This Apparency... Is Impossible for Your Mind to Attain, and yet You Have It - 17th April 2020

Next one says, "Namaste Father, always moving in the bus, name fresh with you and all the Sangha members and not leaving the bus to buy any stale vegetables." Now that's a very good equipment. And in this bus there is no why and also there is no how. We there yet? All parents are very familiar with this question. They are on road trips, they constantly hearing this question from the children: "Are we there yet?" So if you get on my bus, please don't ask me this question, "Are we there yet?" I have enough of that. Okay.

Okay, next one says, "Ananta Ji, I have a question. Is there a difference between self-realization and the Giani state of consciousness? During the Rishikesh retreat, Guruji had mentioned in one of the satsangs the Giani state of consciousness was not really needed and just simple self-recognition was sufficient to run this world. Can you please talk to that?" But you already answered that it is not needed. This you go for simple self-recognition. Do you want me to contradict my Father? So you say in the question itself there, during the Rishikesh retreat Guruji had mentioned in one of the satsangs the Giani state of consciousness was not really needed and just simple self-recognition was sufficient to run this world. That's it. So once we come to this simple self-recognition, then let's see if the question about Giani state of consciousness remains in that way. So don't worry about it. What will you do with the answer? You make a benchmark how to feel? It will give you more columns, rows in your report card maybe. We constantly check yourself against those and say, "I have not got to the Giani state yet," or even if you come and look to the report card and say, "I have got to the Giani state yet." Either way it could be troublesome. That's it. Everyone is done. It's nice. No more questions. Now everyone is sorted. Oh, it's coming screaming.

Okay, one says, "We know we are not the body because there is an awareness of the body, but there is a distinction between the body through which sensations are perceived and bodies through sensations are not perceived." Okay, first let's look at the first part of what you said: "We know we are not the body because there is an awareness of the body." Now any "because" or "therefore," overall any such term shows to me that something is still being inferred. And maybe that is the first step of Vedanta where you say, "Yes, I perceive it, it does not perceive me. I am out of this perception. The perception is not aware of me, therefore I more intimately have this awareness."

Now I am showing you that you don't even need this inference. You don't even need this inference right now. Without using any intellect, without using any understanding, it is just apparent to you. Stay with me because it is not apparent to your mind who you are; it is apparent to you who you are. So those who feel like it is apparent in the way that I'm saying, could you use the raised hand thing on Zoom or raise your hand physically? See, Yogiji is the—his hand is raised. Okay, thank you. So this apparency which I have been reiterating now for many months is impossible for your mind to attain, and yet you have it. This is self-knowledge. Maharishi Ramana called this to be the capital that you are born with, then you will die. The only thing you really have, that's not a thing with you.

So this is what I want to introduce you to because if you're still relying on some inference to come to a conclusion about who you are, then all those conclusions are present in many, many books and scriptures. You don't really need to come to satsang, you see? You come to satsang means you come open to a recognition which is beyond any concept of understanding. And I have to be honest and say that I have not come across anyone who has come to this true understanding without being in satsang with a living master. I have heard stories about this of course, and it is completely possible. In consciousness everything is possible. But the main point of coming to a living master is to come to this non-conceptual insight because all conceptual insights are present in books. They remind me of a funny story. Somebody asked a master, they asked the master, "Master, do I need to come to a living master or should I just read my books?" So the master said, "Why don't you try asking the book that?"

So this sort of strangeness—why am I calling it strangeness? Because it is always known and yet there seems to be a cloud which makes us search for it. And most of humanity seems to be searching for something or the other, but the greatest, the highest is always yours. And the masters give many metaphors for this: the diamond is in your pocket, you're sitting on the box of treasure already. So I read a quote the other day and it was attributed to Ananta, but I don't recall saying it, but I like to use that one. It was said in that quote that if you're searching, then you can be sure that you're searching in the wrong place. If you're searching, then you can be certain that you're searching the wrong place because the place in which you have to look, there you cannot seek. You know this place? That way you have to look, there you cannot seek.

So in the world you can seek, in your mind you can seek, even in your internal so-called internal perceptions you can seek. Where will you find this one? Where can you look without having to seek? So I am to elevate your inquiry from wondering about the body sensations because that is just this waking state is not at all different in its experience from the dream state. But we don't ask this question in the dream state saying, "Master, the entire dream appears within me, the entire dream appears within me, and yet there are just possibly thousands and thousands of bodies in the dream also. How is it that I don't perceive the sensations of those bodies when I'm in the dream state?" And taking the train to Patal, those perceptions exist. Can you really say or they don't exist? Can you really say? So don't worry about these things which you cannot really see. Again, I am pointing you to that which you once you see it will become an undoubtable seeing and you won't even need to use your mind, intellect, perception to come to this discovery.

One says, "Ananta Ji, are the situations in life accidental or are they born out of desire?" Now why do we exist? Was it accidental or was it born out of a desire? That's a question that seekers and philosophers have chased for many, many thousands of years. And what is the explanation? God wanted to play, see? That's why it's called the Leela. Or God wanted to taste its own manifest aspect, or God wanted to get the taste of love or the contrast. Now the problem with all of these definitions is that it presumes desire to be present in God itself. And what is the spiritual seeker told? The seeker is told you must not have a desire, and yet we very lightly speak of our heart's desire. So how is it that the seeker is not allowed to have this desire and yet God is allowed to have one? So what is going on? What's going on is because our intellect is limited, you see? And we feel a bit wobbly without having conceptual conclusions about this creation of this world. Why do I exist, you see? Therefore, because of ugliness sometimes gets too much and it seems like it becomes suffering, we need the balm of some answer which can get our intellect to be quiet. But as you can say that any of these answers are true for your reality, you see? The distinction between accidental or planned doesn't really exist. We say for example Guru Kripa, all is the Satguru's grace. It is also saying that not a blade of grass moves unless it is the will of God. So now these answers don't carry a fundamental truth in them, but they just appeal to our human intellect, you see? And I'm able to provide some sort of answer to the mind so that it can keep quiet and structure of humans. But I want all of you to be able to go beyond your intellect. Look at your need to understand and see what that understanding has actually given you. Have you been left with any truths in your head? Do you really know anything in your mind? You have tried to—

Unless it is the will of God. So now, these answers don't carry a fundamental truth in them, but they just appeal to our human intellect, you see? And I'm able to provide some sort of answer to the mind so that it can keep quiet and the structure of humans... but I want all of you to be able to go beyond your intellect. Look at your need to understand and see what that understanding has actually given you. Have you been left with any truths in your head? Do you really know anything in your mind? You have tried to understand and understand and understand for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years. What do you know now?

The thought will come up here which says, 'But that is too scary. If I let go of my conceptual knowledge, then I will be lost,' you see? But this is just not true, and you must try this out. Have you seen an ant carrying food and a row of ants, how they coordinate among themselves, how they build their anthill? It is such a beautifully created structure—a lot of engineering, a lot of design, all of that. So, how does all this knowledge fit into an ant's brain? There's a deeper intelligence that is running this universe, and these bodies are just my aspect of that intelligence.

So, new primal nakedness in view of any... the fig leaves that you need to know are already there. We try to gather that which is so primal, with primordiality, and we try to gather that in our intellect, in our minds. And that does nothing except give us the false illusion of knowing, false knowledge, and that itself is the ego. So, what you can experiment with right now is to see that if you let go of your mind, if you let go of your intellect, it doesn't mean that it has to stop. It's just that you don't catch. You leave your baseball glove away; you won't catch the stuff which your mind is throwing at you. Let it fall to the ground. Don't do anything; just don't catch it which the mind is throwing at you. Let them all fall to the ground. Tell me the point at which you become lost. At which point do you lose yourself?

And the beauty of this is that even if you put on your baseball glove back for a moment and you end up feeling and catching a few balls which it threw at you, in the next moment you can put it back. You have not really lost anything. The truth of what you are is always with you. So, we must come to a point where we stop building in questions and answers, or meeting them to the point that the answer, when it is heard, shakes us out of that plane where that game of questions and answers is happening. The point of the answer that comes in Satsang is not to tell you the truth; it is only to shake you out of that playground. Or like a mother who comes to the playground to get her child back from the clinic saying, 'Come home now, enough is enough.' It is not to give you a way to play better. If you understand this, you will save yourself lifetimes.

Let this be the final thing you need to understand: let your understanding be that it cannot be understood, and yet it is always known. So, one playground where all of this meditation is happening, all this inferring and equations and 'who am I' plus 'consciousness' equals 'the One,' you see? All this stuff is going on. We leave that whole playground away for a moment. Let it be whatever dance is happening there; you let it happen. See that there is more to you than that. That is simple self-recognition.

Father, do dual and non-dual states arise at times of decision-making? Certain situations, wisdom, and decision-making... decisions, if not arrived at properly, may impact others negatively and can have consequences. A sense of responsibility arises, anxiety and guilt and pain ensues. Father, please guide me out of this ignorance.

Now, let's go back to this question. If this is doing according to the traditional way of thinking, the human way of thinking, it is, isn't it? 'I decided to move his hand and his hand moved.' Now, there are many, many, many problems with that. One is the most important problem, of course, is that there is no 'I.' The second problem is that even if there was an 'I' sitting inside this body—suppose it is the mind who is the 'I'—then the mind does not know how to move this hand. The mind does not know how to fire the nervous system. So, who is it that is here if an 'I' is not here? And who is it that has the intelligence to move the hand? It must be the same one who is beating your heart, the same one that is making digestion happen, the same one that makes all of this light and sound and gravity and electricity in all of this play out, makes the trees grow and the flowers bloom.

Now, to take the existence of the non-existent one to be a reality, you see, is the first doorway to suffering. Then to give it attributes—'my intelligence' and 'the ability to do and not do'—is really the second punch of the one-two punch combination. And what is apparent in your report is the idea of good versus bad. 'If I do this, it may go positively. If I don't do that, or if I did that, it was a mistake and it led to negative conclusions.' If it is possible that way, then the 'Kripa Kevalam'—part of Guru Kripa—is not possible. Then it is just lip service to say that, 'Oh, really, the Master's grace is everything.' How can it be true that only the Master's grace is, and then there could be things other than the Master's grace? Which means there could be negative things which happen, things which are not supposed to happen can happen? Then how is it true? If things which are not supposed to happen can happen, then all these statements like 'it is always the will of God,' 'God is all-powerful,' 'God is omniscient'... all these are false promises.

And if you are saying to me that yes, you accept that all of these are also dispositional statements, then you must also have to accept that there is no way that this distinction of positive and negative and good and bad and better and worse can exist in this reality. Acceptance of this proposition coming to you in your mind... in fact, this is still false knowledge which is spoken about in the Bible: the fruit of false knowledge. So, the serpent sells it to you, and the serpent in this metaphor is the representation of the mind. To live a life of grace is to live a life of full openness. And when we are open, then we are not making these distinctions and we are allowing full freedom of all aspects of this perceptual world to play out by themselves. That which we think we are is moving your hand as much as it is moving the sun. Can we be clearer than that? That which we think we are is moving your hand as much as it is moving the sun. And that which we actually are is also moving your hand as much as it is moving the sun. How's that? It's very simple, actually. If there is a doing and a doer, then it must be that which is. That which is not can never do or not do.

Dear Father, living with parents can be challenging. They expect attention while here there is only interest in being by myself and marinating more and more. It is misread as arrogance or disrespect. There is only a wish to go deeper and I don't wish to waste time with this again and again. Yet something seems to get into this trap. Can you please give me some guidance?

This battle does not exist. I know sometimes you hate it if I say things like this because you have invested in the notion of this contradiction. What I mean by 'this battle does not exist' is that there is nothing that can come in the play of these perceptions, you see, which can prevent you from being with yourself. What can come and dance in this dance of perception which can take you away from yourself? So, I don't want to use terms like 'integration' and things like that because that becomes even more confusing. But what I'm saying is that just let whatever has to play out, play out, you see? If your being with yourself is that shaky that one perception can come and shake you, then use that as your gym. So next time when that happens, you see if what is actually you is shaken. So, there can be an idea of what my life should be like versus what life is like. And in the words of Byron Katie, guess which one always wins? What is that? It is a lovely, very nice... you can believe it 100% of the time. Anybody who has watched her or read her... it's been many, many years since I saw her too, but she was very helpful at one point. So, I remember there was something she used to say, and she used to say: 'What happens when you argue with what is?' It is something that you lose, but only 100% of the time, you see?

So, I have already given you some guidance on this, which is that if really what you say is true, which is that you only want the Self, then don't believe the not-self. If all you want is tomatoes, then don't go to a potato farm. If you go digging in the mind, if you create these non-existent contradictions and try to find an escape... who are we trying to find an escape for? See? So even the idea that 'I must go deeper and deeper,' he says, 'My dear, where is there to go?' Is there any depth or shallowness to this? Contemplate this alone and I'm happy to hear you report back on this if you like. So, the tea remembers me saying that if you're searching, then you are searching in the wrong place. It's not a bad one; I don't mind it being repeated.

After you explaining, Father, I realized that I am putting my personhood in waiting for what should happen. How to let that go? I know by understanding, but how to do that? Just personhood, just waiting to fall, step to events.

Okay, good. So, it's well spotted, firstly. But there is really nothing to be done except don't catch the next ball from the mind. And if you catch the ball from the mind, there is really nothing to be done except don't catch the next ball from the mind. So, if it takes you one year of spirituality, one Satsang, two Satsangs, one hundred Satsangs, one year of Satsang, ten years of Satsang, fifty years of the spiritual search and Satsang... all that we will come to is that we won't catch the next ball from it. It doesn't look good on our profiles, on our CVs. It doesn't give us the capability to add a lot of 'Swami Swami Swami, Sri Sri Sri' to our name, you see? But simply, that's all this is about. We are able to tell our friends and family that we're on some great quest or something like that, but actually, you're just learning how to not catch the ball.

And now what happens is most of these balls which are thrown at you will start... will have something written on it. It will have 'BUT' written on it, and it comes at you like some seemingly great scream. And before we know it, we are out in the end with that 'but.' 'But what to do? When will it happen? But something...' So, you learn not to catch this ball. A ball which is not caught does not cause any trouble. And your great collection of baseballs is causing you great trouble.

Master, the clicking of your fingers is your highest pointing.

Well, it's effective. If you are open, it's quite effective, I'd say. I almost always would have said 'highest,' but it's effective. For those of you here for the first time, I often say that to become free, to find yourself, just before you hear the sound of the click, you're free. Before the sound of the click, you are free.

Master, only grace of Guru is enough? Is only the grace of the Guru enough? Listening to Guru's pointings is enough to be liberated? What is required, or what will Guru's pointing act upon?

So, only the Master's grace is enough, you see? Now, if you remove the 'only,' for what is it enough? Because if you're still holding on to a desire like 'he will give me this,' then although you may be saying that only the Master's grace is enough, you are actually looking for a tool which will give you something else.

Is only the grace of the Guru enough? Listening to your pointings is enough to be liberated? What is required, or what will go as pointing acts? So, only the Master's grace is enough?

You see, now if you remove the 'only,' for what is it enough? Because if you're still holding on to a desire like 'He will give me this,' then although you may be saying that only the Master's grace is enough, you are actually looking for a tool which will give you something else. So, those who are in the Guru's grace must be happy just with Master's grace, whatever it brings to them. See, so this is the question for you: If Master's grace brings you whatever it brings you, even contrary to your highest desire for yourself, would you be happy with that? And that would be something very easy. But are you interested in Master's grace because Master's grace can get you something that you want? And suppose it was known to you that, 'No, no, you cannot get this through Master's grace,' then will you throw it away like a banana skin?

True devotion is to trust the Master's grace, to trust God's grace as it comes, in spite of what it might be seemingly bringing, which also we don't have the eyes to recognize entirely. So, truthful devotion is for devotion's sake, not because something will be brought to me because of that. The wanting itself is getting in the way of you getting it. Your wanting that is getting in the way of you getting. So, the non-existent one wants, isn't it? So, are we still waiting to feed that non-existent one? That which always is, that has no dilemma of freedom or no freedom. Liberation or bondage does not apply to That. So, if you love the Guru, then just love the Guru, but don't love the Guru because he will give you something.

I got a message from Ishi. Hello and love from Ishi. Very nice, Ishi. Good to hear from you, my dear. Hope you're doing well and your brother and you are not getting on each other's nerves too much. This is a little bit, I'm sure. I love the metaphor of catching the ball. Yeah, I feel like it's quite easy and convenient. Very good, very good. One says, 'So simple, so simple. Yes, such lightness and peace.' One says, 'I'm listening to this as a painter. This is such a gift, as I was catching a few balls earlier and I really appreciate the support to remember again.'

You want to do an experiment? You can show me how you can suffer without catching a ball. Just suffer naturally, just by yourself, just by your being, without using this mind. You can't do it. And the good thing is that as you are empty of these conceptual ideas, if the truth about who you are is missing—it's not missing at all. Your true Self, which you've been struggling so much to find, it's so clear now. What happens for many, and it's happening to many who are coming to me, is that you are trying to translate this recognition into some sort of narration, into some sort of, 'Oh, this is what I found. This is my discovery. Is this true?' And it is not true because a narrative actually gets in the way and creates a new cloud for you, a new blurriness. Because as soon as you give value to that narrative, you're going to lose the innocence of the point. So, don't be nervous to share what you have recognized, and even if you do, don't take your words too seriously because they are not true.

I think conceptually, nothing that is spoken, even the words in Satsang, is in itself true. At best, it is pointing in a certain way; it is doing a cleanup. Try in the reverse with some attention and see. So, let yourself be for a moment. Recognize what is here in this moment. Just recognize what is here and now. Accurately translate this into some words. You see, something true about this, you will find that you cannot. Even if you say, 'There is nothing,' it doesn't mean anything because Being is still there. Even if the appearance is not there, the non-phenomenal witnessing is still there. If you say, 'Here I am everything,' it doesn't mean anything really, you see? So, everything between 'I have nothing' to 'I have everything,' including both or neither, don't really actually mean anything true because you're beyond nothing and everything. So, one moment of your recognition, you cannot translate.

One says, 'Even silence is too much to describe this.' And silence doesn't confuse, and for many in Satsang, silence has become the escape concept. See, I don't know whether you spot it or not, just see if you may have it, to have this inflection. Many times when I'm talking about how words cannot capture it, we hang on to a word which is 'silence' and we just latch on to it. 'Ah, silence is there for the best.' You see what happened? You did not go to your silence; you went to the term saying 'silence is the best.' You took those words to be true, and that is not silence. So, it's virtually so. If it is said to you that words don't capture the truth, it is the nature of the intellect to find the opposite to be true. So, it will then find a new set of words which will say, 'Ah, that's why Bhagavan said silence is the best teaching,' you see? And you latch onto those words and you miss your true silence because you got waylaid by those words.

So, give your intellect no place to hide. Even the highest words of the highest teachers, even if it feels a bit probably like the mind is attacking you, it's all fine. It's okay. Don't rest on a conclusion, whatever the conclusion may be. Even this one: everything that you think you know, everything that you think you are right about, this is your make-believe prison. You think it is holding you up; actually, it is the walls, the definitions, your boundaries that you are accepting to be true.

This one last one, then we can close. Many times as you come to this conceptual emptiness and yet full beingness of self-confidence, the mind will attack you with an idea saying that you are not actually finding anything. It can really convince you that you just have to pretend as if you're finally finding something valuable because everybody else seems to be nodding and saying, 'Yes, yes, this is so apparent. It is so clear. This is Atma Gyan.' So, the mind will play this game with you. It will try to convince you that when you're empty of the memory and this truth about yourself is completely apparent to you, it will just comment on you that you're finding nothing. Well, the mind can be like that, and don't fall for that trap because you will notice that as you are open and empty, you still are. So, where, what is the source of this information, this knowledge of your very existence? What is aware of that? You are. So, this cannot go really. The layer of bondage, the layer of dust, is right in that which you are discovering in this way, which is beyond space and time. But don't wait for the mind to give you this certificate. See for yourself the joy of defiance.

Because if we then try to keep convincing the mind, 'See, I saw this, this is what it was, why can't you see?' you see, it will only put doubt in your mind. It only creates trouble. In this very moment, are you or aren't you? And who is aware of that? No power in the universe can push this awareness away. It is not something that you can lose or find. If you can be completely fine after 50 years of being in Satsang and not be able to show one good answer in your mind as to what you are, then you are open enough to find this truth now. If you're still hunting for some representation, some conceptual representation of reality, of what is true in words, then it can seem like a struggle. To express the truth in words is a contradiction in terms.

One says, 'What is so obvious that we cannot even control its existence or non-existence?' Yes. What is that which is here which cannot be searched for, that you cannot seek, that you cannot find? Everything that you can perceive comes and goes. You can run around and try to find things or lose things in this space of perception. In your mind also, you get many thoughts, you lose many thoughts, and find many thoughts. In your intellect, you make judgments about anything else. The same things which you see are true, you thought were false yesterday, and tomorrow you may again change your position about them. All of these are unstable. But there is something which you can recognize right now which doesn't have this attribute of changefulness.

One says, 'Ananta Ji, after reading from Sri Ramana Maharshi that all body reactions are predetermined, I feel like I've become lazy. Is that predetermined or are you doing that now on the fly?' Becoming lazy is also predetermined. Now, this answer is a provisional answer, of course, because the sages have to speak in this sort of provisional way based on the ability or the openness of the disciple. Now, the point is to alert yourself. Your Being is not subject to space and time; it's beyond space and time. Now, when we look at concepts like predetermination, the complete thing about time is in it. So, because consciousness itself, the Self, is beyond time—in fact, time and space are nothing but reflections in the light of this consciousness—consciousness itself cannot be thought of in this time sort of way. Like, the intellect only understands things in this linear fashion. That's why these answers can provide some relief to the intellect provisionally.

So, Bhagavan's invitation in that answer is to allow you to let go. Don't try to micromanage your life. So, don't be so hard on yourself. This is predetermined as God's will. But God itself is not an object in time. In time and space, there are only objects, and God is not an object. So, is this God doing this in real time, or is it written in a script somewhere and it's just playing out? The truth is that it does not apply. These concepts are just constructs within Maya. And for the sake of our human understanding, we imagine how it will be, like God has a notebook here, she has written the script somewhere in that notebook. Now, it's also written, 'I can't do anything about it.' But the thing is that it's not stuck in time like that. Time does not apply to God in these ways.

And it's worth exploring, because you're reading Ramana Maharshi Ji, then it's worth asking you: When you say, 'I feel like I am becoming lazy,' which 'I' are you talking about? If you're reading Bhagavan, you couldn't have missed that question. Often there is... I notice when I am typing that I am identifying with the body. Good, good to notice. So, the one who notices this is which one? Notice that. So, you say that, 'I noticed that I am identifying with the body.' Now, let's even go beyond the one who is identifying, the 'I am' which is identifying as the body. Let's talk about the one that is noticing this. This movement of the Being 'I' is also being noticed. What is noticing that?

Then you say, 'I can only answer from knowledge.' No, it depends on what you mean by knowledge. But if that means you can only answer from the mind, it is not this. Who is aware of this mind? So, when you are inquiring, don't get into sightseeing. Whatever sights are coming, whatever sensations, perceptions are being perceived, don't get distracted from inquiry. Ask yourself: Who is aware of that perception? Who is witnessing even that? Otherwise, the mind will keep showing circumstantial evidence at you and weighing the existence of the individual, and you will keep falling for that. Whatever may be appearing to you in your inquiry, use that to ask: Who is aware of that? Don't get caught out. Even if peace, bliss is coming, don't say, 'Oh, my inquiry went so well because bliss is coming today.' When they come, ask yourself: Who is aware of bliss? If anger is coming, if frustration is coming, use that. Ask: Who is aware of this frustration?

One says, 'Ananta Ji, I ask for your blessings to fall into the heart of self-inquiry.' Yes, you have my full blessings to remain in the heart of self-inquiry. Don't even make a prerequisite of having to fall into it. You are here now. To remain in the simplicity, in the solution is this.

If bliss is coming, don't say, 'Oh, my inquiry went so well because bliss is coming today.' Then they come. Ask yourself: Who is aware of bliss? If anger is coming, if frustration is coming, use that. Ask: Who is aware of this frustration?

Anantaji, I ask for your blessings to fall into the heart of self-inquiry.

Yes, you have my full blessings to remain in the heart of self-inquiry. Don't even make a prerequisite of having to fall into it. You are here now. To remain in the simplicity, in the solution, is this light of simple looking, to simply check.

Then at the same time, one question comes. I have stopped doing inquiry due to these things. The person inquiring, asking the question 'Who am I?' also seems to be the mind.

I guess they're giving... motionless. Remain motionless. There's nothing else to be done.

Okay, this is the last one. Master, we give a lot of importance to the mind. Why? And the 'why' is the product of what? Why the world is seen or perceived through the mind?

I don't say that it is. When perceived through the mind, there is duality. When you... let's look at the mechanics of that, no? Although these days I've stopped sharing the mechanics so much. What you mean by that probably is that when you are looking at everything through the interpretive filter, you see, which is labeling everything and finding reasons and inferences, and there's a full narrative story about everything, that is what it could mean when you say 'perceived through the mind there is duality.' In the simple looking, you see, it's a pure perception. Try looking around in the room without any labeling or interpretation. Perception can still happen. There is no duality. I think you're saying 'I am separate from you.' I think is a meaning and mind and other. It is only the labels which convince us of separation. So in perception, there is no mind. And when you start to make it part of the story, inserting labels, and take the labels to be true, that is what it means when we say we perceive through the mind, then there is duality.

Now, if you're using another definition of the mind, which means that everything that is phenomenal is mind, if you're following that, and you're using the definition of reality that everything that comes and goes is not real, then that way we can say that every perception is also in mind. But you need to clarify the terms very clearly before we start defining. And this is the distinction: when perceived through awareness or consciousness, nothing... in fact, the view is not that you're perceiving through it. It is only not taking the label or using the narration of the mind to be real. It's like watching a movie, but the subtitles are messed up. You can still watch it and it is fine. It is completely fine. But if you take the subtitles to be real, but actually they're messed up, then it is... the movie is actually 'It's a Wonderful Life,' but the subtitle is all mixed up with a horror story. So when you are taking the subtitles to be the true narration of the movie, then it is going to seem like a horror story. Actually, it is a wonderful life. Thank you. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Om Shanti Shanti Shanti.