There's Never a Good Enough Reason to Turn from God - 17th July 2024

I mean, without any attributes. If you say about qualities of 'I,' I know that I am. Like, I'm talking to you. Let's not... if we not about talk about time or any narrative, like straight away I'm talking to you. So I know I am here. But the source... how can I confirm that it's 'I' who is talking to you or who is listening to your voice or my own voice? So is there any entity like that? I can't... I am 'I.' I don't witness that, but I know that 'I'...

Very good, very good. So what you are actually perceiving is that a body has a mouth and it is making some sounds. We convert that perception into the idea that 'I am talking to you,' you see? So what witnesses this body making the sounds? Is it somebody else?

It's I only. I.

But this 'I'... okay, let's put it in a simpler way. What is aware of the perception of this hand?

I mean, myself. I can say I am seeing this.

You are, no? You are. And was that effortful, or was it effortless?

Effortless. It was effortless.

So this 'I,' the recognition of it is effortless, but it is beyond the normal modes of knowledge because you are not perceiving this 'I,' isn't it? Yes. You are not perceiving this 'I.' That's why you said it is Nirguna. So I can't really assign any shape to it, any attributes to it. And also that it's not just a thought. You are not thinking that 'I am perceiving,' you see? It's not dependent on a thought also. It is clear that it is 'I.' It is 'I' which is witnessing the perception. It is aware of the perception of this hand.

Now, what within you has the capacity to know beyond perceiving and beyond intellect or beyond thought? It is not you that is witnessing. You will argue even with me, and although you've been with me for many years, if I persist in this way, then you may say, 'Okay, he's lost it. I'm going. I can't follow him anymore,' isn't it? Because it's so apparent somewhere that it is you that is aware of this perception, you see? But that 'somewhere' is not in the realm of senses. It's not in the realm of quality. And that 'somewhere' is not in the realm of thought either, isn't it?

Yeah.

So with what instrument of knowledge are you concluding that it is 'I' that is aware? And because you don't spot any attribute of this 'I'—color, shape, size—you don't spot any of that, and yet all of us say, 'I am aware of this perception,' you see? Now, why do I say aware of this perception? Because you are aware that through sight you are perceiving this hand, but that which is aware is not sight, isn't it?

Yes.

You see it because... who is aware of the perception of this voice which is speaking?

Same 'I.' Definitely, yeah.

Definitely, yes. So has that 'I' changed now from sight mode to hearing mode? Has the 'I' undergone any change?

No, it doesn't undergo any change.

So this awareness is not perception. It is not sight, smell, taste, touch, sound. Those are... perception is just a word for sensory observation or attention bringing the content through, apparently through our senses. So awareness remains untouched no matter what the mode of perception may be happening. Do we see that?

Yeah, yeah. But you don't... you don't actually see it, but you know it somewhere, isn't it?

Yes. And that knowing somewhere is not knowing here in the head, is it? Because if you ask within your head, how do you really know that you are the one that is aware? In your head, you don't have an answer.

But I think, Father, when I ask the question, so I ask this with my head. Like, okay, ask 'Who am I?' or like I wait for some thought to arise and then say, 'Who is witnessing this thought?' Or if I am already in the thoughts—and it happens most of the time, like when we are working or doing something—so in the thoughts, I'm in the thought, or I am 'I' as some entity. I am dealing with the thoughts, the narrative that the thoughts are telling. So I am dealing with that thought at that moment of time. I would not say I'm not focusing to the 'I' that you're pointing to right now, like the one which is naturally aware, which is naturally aware of sound and perception and everything, like the substratum in which was the witnessing.

So that witnessing that you're pointing to, that is not... like, I cannot say that is not there at that point of time. That is also there at that point of time. But what is in the foreground is the mind thing and this interaction thing.

Yes, my dear, but you're falling into a classical trap. The classical trap is that: 'Okay, now that I'm seeing this purely, what does it mean for me? And I should be able to do it the rest of the time also.' So trying to squeeze your self-recognition—which is beyond any attributes, any of that—into a way, a method to help the 'me,' or to do it correctly for the 'me,' or to carry it along for the 'me,' you see, then can get in the way of your inquiry, which is right now. And the mind will complain and say, 'Okay, but if I do it right now, then how does that help me?' But that is the 'me' that we have to let go of.

So can that 'me' be inquired into? Like, can you ask me that? Who is this 'me'? Can I ask, 'Who is this me?' It's simple. Asking is simple. Can I find it for myself and can I just end this?

The tricky thing is that in this game, in this way, both the false 'I' and the true 'I' are beyond perception. The false 'I' is beyond perception because it actually doesn't exist. Yes, it's just the belief that we have. The true 'I' is beyond perception because it is beyond the mode of perception, beyond the mode of attributes, qualities, attention, beyond all of that. It can be found only intuitively.

So the whole idea is that to remain intuitive, to remain in the heart where you know this to be true, is to remain in the presence of the Satguru. So whatever you know to be true from there, then we are not to move from there, and then that is the way to follow God's will. So both the path of inquiry and Bhakti actually are the same, because for both we have to live at that, in that same point where we know this to be true, where we are being intuitive, where only that which we know intuitively is the claim of knowledge that we can make.

So stay with that question: How or where do I know that it is 'I' that is aware? Because it's not in my thoughts and it is not in my perception.

So just... you said right now, like you are saying that we have to remain in this groundedness or in this guidance of this deep... that deep knowing is there. But you also said that when this 'me' takes over and wants it to use... how can it remain 'me'? How is this different? How are the two things different when I am trying? So I feel like I am trying because you are saying to me to remain there, but how is this a 'me' who is doing and this 'me'...

Correct. So the middle ground between the false and the Absolute reality is the Consciousness, your being, I-am-ness. So this I-am-ness itself has the power of belief or misidentification to take itself to be something. And I-am-ness itself has the power to look at its own source. Where does it come from? What is the 'I' from which 'I am' arises? Where do I really come from?

But it is playing this Leela, it is playing this game where it has conditioned itself to go to the head for the answer, except when asked momentarily: 'Who is witnessing or who is aware of the perception?' You see? So you don't... when you don't give yourself time, it is very straightforward: it is 'I.' But then when you investigate, you see that this 'I' cannot be seen, this 'I' cannot be thought about. It has no quality, no attribute. Nowhere does it come, nowhere does it go. And that you don't know through traditional means of knowledge. You don't know that in your head and you don't know that in your perceptions.

So this your being itself is recognizing its own source and disassociating from the false identification with the 'me.' As long as you have the... you have a sense that you have a power to remain in the truth and you can sense the ability to go with the false, you must remain with the truth without letting the intellect overpower your inquiry by confusing it and saying, 'But who is this that is staying?' You see?

Who did Bhagavan say you must abide as the Self to? You see, it is you. Where within you do you have the power to stay with the truth and not go with the false? That is what is being pointed to. And that one you cannot really understand, just like the reality of the Nirguna, you can't really understand, but you can really recognize through eyes which are not of this world, but they are divine.

So how do you know that you are aware of the perception of this hand, that it is you? Because it feels so obvious. And it has to be me because there's nobody else. I can say... because are you making an intellectual inference at that point? That you're inferring and saying the all other possibilities are not possible, therefore I must conclude that it is 'I'? I didn't notice you going through that. You don't go through that intellectual inference process, isn't it?

Yes. So it is more immediate than that. You say it is obvious, but is it obvious phenomenally? There is no phenomena which is a proof that I am witnessing it, I mean I am the first and the...

I can say because, are you making an intellectual inference at that point? That you're inferring and saying the all other possibilities are not possible, therefore I must conclude that it is I? I didn't notice you going through that. You don't go through that intellectual inference process, isn't it?

Yes, so it is more immediate than that. You say it is obvious, but is it obvious phenomenally? There is no phenomena which is a proof that I am witnessing it. I mean, I am the first and the phenomena are later. I am before them.

Yes, but in that moment, are you concluding that 'I am the first, therefore it is I'? Is any of that activity happening?

No, none of that is happening. It is more innate. It is more innocent than any inference, any conclusion, any understanding, isn't it? Yes. It's like if you ask me how am I hearing your words? No, let's not say who is hearing the words. If I just focus, how am I hearing your words and how am I understanding your words and how I'm grasping those meanings? So how is this happening? And am I really doing this? Is there the I who is doing this, tangible, perceivable? Exactly no. I think intelligence is there. There's a screen on which the perception is happening. So in that way, I can say yes, I can see all these things, everything, and I am here. So how am I knowing these things? It has been always known to me like this. It's not prior also. Before meeting anybody, if somebody would ask 'Who is seeing this?' I would have said 'It's I who is seeing this, it's I who is listening.' And am I doing the listening? Am I doing the seeing? Now also, am I doing the seeing? Am I doing the listening? No. I know, but I don't do these things.

Very, very good. Now the key is that you must remain only with that mode of knowledge. Because that mode of knowledge is not just like a lens through which you can peer into the highest reality; it is also the Supreme intelligence which is the light of this universe. So the insight that you are receiving from there, don't give it to your intellect. Don't give it to your mind, and allow everything to unfold from there itself. That is what it means to abide in that. Because otherwise what will happen is that the intellect will take ownership of the recognition and say, 'Ah yes, see, I've always known this. It's always been all this is very true.' But let it come from that same place where you are recognizing your true Self. And it's okay, it can seem like I lost all my words suddenly, but as you get used to this new way of life, as a new way of being which is to remain in the heart, then the heart will start to use your body-mind instrument for whatever it uses it for.

The questions that you are inviting are of the nature of contemplation, and our mind, or my mind, is—I would say it's more of figuring things out. If you give me any question, then I will figure it out. I will not contemplate it. I will just try to rush through the answer or give you some words. But this contemplation, maybe it has not been taught as part of our education system. Contemplation, we are used to solving in our mind, intellect, figuring things out.

You put it very correctly that we are used to figuring things out instead of remaining empty. We feel like remaining empty is a waste of time. But if you remain head-empty, then true insight is allowed to bloom within ourselves. Self-knowledge is allowed to bloom within ourselves. But because of our education, because of our history with all this conditioning, we are used to concluding with our heads. And that process of letting go of the way of the head and remaining in the way of the heart, only there where true insight is possible, is actually a lifetime project. It will seem many times that it is so easy and natural, 'How could I ever leave this?' and other times it will seem so difficult and alien because the world of Maya seems very real. So you have to remain in the place—it's not, you know, when I say place, it's not a real place—but you have to remain like that where you recognize what you really are and from there allow life to unfold. Don't leave that for anything, you see?

Because the mind is trapped now. It actually doesn't know what is going on. Why is this man saying 'I am aware'? It has no clue about this I, isn't it? It is saying about yourselves because it has no clue about this I. It's saying that because I'm not perceiving anything... the mind is a measuring machine which measures based on imagination, perception, all of these things. But it has no clue about that which is Nirguna. And yet instantly, without a doubt, all of you say 'It is I which is aware.' Can't doubt it, isn't it? It is I which is aware, and yet you never see this I, you never hear this I. Somewhere you know it, but this knowing is not conceptual. So we have taken false knowing to be true knowing, and true knowing we have forgotten. That is why it seems like it is difficult to come to self-recognition. That is the play of Maya.

What you conclude out of this, any of you, what you conclude out of this conceptually doesn't matter at all. That is just a mind attack. We don't see it like that. We feel like we are getting helpful conclusions about what is happening to me. Actually, the mind is attacking the truth in your conclusion. So you don't have to conclude from there. If something is arising in your heart that 'this is what it is,' then that can be said. So don't get into the trap of concluding. Don't get into the trap of making it a conceptual answer, because these traps will come. 'What does this mean? What happened in satsang today? What does this mean for you?' Stay with your heart. Stay where you know the true you. Don't go with the mind family, as scriptural as they may sound, as stunning as they sound. Don't conclude from your head. Stay over there.

So then what happens is—and I'm extending the conversation for everyone—then what happens is that you will find that this raw insight from the gift of the holy presence within yourself, this raw insight, you will want to grab at it like a box of candy. Like a box of candy, the mind will want to grab at it and make its conclusions, make its judgments, make its specialness, make its meaning for you. So we must remain in humility and servitude as an antidote to that. The mind will say, 'Great insight has happened for you.' No. What did I do? It was all just Grace. I don't know how I recognized. I can't create this recognition. I'm just in service to God. It is His Grace, it is His mercy that has brought me here. Then that 'me' has no chance of becoming special and no chance of growing. That's why between this insight and love, between this insight and devotion, then the 'me' has no escape and it deepens, deepens, deepens in true insight and true love for God. Are you seeing how it could work? It's very possible, isn't it?

That you end satsang and say, 'Wow, I really saw myself for the first time. I did the inquiry.' And it can be almost innocent sounding, but certainly that I, the false I, is getting built up again now in a new spiritual avatar. Because the idea of an enlightened one, of a free one, is very attractive to the ego. It's very attractive that 'I've been a seeker for so long and finally now I have achieved it.' And we don't realize when we fall into it. We don't realize when we fall into that trap. That is why the thankful gratitude, the recognition that there is nothing that I take myself to be could have done to bring me this recognition—it has to have been an outpouring of Grace. So that is why that Atma is very important because the mind will start hating that. It will say, 'But I see that I am that, then who are you talking about servitude and Bhakti and loving God and humility and faith? Who are you talking about?' This one. That very one is who I'm talking about. When it comes like that, that is when you spot it. 'Why should I? Who should bow?' That one. That very one.

What is the food of that one? How, what feeds that one? That ego feeds on only one thing, which is thoughts. Discard the food of thoughts; that one will not rise. Because it builds this house of cards using the conceptual framework of thoughts, on top of which is a 'me' that is sitting. But the whole thing is just made up in our mind. So if you stop consuming this junk food, then we will not have any calories of pride. You like this. You stay with this where you have this insight and let everything arise from there. And keep coming to satsang and keep making a report once in a while. So the second aspect of it, I can keep a check on a little bit and make sure that it's not getting into any sort of conclusion-making or 'Oh, but last week I saw this, so this means something for me.' You know, this kind of rubbish which has no place in any of this. The I that is, it is the true one. The I that is 'getting it' or 'has got it' is still the false one. So stay the true one, you see? The temptation to conclude the getting it, or even for that matter the not getting it, it is the same one, the same push-pull.

So is the inquiry clear for everyone? It's actually just a sincere looking for who we are. Sometimes even the word 'inquiry' becomes a bit daunting, like 'I'm doing the inquiry.' No, we are just sincerely checking at the very core: Who is it that I really am? Who is it that I really am? And just like a Zen koan, just like the path of Bhakti, just like any true spiritual path, the inquiry brings us to our true home, to our true place. Only there can true insight flower, can true love flow. And this is the place we've been calling the temple of God. So all the pathways that bring us to this point are spiritual. All pathways to God, all pathways to this holy place of intuitive insight within ourselves, the Satguru presence, the Atma within. What do we do in the inquiry? We just go there. The one who has the insight always says, 'But it's always been here.' But few minutes before that, it did not seem like it was always here. So whose Grace is that? That which seemed so impossible to grasp then becomes, 'Oh, but it's so obvious, so simple, it's always been here.' That is a result of Grace.

What is the nature of the one that is aware of the perception of this hand? You call it I, we all call it I, but can we really say anything about this I? Even right now your mind is complaining, saying 'I don't know this I' because it doesn't know. It sounds too confusing in the mind, but somewhere it is so clear that this Nirguna, attributeless pure awareness is my true nature, is my true reality. The push-pull of my false reality and my true reality is the battleground between Maya and the Atma. What do your thoughts want you to be? Who do your thoughts want you to be? How claim that you are father?

So if insight is intuitive and insight deepens intuitively, as you said the modes of knowledge are in the mind and then another place. So in that deepening of that intuitive understanding, Satguru presence, in that also you think that there is a possibility of pride? Because I'm feeling that I understand. It comes when it's with the mind because it's about the books and the words and analysis and experiences. But do you feel that when it's the other way, that there is also—is that really possible? Because in that, then the 'I' is kind of not there when understanding is deep and it deepens, right? Of course, it attacks now and then and all, but it is in a different zone.

So then pride also, we have to be very careful. Yeah, let's look at that. That's a good question. So let's really dive in and see. When we are with the holy presence, then there is no lack, there is no absence of any knowledge, you see? Everything is actually known. All that is true.

Is that really possible? Because in that, then the 'I' is kind of not there when understanding is deep and it deepens, right? Of course, it attacks now and then and all, but it is in a different zone. Yeah, so then pride also, we have to be very careful.

Yeah, let's look at that. That's a good question. So let's really dive in and see. When we are with the holy presence, then there is no lack; there is no absence of any knowledge, you see. Everything is actually known. All that is true is known in that way instantaneously. So then, what do we call an insight? Because in an instant of being intuitive, all is actually known. And how do I know this? Only intuitively. I don't have any conceptual or intellectual claim that can prove that, you see. But when you check for yourself, you will also feel that. So you will get a sense that the nature of all reality is known; all that can ever be known is known in that instant.

So this, for example, is an example of insight, isn't it? So what happens is like the whole ocean is there. The whole ocean is us. The whole ocean is there because there's no distinction then between the 'I' and its self-knowledge and its tool of knowledge. So the whole ocean is there, but it is the grace of God, it is the grace of reality, that it spouts out or offers droplets, you see, which we can find some words to convey. So all our scriptures are made up of those droplets. A lot of, hopefully, a lot of the words that you hear in satsang are made up of those droplets. But does any droplet actually contain it? It doesn't. But it can offer that wetness; it can offer that quality which is only available in that holy place, in that special place. Then that perfume of that, we recognize and we are drawn within.

So that is what we in satsang usually call an insight. It is all-encompassing, but just something which can be pointed to in some way, something which can be spoken in some way. That ineffability suddenly finds itself being conveyed in a slightly effable sense, you see. So that is an insight. Now, just leaving it at that, I don't see a possibility of any pride happening. It's just like on the surface of the ocean, bubbles are sprouting or droplets are sprouting up, you see. Who can take credit for that? Nobody can take credit for that.

But when we—and this is what I was cautioning against last time—when we take these insights and we give them to our intellect, you see, 'Oh, like this, therefore like this, and then we can say like that,' and you know, so it's become all worldly now. It has become... all the holiness is getting squeezed out of it because we are applying our mental frameworks, our intellectual understanding, to this insight. And then when we can make a claim... so there's a way for insight for you to insightfully know that 'I am that, I am that,' you see. And there's a way to egoically think that 'Oh, but I am that,' you see. So it's not in the words that we are finding, but in the holiness, in the fragrance of them.

So in that way, when we intellectualize or make frameworks or an understanding out of that which we are learning in the heart, then we can be proud about that. We can say, 'I figured this out, I learned this, I understood this.' But that's like a bucket of flesh and blood saying that 'I create life.' It's as absurd as that. Like, we don't know what life is and how to create it, and yet we can make that claim that as a result of a physical process, of a physical act, I created a life. So it is the same difference between saying that, for example, our children come through us rather than 'I created them.' Insight came through us; through this instrument, it is being shared, versus 'I found it.' And only that much is the difference between Ram and Ravan. That much 'I did.' No, it just flowed through.

Mental insights also, they just flow through?

That's why I mess around with English a lot, because I have no option but to... the sense that I can't invent my own lexicon. I'm not that smart. So then I have to use the words which probably have been made for some other use, but I have to redefine them in a satsang way. So the minute we say 'mental,' then it's not insight in the way that I use it.

I mean, understanding something in the mind—is that also flowing through, or is it something I can...

Not flowing through in the sense that I'm talking about. There are mechanics in our intellect, there's all this stuff which also happens, which we may look from a different perspective and call that also a flowing through. But here I'm just talking about a deeper flowing, you see, that which you find in your heart temple. And that is all that you need to value. You don't need to take Ganga jal and process it in a factory and, you know, make it consumable. The holy river is flowing in your heart. Just whatever spouts out of that, bubbles out of that, that we can call insight. Your post-processing of that will not add any value. To use business terminology, it can feel like a sadhana to leave it pure, to leave it uncontaminated with our framework, you see.

Because you've seen the propensity, isn't it? All of us have a propensity to squeeze everything into our way of understanding. 'Oh, see, this is what I was always saying. This is why I always knew.' Like that, we have a propensity to squeeze it into our way of looking at things. So as empty as you can be from that, the freer you will be. That's why it's always best to remain in the beginner mode. 'This is my first satsang. This is my first minute in satsang.' Then that burden of 'Oh, I had this experience, then I saw this, and I did the inquiry one time five years ago and this happened'—all that nonsense is out. You're meeting things freshly. Just the truth is always here, fresh and alive. It doesn't need any of your past history and your credentials and none of that.

So you can ask yourself, 'Who am I?' But what method can you use to force the recognition? Will repetition be enough? If I ask often times, how often is often enough that the recognition has to happen? How often is often enough? You cannot put a number on it. That is why—why I'm getting to this is that many in the modern world are trying to be spiritual, do the inquiry, come to self-recognition with no reverence, no love for God. So if you make it a purely mechanical process, you can keep saying 'Who am I? Who am I? Who am I?' looking, looking, looking, but recognition will not happen. And even if it does happen, then you cannot stay there because your pride will start jumping and 'I did it' kind of notions will start.

So that love for God, that humility to be bowed down in front of the divine teacher who has given us this recognition—although your mind will fight that with all its might because it will say, 'But you just saw that you are that, so who needs to be humble to who?' So either you ask that question fully sincerely and you never fall for the trap of 'I did it, me, like me is now awake' or something like that. So ask it fully sincerely, which will chop it, or keep your head bowed down in front of the holy presence of God. Can you see this? It's very, very important because in my experience in spirituality, I've seen that most fall for this trap of taking it almost like spiritual climbing Mount Everest or something. That every step you take is one 'Who am I?' and you got to Mount Everest and then you feel like you can put the flag of enlightenment and say 'I got it.' The whole job is to transcend the ego, not to make it an enlightened one.

And that cannot happen without the grace of God. And what happens with those brothers and sisters? Can they spot this? Mostly no, because our pride, we cannot see it. We can't see it. So maybe it was only at the end of Ravan's life that he got a sense of how proud he was being throughout the whole misadventure. He could not see his blind spot of pride. So if you were to write down what a Vashistha would have said or a Vishwamitra would have said versus what Ravan would say, in comparing the text, you would not find... you would find that all of them are sages. So then what is the difference? That is what I'm pointing to. Because in worldly ways, there's really no way to tell a difference, but somewhere you know pride is such a big blind spot, and then it makes us very stupid. It makes us very stupid.

So I saw a video today of a lot of brothers and sisters getting attacked in ISKCON because they had a meeting and there was a cross in that meeting and they were talking about Jesus and things. And I said that this kind of stupidity is becoming more and more rampant in the world where we take pride in our religion without truly understanding what our religion is and what it is pointing to. It's like saying, 'I call Atma Atma, another calls it Holy Spirit,' so we should fight with each other. 'I call God God, I call God Bhagavan, he calls him God,' we should fight with each other. This absurdity that is happening, and it only comes because we become blinded by pride. It's so absurd that just because of different names, we can make an enemy out of a brother. And can anyone who has come to the fruition of their religion ever behave in this way? If you found the Atma within, will we fight with those who are invoking the same Atma in the form of, using the word Holy Spirit?

I'm not saying it is you. I'm sure all these things have been happening for a long time, but this gives us an insight into where pride leads us. Where pride leads us: 'I am right, my way is right, your way is wrong. I have the highest path, you have a lower path. Self-inquiry is better than prayer, prayer is better than self-inquiry. Gyana is the highest, Bhakti is the highest.' You should stop all this nonsense. It's all the same thing.

How is it that whatever path we are on is always the highest?

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. I prefer lower path. All these are human categories. Can a pathway to God be high or low? Who has made that pathway? Can a human ever make a pathway to God? Can human design ever say, 'Oh, I'm going to find a pathway to that which is beyond human'? So all these are gifts from God. All insights, all pathways to God are gifts from God. And yet we are sitting to lord it over things. That's why we must always be humble, always give thanks, give praise to God who is the one that provides the grace for us to come to Atma. Is that one different based on what your religion is? So if we love God, we should just say we love God. We don't have to label ourselves as this or that or this is better and that is better.

I feel like ranting more about it because the body is a bit... there's a lot of absurdity. There's another obsession with saying that only Jesus was the true Son of God; it couldn't have been Ram, Krishna, the Dasavatara, that's all mythology. How do we know? We must not fall for this. God is infinite in all ways. We cannot say that we understand based on what little we know. It can feel like that because thousands of years ago, it seemed like every part of this world was a separate world anyway, so it may have made sense to say, 'Oh, he was the only one' or 'She was the only one' in those times. But now, with God's grace, we're all... so many cultures have an opportunity to come together. So we must not ever feel that 'Mine is the only true one, my path is the only true path.' Come. What is important is what our heart tells us, and our heart is always telling us ways to love more, to care more, to be more compassionate. What else? Okay, let's go to Samia. Thank you so much.

Father, sorry, just... there's some static sort of noise coming. That's why I'm trying to mute my mic to see if that makes it better. Let's see. Is it better, Father? Okay. I think I'm just in a process which I'm very happy. Mind is not clear, but I'm so happy about this process. Yeah, like I'm not sure... like there are things that I want to say, but really just it's all over. So I really don't know whether I should speak or be silent. Like presently, I don't know anything. What I know is just I'm so happy about the process, even though the mind can be... I don't care about how it is now, but the process...

Let me mute my mic to see if that makes it better. Let's see, is it better, Father? Okay, I think I'm just in a process which I'm very happy. Um, mind is not clear, but I'm so happy about this process. Yeah, like I'm not sure. Like, there are things that I want to say, but really just it's all over. So I really don't know whether I should speak or be silent. Like, presently I don't know anything. What I know is just I'm so happy about the process, even though mind can be—I don't care about how it is now, but the process, I'm just so happy. And yeah, do you have something to say, Father?

You'll have to mute for the time being then. Thank you, thank you. Yes, this is the inherent—you can turn the other one off. Other can reduce it, reduce the volume now with some switch, check. So, the inherent contradiction of insight and love being full and instantaneous, you see, with the fact that it's a work in progress, a lifetime project. Both are true. There's no easier way to say this, but both are true in the sense that we cannot meet ourself as true pure awareness halfway because it's not a worldly instrument that we are using. We cannot say, 'I half see that I'm pure awareness' or 'half see that I'm awareness.' We have to—it's binary. Either we are recognizing in this moment or we are not. And if we are recognizing, it's fully recognized. In the same way, it cannot be half-surrendered, half-devoted in this moment. In this moment, either we are turning towards Him or we are turning towards our selfishness, ourself.

So, although this is full, full always, yet when life is looked at through the lens of time, it can seem like it's moving through a process of going from the way of the head to the way of the heart, from a worldly way to a Godly way. And this process is ever-deepening, more and more beautiful as you go along. So, very much it is a process which all of us are on. And in the second part of the process, no one can say that they have achieved the pinnacle of the high. I find myself unable to say that I've even taken the first step because who am I to know this? How do I know? And yet, in the instant, it is fully, fully recognized. It cannot be half. So, from there I may say that there are no steps left, you see.

So, between both of this, we try to get the point across, and that's why it can be very confusing and frustrating sometimes for those who are trying to understand. But this spirituality really cannot be understood. We just have to follow because it requires us to surrender our intellect. Nobody can ever understand the Zen koan. There's too much mental disparity between both ends of this for us to get a handle on this. And in a way, it is good because it squeezes the ego. It literally squeezes the hell out of the ego. But while the squeezing is happening, it can feel like hell. But that is just the squeezing process because you can't—like, 'Should I grasp it this way or should I grasp it this way?' If I grasp it this way, he says that way. If I grasp it this way, he says that way. If I create a conceptual framework out of the words of satsang itself, you feel like, 'Ah, okay, that's it.' Then next day you hear something the opposite. So you can't really grasp it, and that is squeezing for our intellect, for our pride, for our ego. And that process is also very important, so we return to the innocence of a child, to an openness which is beyond any conceptual understanding.

So, it is both instant and a lifelong project. It is both impossible to say that I've got it a little bit, maybe, and to say that I've got it fully. It depends on which end of the spectrum you are speaking from.

Um, I feel a little bit shame about talking about what I will bring now, but I would love to bring—as you know, I was just so much filled with God and all my toes just—I never remember that much feeling of love. And I was crying out of love for God, Father. I never experienced that much before. Yeah. But, um, like the love affair which came into my life after that, my attention just keeps going there. And, um, yeah, my attention is there and unwantedly, like without wanting, just my attention is there. And it's a pleasure, but it's not pure as loving God, of course. And it just makes me confused because a text coming in that way that, like, 'Oh, if I love God, I won't have any relationship.' This kind of confusion, these waves just coming so much presently. And somehow that's why I cannot just also let go. I cannot just say, 'God, please, I'm choosing You fully.' Of course I do. I don't have any choice. I know, like, sooner or later it will happen and I will turn to God, just no doubt. But presently I'm just facing with that. And yeah, I just wanted to bring that to you because it's not pleasant, Father, because just loving God fills even my body with light, but when I think something else, it just gives heaviness, you know? And even if I will have a relationship, to think about it will not help at all actually. It will cut from even from God and even from relationship. So I know that I just need to come back to God. Yeah, maybe.

Very thank you. Thank you for openly sharing that. Thank you for openly sharing this. Now, what is the way then? Because the mind will say, 'Okay, so are you saying that if you're with God, then you can never have a relationship?' Because Father keeps sharing the Narada story and how Krishna sent him to get water, and then on the way to get water he saw this beautiful woman and he forgot about his lifetime project to be with Krishna, isn't it? The mind says so. Then that means I can never have a relationship. I have to become—only God is only possible then for the monks or the sadhus. Then how is it possible that so many sages have been householders? So many teachers have been in relationships? How does that—how is that possible at all?

So, the answer may surprise, but I'm going to say it and see how we go from there. The key to make sure that you're not being Narada and the relationship which is unfolding is a holy one is to not rush. It's as simple as that: is do not rush. What is the definition of rushing? That you don't know God's will and yet you are moving in your own will. So, who has told you that in God's will a relationship cannot happen? In all cultures, all traditions, all religions, all of our history, there are so many great sages who have been in relationships. Who has told you? Nobody has told us. But what happens is that—what is the Narada effect then? When it comes in front of us, the possibility of that which seemingly will complete us, but can never complete us. Even if we call it a holy relationship, it is not that which is completing us, you see. It is not another which is completing us. The completion is always from within, always in the discipleship of the Atma within.

But the Atma has not said that we cannot have an outer relationship. But when the prospect of it comes, why is it often said that the minute you're getting somewhere in satsang, something—the perfect man will appear, the perfect woman will appear? What is that? That is the nature of Maya to give you a distraction. And how do you know that whether you're getting distracted or whether it is holy? Are you rushing or are you waiting for God to move you or God to guide you? And you know in your heart whether you're just fooling yourself. There is no one who doesn't know in their heart whether they're fooling themselves because the mind is very quick to conclude that it is God's gift, not Maya's distraction.

So, that is why I keep emphasizing to all my children, especially the younger ones who are in that age—these things seem so strong—that just if it is holy, if it is God's gift, then it cannot go anywhere. Then nobody's going to take it from you. Just don't rush. And it seems very difficult because our natural instinct in that time seems to be to go close the deal, close the matter. Is it because we hate that uncertainty in our mind saying, 'Is there something going to happen here or not?' So within that, your true spirituality has to shine. Recognize that if it is true that it is heaven-sent, God-sent, then how—who can take it away? What time can take it away? Nothing can. So just as much as possible, be still, be patient, be courageous. Don't be grasping, grasping, grasping, you see? Because in that grasping, grasping, grasping, you lose your center. You lose the ability to truly see things as they are.

So then what happens is that initially things will seem rosier than they are, and then maybe later things will seem worse than they are, because both are tricks of the mind to make us suffer. But when you're being heartfelt, then how you are with yourself is always more important anyway than how another is, than the power you have given to God's light and not to another bucket of flesh and blood. But it can seem like—I know the forces at play are very primal. They're very primal because we can't even say this, that this is the human condition. This is the condition of living creatures. This primalness of it is very, very primitive in that way. So it can seem like a very strong force to be up against, and yet it is important to slow down. Just slow down, slow down. Try to turn to God as much as you can. Try to move in His will as much as you can and to offer it to Him over and over again, truly, sincerely. Then in His grace, all things can turn holy anyway.

But we have to go against, in a way, very primal sort of nature which is beyond the human conditioning, which is like the conditioning of all creatures. But that is where true love for God, true faith for God keeps us strong. Slowly, slowly, heartfelt. Don't have to rush to label things, don't have to rush to claim ownership. Slowly, slowly. You can see, maybe it's like many of your minds often say, 'It's easy for him to say, you know, easier said than done, all of these things.' Maybe. Maybe at 50 it's easier to speak like this and recognize like this, maybe. But somehow I feel like it is good advice no matter what the age of the biological body. Maybe just ask yourself this: your mind is saying this is a gift from God, it is not Maya. Okay, so if it is a gift from God, does it have an expiry date? Is God saying, 'You better grab this offer right now, otherwise it's going to expire'? No. No gift from God is like that, especially when you're saying, 'I'm going to wait for Him to guide me.' You feel like He'll take His gift away if you say, 'I'm going to wait for Him to guide me'? It's not going to happen.

And of course, you're not being—you're obviously swept away in that phase of infatuation or whatever, so you're not possibly giving yourself the space to look at things like this. But whatever, may these be just seeds and reminders for you to just remember to slow down. Slow down. You want to say?

Thank you, Father. Um, yeah, it's just—it's just a full-of-mind thing and it has such a pull to, like, pull even while we are speaking. It's still there. But I'm—I'm so grateful that yet just you shown me that it's just purely a mind stuff. It's not even pure love or pure liking towards this person or something. It's just purely a mind attack. And I don't know, um, it's just—this is how I experience in generally when someone came into my life or something. So that's why every time just this mind attack comes so strongly in this way. I feel to just want to offer and place it at your feet also.

Very, very good. Very good. Bless you, bless you. Thank you. So something more that is coming to say about this is that don't rush to get into labeling something as relationship or commitment or something like that, and then don't rush out also. Like if you rush in and you find yourself there, then at least turn towards God and say, 'Okay, what is the next step?' Whether it seems like it is working or not working, don't rush. Then this very sort of primitive to do these things, rush in and rush out, and causes a lot of havoc and suffering in the world. So just—but if your heart is clearly saying that it is nothing there except just a physical attraction or just lust posing as love, if it's clear, then just be clear. But if it's not clear, then again, don't rush. There's never a good enough reason to turn away from God. No.

Turn towards God and say, 'Okay, what is the next step?' Whether it seems like it is working or not working, don't rush. It is very primitive to do these things, to rush in and rush out; it causes a lot of havoc and suffering in the world. So, just be. But if your heart is clearly saying that there is nothing there except just a physical attraction or just lust posing as love, if it's clear, then just be clear. But if it's not clear, then again, don't rush. There's never a good enough reason to turn away from God, no matter what the life situation may be.