you actually start to understand, 'Okay, there's a constancy and it's, it's not the content,' right?

And so, you know, I think it's difficult to go back. The question about 'Can you make a choice?' right? Like, it's okay, once you start to feel presence, I would say, you know, then if it's conceptual, of course you can go back. You can say, 'Okay, yeah, I didn't...' It's like a lecture, right? But once you're feeling presence, how can you? Then you can't deny it because you cannot stop being. So I sort of feel like it's not a, it's not a real question, right? Because you cannot... it's like a dream, right? Once you wake up and you say it was a dream, you really can't somehow... even if you want to cling to it, it's going to disappear, right? So I'm not really sure that for any, I think anybody in this room, that there's actually a choice to say that 'I choose a different way' because you have to make yourself so blind to your intuition that it's actually... I don't think it's possible, right? Like you have to deny presence. You can't do it, right?

Beautiful report. And yes, yes, I feel like I love this comparison with discovering a new dimension to the extent of seeing that we've always lived in that dimension which seemed to be not apparent, you see. But once it becomes apparent, then it becomes so apparent that that is our, that is the bulk of our entirety, and the rest of this world appearance is just like a tiny firefly to that extent.

Now the second part, I completely also understand what you're saying, but I also want to caution and say that our ability to live in denial is unparalleled. So there are many who have come to satsang and have had true insight but have gone back to living in denial. So I cannot give my full concurrence to the fact that it is not possible, although I would say that you may go back. If you walked 100 steps in satsang, then my blessing or my feeling or my optimism is that you may walk back 99. My feeling and my hope is that they don't walk back a full 100. But I would not underestimate our ability to deny.

Very, very... when it comes, you've heard the Krishna and Narada story. Krishna was working with him, clearly working with him like his best friend, and yet Maya came with its invitations. It can be forgotten. And then he may ask him, 'How could you forget, Krishna? How would you do it?' And he would just say, 'Maya, man, what to do?' It's very, very important, I feel, that what we are, it is not that tiny that can be controlled by some law or some notion of how things should be and things like that. So our attempt has to just be moment to moment, we live in God's light as possible.

I'm sure you would have discussed this before in the satsang. I'm here after a long time, but I would like to know: what is God to you? For me, I've been raised in a family where they pray Lord Shiva on Monday, daily on Tuesday. So that concept has been instilled in our brains right from our childhood. So someone, you know, that has not happened in their childhood and all of a sudden they hear that, 'Okay, you surrender everything to God.' So what is God to that person?

I feel that behind such a question, there's always maybe a deeper question or a higher question, which is: Can you show me God? So many times when it is asked like that—and hopefully it is asked like that—that we are not just looking for a conceptual notion, but we're looking for someone to invite us into a living experience, quote-unquote 'experience,' of God himself, so that we don't have to then speculate on what would be your or God's nature would be like, but we actually come to a living truth, a living, breathing, live truth that that is God.

So there are many, many ways in which we can talk about God, but if I was to point someone to God's life, I would start by asking them: Can you stop being? Can you not be in this moment? So there's a presence which is apparent to you now. That presence is not the entirety of God, but it is God's presence and already...

Self, so that we don't have to then speculate on what God's nature would be like, but we actually come to a living truth—a living, breathing, live truth that is God. So, there are many, many ways in which we can talk about God, but if I was to point someone to God's life, I would start by asking them: Can you stop being? Can you not be in this moment? So, there's a presence which is apparent to you now. That presence is not the entirety of God, but it is God's presence. And already, if you've met in this together, it's a huge leap. That's a huge leap because very few actually come to the darshan of this presence itself, although it is quite plain.

Jesus said that blessed are those who are pure of heart because they see God. So, what is this pure-heartedness? It is humility, love, compassion, non-maliciousness, not being selfish. So, all of this is the foundation on the basis of which there is a fertile ground for truly encountering the presence of Atma within. And Atma is what we say it is: I am-ness. Literally, I am-ness and Atma sort of correlate, but it is not the presence of an individual entity, and it's definitely not a byproduct of a body. It is a holier presence. It is the holy presence, God's presence, whether we call it beingness or Consciousness.

Now, this presence is actually the light of this universe, and everything that we have ever experienced, including that which we call dreams—everything only happens in the light of this. In whose light do we experience the light of the sun? So, that I am-ness, that presence, has to be alive. The aliveness has to be here for us to experience all of this. Now, the mind has one job, which is to convince us in this play that this I am is an individual somebody: 'I am something' or 'I am somebody.' And once that is taken to be true, then that is called the ego. That 'I am somebodyness' is the ego. With pure I am-ness, it is God's presence; it is God.

Now, the most difficult things to find are those which are most obvious, isn't it? It's called hidden in plain sight. So, those are the most difficult to find. So then, God in His mercy and God in His love recognized this fact, or created this fact, and has given us clues all around. Clues all around. And throughout the ages, there have been those who have come to the discovery of God who then wait to share that with everyone. So, those are the strongest clues in some sense. But also, over periods of time, we've had the privilege in this universe to experience the incarnations of God, which we may call Ram, Krishna, Jesus—whatever words that we want to use for them. But we are privileged also to have had the opportunity to bow down to those who have been direct incarnations of God Himself appearing in this dream world. And the difference between a sage and an incarnation is that a sage can pray for you, a sage can bless you, a sage can pray with all his heart saying, 'Father, You have blessed me with the grace of Your presence, please bless all these children as well,' and can make petitions and request God. But a sage can never command. A sage may say, 'May it be so, may it be so.' Okay? But in the case of God Himself appearing in this world, those could direct the presence to reveal itself in that way.

And that is why it is very beautiful for us to be able to bow down to those incarnations, these avatars. And it's very beautiful to be able to pray to Ram, Krishna, or Devi, or whichever forms we resonate with. So, that's one way of looking at it. There's a more simpler way as well, which is that in Hinduism at least, we are very democratic. If you realize that everybody has a different set of conditions and a different set of preferences, so whatever you prefer your God to be like, you can come up with that and we will have a God for you. So, it doesn't stop you from praying. No matter if you don't like the naughtiness of Krishna, you can pray to the righteousness of Ram. So, whatever you can imagine, there are millions. If you read all the texts, you'll find them. So, that's a simple explanation, which is that you may assume in any river that all rivers eventually go through the same ocean, one water body. That's a more simplistic experience.

But really, it's about whose presence is already alive within you. And this should come as an earthquake to most, isn't it? But for most, it is just taken as some mild information. Why I'm saying it should come as an earthquake is that I am informing you that the presence of the highest being is within yourself, you see? But most in the world read this and say, 'Yeah, yeah, I heard this before, but I'm not really buying it.' But what it should encourage, especially if it is coming from a credible source who doesn't, from whatever you've seen, want anything from you—so therefore there is no vested interest in telling you this—then it should lead to an exploration, an inquiry of the highest effort, the highest endeavor that we can make to make these inquiries. Why is this man, who doesn't want anything from me and doesn't seem like he is crazy and doesn't seem like there's something wrong with him—but I can't confirm any of that—but he seems to be somebody that is credible, why is he saying this with so much conviction? There is a presence within you of the highest being and it can be found. And not only can it be found, you can live in its light, in its presence, and that is the only time when you can call this a true life. So, all this information has been given to us.

Now, most of you will not come into a sort of complete negation and say, 'No, no.' But you will find a way to say 'tomorrow.' And that tomorrow is the most dangerous because there is no time for tomorrow, is it? So, this is the upside-down nature of the world where if you were informed that you're a pre-diabetic, your HbA1c is 5.7 or something like that, and if you get to 6.5 then you're diabetic—whatever that number is—then you would take it seriously. You would call the blood test guy, you would do this, you would go to hospitals, you would start running, you would start doing all kinds of things. An emphasis of experience here, you see? But you're informed about the fact that the highest intelligence, the highest power, the highest possible that we can imagine in any way, lives within yourself and that can be found. And our life every day is a waste without that one. We can still find a way to say, 'Yoga challenge,' or whatever the Malayalam version of that is.

So, this is what is Maya. This is the play of Maya, you see? Because in every age, there have been sages who have told us this. God has never left us without guidance in any age, but very few have actually followed. Very few have actually followed. And some of the dangers along this path would seem very humble and harmless: tomorrow. So, that is the first tendency. The second is that, 'Yeah, I already know, I found God, I am sick of you doing your stuff, I am fine.' So, don't do this thing. Nobody likes their way to be questioned. Nobody likes everything to be questioned, especially at the very foundation, you see? Because to completely reorient our life from serving 'me'—some notion of me—to now talking about servitude to God or following only God's will can seem like a scary transition. So, we will not usually come up here; we will just say, 'I'm fine, I am doing it at my own pace, don't trouble, don't rush.' That can happen. Second is to just do some nominal lip service stuff, make yourself feel better and say, 'Yes, yes, I listened to three bhajans today, I feel like I'm sorted.' You see? It's like taking God like a tablet every day. And then this is like that whole paradigm of taking a dip in the holy river and you're sorted for whatever you've done. So, that can be. There are many, many—we can talk about this for a long time—many, many ways to avoid what is being shared. But to meet it, there is only one way, which is to be empty of yourself, is to die to yourself. Die to 'you' for yourself. Okay? Which at one level is the simplest thing because all it needs is: don't follow what your mind is telling you. You don't have to do its opposite also, of course. But at one level, it is the most difficult project that we can ever undertake because for a while you have to let go of everything that you think you know, especially those things that you are so attached to being right about. And how many can come to that point? To return to the innocence of a child is a prerequisite to come to the discovery of God. Okay? And it's not that it is needed that we go through that cycle of conditioning and then decondition ourselves. So, we don't have to bother with—you know, there's this whole trend about staring into the eyes of a child hoping to discover God through that. And that's sweet, that's nice stuff, but it doesn't work like that. You have to go through that process. The child is, of course, very much alive in living in God's life, but all these hacks don't work like that. The child also has to go through its play of life and then recognize for themselves the truth and reality of himself.

Father, in context of what you said of having felt presence and it's hard to go back to purely worldly life, but the dance is always there between presence and worldly life. People like in my stage, and like you said, its mind is an amazing trickster to pull us back into it and delusion. So, can you say something about vigilance? And what I mean by that is like when I step out of this room where the presence is the most strong, I would say, and easy, and then as time passes by, one can easily slip back into the world, so to speak. But over time, there has been an increasing subtle vigilance going back to your picking up the suitcases on the conveyor belt—like I am aware that I don't want to be that guy who continues to pick that. So, can you say something about that? Of vigilance, I guess, is the only word that comes here.

It's a combination of vigilance and like an increased smelling capacity here. So, it is similar in some sense—and I'll explain this—to what I'm trying to convey with that. One thing is that many, when we hear vigilance, we can get into a sort of like Watchman position, you know? Which is that, 'I must be careful, I must be careful, am I getting into the mind? Am I getting into the mind?' which is somewhat what she is also trying to convey. I think that that can be a way. Like if I say, 'Don't believe your next thought,' then there is like a somebody sitting over there saying, 'I better not believe.' You see? That can become a new position of seeming vigilance. A simpler solution for that is that vigilance simply implies that if you feel a poke, you see? Then if you feel a poke, if life pokes you in some way, you don't wait for that to become a major injury before you start contemplating. Okay? So, the beauty of God's reminders is first they come as nudges, gentle nudges. And if we don't follow the nudge, then they come like a massive push. So, vigilance only means that when a nudge comes and something pushes a button, we don't say, 'No, no, I am only the Self, nothing can happen,' some kind of Advaita denial also, or a spiritual denial. We must contemplate: What is it that I'm holding on to? Or who am I? Whichever form of inquiry or surrender. But we must not let it go on unattended. So, that is vigilance, to put it simply. And this corresponds to a very natural increase in our smelling capacity, that you will be able to smell the distinction between the fragrance of God's presence and the mind's temptations, you see? Very distinct smell. And you will not that easily get fooled between what is what, you see? And that which seems so tempting in the human condition, which is 'I want to know, I want to be right,' will start becoming very stinky to you. You'll not want to go into those. In fact, Guruji calls it a 'stinky mind.' You don't want to get into the battle of the mind because it is yucky.

You will be able to smell the distinct distinction between the fragrance of God's presence and the mind's temptations. You see, a very distinct smell. And you will not that easily get fooled between what is what, you see? And that which seems so tempting in the human condition, which is 'I want to know, I want to be right,' will start becoming very stinky to you. You'll not want to go into those. In fact, Guruji calls us up to my hand; you don't want to get into the battle of the mind because it is yucky stuff. And that which seemed so tempting and alluring earlier—that everybody thinks I'm so right, everybody thinks I know so much, and I am so great about this thing—then that itself will not seem like attractive positions to us.

So, an increasing ability to notice when something is poking. So therefore, we must have accepted some shape, because only a shape can be shaken. If you're shapeless, you cannot be shaken. So when it comes as a mild stirring, at that point itself we start to look and we explore that investigative condition instead of waiting for that to be like a proper tsunami to come. And it is not guaranteed, but mostly God works in this way. God does not like to lose the son, so a tsunami really doesn't come unless there have been some messages before. So if we are vigilant to the nudges, then even those situations may still happen in life, but we cannot be shaken to that same extent.

But by the way, I'm not saying that once some mild dramas are coming we must immediately rush to action. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the outer action. In fact, it is better not to rush, you see? But to not meet that, and to be in—to use whatever was saying earlier—to be in some denial of those mild tremors, then can lead to bigger earthquakes happening. And the problem with the spiritual ego is that once it starts to know too much, you know, then we'll just use spirituality itself as denial. 'Nothing can really happen. No, no, all is the Self.' You see, all that is true. The problem with spiritual ego is that though the words are pointing to the truth, the fragrance is not there. It is stinky; it is just egotistical.

So I would, if I had to pick for all of my children in Sangha, and someone says, 'Would you pick that they had a worldly ego or normal materialistic sort of attachment-type ego, or a spiritual ego?' I would always say a normal worldly ego. This spiritual ego is probably the worst form of ego. And that's why in the stories of history, we know that Ravan and all these people were very, very accomplished spiritualists. Very accomplished spiritually, but they took it in the wrong place, and instead of bowing down, it made them proud. Which you can notice a lot in places; you have many, you know, now sages sitting in every corner, but not truly come.

I will tell you when this one story is coming up. So we were—some of you may have been there with me—so we went to Rishikesh. You were there? We were just sitting in a chai shop and we were just chatting. Some of you had not met for quite some time. And this man came, you know, dressed in saffron. Like, 'What is this man, Mooji, teaching you? No!' You're like, 'We're not talking to you, relax.' 'No, no, ask me, I will tell you!' He started shouting, you know? It's just like so... and nobody, of course, because you're so much enjoying just being together in presence, we didn't really engage with him. But he created quite a drama and scene over there. But the way of Grace is that two, three years later, he is the one that was sent to invite Guruji to come to their ashram. Do you know which one this is? So, and that is not the necessary part of the story; it's a fun ending to the story. But be wary of this kind of spiritual ego, conceptual knowledge. And I feel like all of us now have the ability to smell.

And before meeting Guruji years back, before coming in contact with true spirituality, when the longing arose, you have to find God. Through that time, we are the most vulnerable to all of this kind of, you know, forceful or charismatic sort of detail. Not that this one was either of those, but it's very possible that we fall into these traps. So it becomes just about the teacher's persona and their image and what does it mean for them, rather than... like, there are some teachers you hear on YouTube and they share something for hours and you never hear about God or the Self or the truth. It is 'me, me'.

So Ravan is a character, but it's a representation of the spiritual ego which is there in all of us. That is why it's very important, although as unattractive as it may seem to those of us who are in Advaita Vedanta, but servitude and following God's will is very important. The head must be constantly bowed down, otherwise very quickly, before you know it, you become special. Are you also asking me like, 'Everything is God's will, everything is... you must follow'? If that is taken literally, that is also enough to keep quiet. There is no space for any 'why'. Anything that makes us keep quiet is good. But when you keep quiet, you realize that although it is true that everything is God's will, and yet with all our might we must follow God's word.

The head cannot understand, of course, because I told you about the room, the corners. If when we go just with logic, then it can't be both ways. So that's why I took the examples of all the sages who have told us to follow God's will. Why would they tell us if they knew that everything is God's will? Then, you know... so we cannot say that a sage like Guru Nanak Ji knew less than us. Like we come to a modern discovery now in 2023 that everything is God's will, but in Guru Nanak Ji's time or Jesus' time it was not known. That's why he said... if only he had known that everything is God's will, he wouldn't have wasted time. Okay? So it's not true. He knew that everything is God's will. And everything is God's will, and yet with all our might we must follow God. There's a place wherein you where this is not contradictory. Live in that place.

It starts to make you humble. But then on the other side, if you say that God is saying, or any master, 'Don't be afraid of anything,' but if you actually pick up that in that ego, that is the... yeah, it's not linear. It's not that linear in the sense that you may say, 'Oh, the Christians have this notion that we must be a God-fearing person.' And fear is not good. But it's not that straight line. After I met Guruji first, I was in awe of him. So if you see my early photos of Guruji, and even now mostly, you will just see me as a scared little boy standing in front of him. So was it that I was fearful of him? No, I was just in awe. And I am just in awe. So that is our relationship with God.

So what is the difference between fear and awe? Awe can have reverence, awe can have love. Okay? So it is not that straight line that, 'Oh, if the highest being... okay, highest being that is beyond even imagination certainly manifested in front of you, you see, what all will you feel?' You feel love, but you may also feel some fear. You maybe get intimidated, you see? Even some little gathering compared... it was a few years back, we were sharing satsang and a rat came and sat under my couch. And all these kids who love me so much, they were like... they sat in the corners of the room. Thankfully they didn't leave and say, 'No, no, I have to go somewhere.' So here you can see, this lizard comes here, half of you will cringe.

So it's not that straight line that, 'Do I fear God?' Yeah, maybe. Maybe. But do I love God more than I fear God? Definitely. It's kind of respect, reverence. It's kind of better than that direction, that other one where you are God, yeah, anything. And this is sometimes... I get it. If the remnant of the 'me', which still remains in spite of our spirituality—and some remnant always remains, man—if that one takes itself to be God, then that is the highest or the lowest form of the spiritual ego, you see? So this sometimes... I know you heard it, but I just want to make sure that everyone heard it, which is that I made it clear that most likely we will not, none of us will be the first one to be 100% empty of ego ever in the history of humanity or whatever game we can call this.

So, and if we were truly saying with integrity, we can all notice the ego that still plays up here. Now, the only kind of safe position for that one has to be head bowed down in reverence to God, you see? Because if that one ever takes the position that 'I am God,' then that is the worst disservice that you can do to yourself. So you're absolutely right that if that one is in reverence or even fear of God, that is better than having a glorified notion of the limited self.

And also fear of that one, because I've seen this in so many cases. And so I kind of... for me, I found a way. I just kind of... I throw myself to Christ and there I just feel humility. In a way it doesn't confuse me. Maybe because I'm from there, getting from Europe where it's not common with the other things, which were kind of bringing me slight confusions. I couldn't anymore orientate very, very clearly on this area.

This house is full of trouble. Full of trouble. Not this house, this house—the house of mind, intellect—is full of trouble. Just find another house. Because in this house, you are constantly trying to refine our position, you see? Refine our perspective. And it may sound like all that I'm saying helps us also to do that, but really it is not. I am here to evict you from that house, you see? So I am not... so sometimes I can make you very uncomfortable because you can say, 'But...' Your defense against that can be, 'I will listen to what I'm comfortable with, you see? But I will not listen to anything that he's saying that makes me uncomfortable.' You see? So that eviction notice part we won't hear. It's just like we're here with confirmation bias. So like, 'Oh, this I already know, good.' Yeah, but if you hear the entire symphony, the attempt is to evict you from that house so that you can find your true place.

So love the parts which you hate in satsang, and the part that you already love, you love anyway. That is what causes the stubbornness, because most likely in most situations in life, you also come to satsang to get confirmation of our beliefs. But my job is to push you beyond those beliefs. And I notice, because if you feel like I don't... I can see you very clearly. I see what switches you on for each of you and what switches you off. For you, it's very apparent and palpable. But we must not pick and choose that way, because then we are just elongating this eviction process.

Father, I just wanted to share my situation. See, I'm not able to connect in any way with the concept of God, although I am surrounded by people who... for example, in my family, my wife is a very devout person and so a lot of pujas etc. are happening in my environment. I have nothing against them, I'm nothing for. Yeah, so it is not a problem for me actually. In the sense when I come here for satsang, what I value is your presence and how in your presence my thoughts go down and I'm able to recognize awareness in myself within, in your presence. And for me that is enough, the recognition of that awareness and increasingly trying to spend more and more time abiding in that awareness and smelling myself, as you said, and smelling my persona and shifting from the identity of the small self to awareness. But I'm not able to relate to God as such, and I feel comfortable thinking that it's really not necessary for me. I don't know where this is where I need you.

Yes, so already the answer in some way is present in the question. Let's see if we can dive deeper into that. You said very beautiful that when you come to satsang, then you notice what you call my presence, and in that presence the mind quietens and the truth becomes apparent to you. Where is that presence felt? How do you know that a presence is being experienced? Take your time on this. There's no rush. This is...

It's really not necessary for me. I don't know where this is where I need you. Yes, so already the answer in some way is present in the question. Let's see if we can dive deeper into that. You said very beautiful that when you come to satsang hall, then you notice what you call my presence, and in that presence the mind quietens and the truth becomes apparent to you. Where is that presence felt? How do you know that a presence is being experienced? Take your time on this; there's no rush. This is a beautiful contemplation. Is it outside of you?

No, it's not out.

So that presence which is not outside of you—and in whose presence, of course, external environment and energetic support is available here—but it is undeniable that that presence is experienced within ourselves, yes? Isn't it? Now that presence I am calling the presence of God.

I thought as much. I understood that you can just call it whatever you want to call it, but in that one's presence, and only in that one's presence within yourself, can the truth become apparent to us, which you are confirming that I notice my reality as awareness. Okay.

And even if you're not in the satsang hall, if you were at home and doing inquiry or listening to satsang or anything, when you recognize your true self and your true self is apparent to you, you will see that the light of this presence within yourself is also there. Try to do it without. Don't be present and without the apparency of presence, see if the truth becomes apparent. So go in a simpler way in language that you're probably familiar with: recognize awareness without being. Without being or without consciousness.

I cannot do that. For me, I can only recognize awareness. Being separate from awareness, I'm not able to relate.

But being, which is not separate from awareness, you are aware of now. Like, having difficulty with the vocabulary, I think. Is there a distinction between the two questions: can you stop being now, and are you aware now? What is being? Just try to stop being. Instead of inferring or intellectualizing, don't be for a moment.

That is not possible.

Not possible, no. So when we try to stop being, we notice that we are. I am, isn't it? Now this is different from when I ask you: are you aware now? It is not different in actuality, but different in quality, you see. So that is the difference between Saguna and Nirguna, between primordial and that which is beyond being and not being. So the difference between I-amness or Om and that which is the source of even this immaculate conception is not in actuality, because it is I which is I am. I am. It is not 'you are.' Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, 'You woke up.' Yeah, 'I woke up.' So what wakes up? The sense of existence, I-amness, you see. So this that wakes up is God, you see.

Now, as we are contemplating, you will notice—or some may say that—but nothing wakes up, it just the world appears. But is this true for us? Okay, we notice that something wakes up. In fact, on Courage was in Sahaja on a very quiet night and there was no light on anymore, you see. So he woke up, but there was nothing for the senses at night, with nothing. So you're like, 'I woke up,' but there was no world or no nothing being perceived. And all of us have had that experience somewhere just before going to sleep or just after waking up, that the wakefulness is there, but so far we've not even identified which body this is or which name we have and none of that. So if we start noticing in the first few moments, we don't know whether this is a dream, which world this is, none of that. So it is not just that the world wakes up; I wake up. So that being that arises from awareness, that being is God's being. It is not an individual entity; it is not a limited entity. So that is very simply the one that we are calling God's presence.

Are you saying that God's presence is different from the awareness?

So it depends on our definition. So if we say, for example, we say this is a very popular—this is which means that the manifest and the unmanifest is one Krishna, that's his concept, you see. In satsang we make sometimes a distinction between the absolute self, the absolute reality, and the emergence of consciousness within that reality. And usually when we refer to God, we are talking about the presence of this consciousness. And the phenomenon, the noumenon is the absolute reality, and the source of all phenomena is consciousness.

I can only sort of grasp it as the difference between me when I'm in deep sleep and me when I've just come awake. Yes, there's something extra when I come awake. Is that what you're referring?

Yes, yes. The exciting point, or if you want to miss it immediately without referring to memory of waking up or being asleep, then you could try my experiment of trying to not be versus checking if you're aware of that. Even that being you are aware of, yes. So although in reality it is not distinct, I and I am are the same, you see. Whether the hand is closed or open, it is still the hand, you see. So if you call this the presence of fingers, the fingers are not distinct from the hand, okay? And yet there's something distinct in terms of quality. Therefore waking is different from sleeping. So we can explore either: can I stop being? Or you can explore: what wakes up before the world wakes up? What wakes up? Okay, I feel like you know you have a question. Anybody has the last question?

I was just going to say that I feel enough your answer today. You can just sit quietly a little bit. But unless this last one the new plans beneficials—well, that's spiritual ego thing, Father. I think this is one of those questions. So why questioner doesn't have an answer maybe, but I would spend like smoking up and then thinking I'm God and so much things. After smoking up you think you're God, not now. Before meeting you, I went through all that spiritual ego stuff and just I'm like wondering, why didn't I get any clue from God that, you know, that's to be smooth always there?

You never say that God never gave us a clue, but it's that whole thing. So you become so attached to being right and knowing so that we don't notice the nudges. Then the push has to come. But life is always showing us. Louie is an ask work break stuff. You feel you—I mean, you feel you exist. If you don't feel that sense, and so this feeling of that I exists is what can be asked: can I stop being? So we may call it a sense of existence or a feeling of existing, but actually it is beyond being a sense or a feeling. But because language is limited, we have to say it. No, it's not a sense. I mean, it's like it confirms itself. He has to say that now I exist before we even notice the sensations of the body. So we can't say the body wakes up at this. Before there's a perception of even the sensations of body, I wake up to not receiving that. Okay. Love you all. Thank you. Thank you so much.