To Allow Everything to Come and Go is to Remain Open - 1st January 2019
Saar (Essence)
Ananta uses the metaphor of a 'hen's horn' to illustrate the illusory nature of all conceptual distinctions. He guides seekers to remain open and empty, relinquishing even the most spiritual notions to reveal the ever-present, formless Self.
To remain open and empty is to be free; in this openness, the Self is completely apparent.
The instant you think you know something, you know separation; knowing even one thing is knowing too much.
Keep your eyes of attention open, but keep your hands of belief in your pocket.
intimate
Transcript
This transcript is auto-generated and may contain errors.
Then this is coming. Show me your real form. A page has just come, so the question was: 'Show me your real form.' Yes. Are you aware now? Actually, 'real' and 'form' are kind of contradictory. So, this 'Are you aware now?'—you meet a form, and that is the most real. The most real from which benchmark? From the benchmark of the unchanging. All of the forms, all of the forms will come and go. But if you say 'real,' that which is real does not come and go. So, beyond all attributes, beyond all forms, and there you are, the real. There are no two. And in service to this real, all forms can arise, do arise, and they can be enjoyed. In a way, this world is for the enjoyment of the Self. But it is only enjoyment as long as it is met from a space of openness. The minute we start considering ourselves to be something limited, you see, it is no longer enjoyment; in fact, it can become an attachment.
So the universe says, 'I care for your joy. Let them come and go.' But my reality is the formless, and of this reality, you are aware. This reality is never unknown, and yet can never be known. Everything that you can know, that you can perceive, allow it to come and go. To allow this piece to come and go is non-attachment. To want something to come or to want something to not go is desire. To want something to not come is aversion. To allow everything to come and go is to remain open. To interpret any appearances, to resist it, to label any phenomena is to not meet it. To remain open and empty is to be free. And in this openness, the Self is completely apparent. It is not hidden, and yet it is not an object of perception.
This attention and belief, they work like eyes and hands. This attention is eyes and belief is our hands. So, let everything just come and go, but don't become any notion, any idea, because to become a notion is to pick up a limitation. To watch it come and go can never lead to any trouble, and soon the watching will also become very open, light, universal. But if we see with the intent to hold, to grab, to grasp, then that is what suffering looks like. So your eyes can be open—the eyes of attention—but keep your hands of belief in your pocket. Can you live like this? Only grasping is suffering. Leave all the world to me. The mind will come with its doubts, trying to convince you that it was better or you know better, but it is the mind itself you need to be you in your pure perception. Perception means unmixed with any notion.
There is no distinction between the changing and the changed, between the manifest and unmanifest. The minute you know something, you know suffering. The instant you think you know something, you know separation. It is never real, but it can seem to be. That's why I say that to know even one thing is to know too much. And yet, the ending of our mental knowing is not the end of the true knowingness. This selfless awareness, for which no distinction ever happened, is completely apparent to itself when you don't know. And yet the mind thrives on this sort of knowing, conception. And say, someone yesterday said, 'It seems pretty clear, but still a lot of questions have to be resolved,' feeling like the final conclusion will come in this way. And if there is too much fear, you feel like you cannot do without knowing at least one thing, then know that all is the Master's grace. Let it be given up. In fact, if you have to know something, then know that all is the Master itself, because in reality there is no distinction between God, Guru, and Self. So if it feels too much to not know anything, then know this: all is the Master. What word you use does not matter, whether you say all is the Self, all is Absolute, all is Brahman, or all is the Master. It doesn't matter. This is the same as to remain in the unknown through the all-distinctions. It's all various ways of saying the same thing, basically to get rid of your conceptual garbage.
How to remain open and empty? Any feedback to me on experiments on this? What works and what doesn't work? Guru Kripa Hi Kevalam. No, Guru Kripa Hi Kevalam means this is in truth allowing, allowing all things to come and go, not grasping. You take forward with curiosity and wonder also. I'm not asking you that, just the sense of wonder. Wonder is like openness, to make no distinctions. Make no distinctions. Distinction is separation. And really, buy any notion that that is a distinction, a separation. In fact, the mind is just a merchant of distinction, a merchant of duality. I said that for this year, just an excuse to see it, I just want a little bit of your time. Let to remain open and empty be 24 hours every day. Does that mean that if you are open and empty for 23 hours, then you feel guilty about the one hour? No. Spending hours feeling guilty about what I used to be, just if you feel that you're caught in something, don't worry. Don't do post-mortem, no judgments. If it comes again and again, just for a while, acquaintance. Look at this. The struggle is okay. You're not getting into a fight with the mind. No opposition, just allowing it to come and go. But if something seems to grab you, something that you think is truly representative of something, and we've looked at all of these examples, maybe play this game: 'It's just a thought.' That's what this game is about. What do we have that the mind is a true representation of, either manifest or unmanifest? That is just a thought, because no thought can really represent it. Is-ness cannot be represented with a thought. So for a while, it might seem like life has become this game: 'It's just a thought.' Everything that we are thinking to be valid is just the horn of a hare.
Read more (43 more paragraphs) ↓Show less ↑
The Ribhu Gita, I believe, looking from the Ribhu Gita, Chapter 8. He says, 'I shall explain to you the hollowness of the world.' Now we have to hear this as true. You have to hear this quite literally, not metaphorically, not as a tune to come to some state. Just hear it quite literally as you would probably hear what Google Maps says. Don't try to interpret it. Don't try to see what it means. Just see it as directly as possible. To see it is telling us, 'I shall explain to you the hollowness of the world, which is akin to a horn of a hare.' So how would it be akin to a horn of a hare? To not exist, to just be a notion, an idea. This is hard to attain in all the worlds. Listen with an alert mind. Hard to attain in the sense that it is rare even for those who keep hearing this; they do not seem to assimilate it. They seem to still give some reality to these notions.
So some very direct verses are coming. Hear this as directly as possible. 'Whatever trace of this world one hears or one sees of it, the form that is seen and the form of the seer are all like the horn of a hare.' So it is not making a distinction. Whatever one hears or sees that seems to be this world is akin to the horn of a hare. The idea of the seen and the seer, this distinction is also illusory, like the horn of a hare. Any of these verses is effective. 'Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, ego, and transcendental light are all like the horn of a hare.' Including the primordial vibration, including the sense 'I am,' including the light of consciousness itself. You see, it is equal to water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, ego, and transcendental light; they are all like the horn of a hare.
So what is left? Even my team, if nothing is a horn of a hare, because we can have this like 'nothing' idea. This one is okay to keep a battle with, because if you let a conclusion be valid, so if you say 'nothing' and 'everything' in that sense, that not even nothing and not even anything, then that's fine. All opposites. So this nothing is not the absence of something. It's not that what is left is just like an absence. Even the absence is absolute; it's still a conceptual formula. We still have an object of our intellect. So earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, ego, and transcendental light are all like the horn of a hare. Now, upon hearing this many times, we still have some idea of space or something like that, but the sage says space is also this. So you won't lose anything if you lose these notions. You won't lose anything if you lose these notions. You won't lose anything if you lose these distinctions.
Destruction, worlds, truths, the world and heavenly systems, merit, sin, victory, and delusion are all like the horn of a hare. Destruction, worlds, truths, the world and heavenly systems, merit, sin, victory, and delusion are all like the horn of a hare. Lust and greed, delusion, pride, illusion, infatuation, steadfastness, Guru, disciple, teaching, and such are all like the horn of a hare. I, you, the world, etc., the beginning, the end, the meeting, the past, the future, and the present are all like the horn of a hare. There is no distinction between I and you. There is no distinction between I, you, and the world. No distinction between beginning and end, past, future, present. No distinction between Guru, disciple, teaching. The gross body, subtle body, cause, effect, and what little of seen and unseen there is, are all like the horn of a hare.
Let these be explored within you, because when the mind comes with these offers of I and you, and yesterday and tomorrow, and beginning and end, and cause and effect, then you will see through them. Tell me something that you know, but only something that you think is not the horn of a hare. The same? It's good. This is what I want to look at. How is this more just the question being asked for some material? So knowing of the Self, is it the same as the knowing of the world, the knowing of all of these things? Is it the same? Cause and effect, time, Guru, disciple, is it the same way that we know the Self? Is it? Many know it that way also; they feel like they know it. That is the spiritual ego. They think that they know it or they have known it, but that is the spiritual ego. So that is why I've been so strong over the past few days, saying: how is this actually known, the Self versus all of these conceptual notions?
So to have a concept of the Self, or to have the concept of Atma or Absolute or Brahman, to just have the concept, would that mean that we know the Self? And the true knowing which you are speaking of, presumably, can that ever become unknown? So that knowing is always known. Whatever can be known in this way can never be truly representative of the Self. So this is like putting the thread in the needle, you see? It's a very subtle point because you might make an experience out of the Self, you might make a conclusion out of the Self, you might make any sort of notion of the Self, but this kind of knowing is not to know the Self. It can never be known in this way. And the true knowing, which it is, is always known, is always here, always apparent. So now tell me something that you know.
To enjoy the objects and the enjoyment, ideal and non-dual characteristics, tranquility, inquiry, happiness, are all like the horn of a hare. Ethical regulations, physical distance, death, control, and discourses on such things, movement, motion, thoughts, are all like the horn of a hare. Ears, eyes, body, lineage, secrecy, inertia, Hari, Shiva, beginning, and longing for emancipation are all like the horn of a hare.
The first verse then, you can believe everything you see, everything's finished. But if you like, in the play, I don't know what I'm saying. Its objection is that when we want emancipation, no, not the emancipation, it's the... and I really, it's not to be in isolation. It's a feeling of this where this presence comes and then you really feel that sense of separation which, when you say, 'Okay, make no distinctions' or whatever, but it feels like this. It feels like when you just said that to keep God, Guru, and Self as all the same, that if you feel like to not know anything is too much and it feels too fearful or something, then notice one thing, and then could be that all is God, Guru, and Self, the same thing always. Now that thought is also ultimately just a thought.
That's why I said that if it feels like it is too much to be so fully empty and I need to have at least one thing to hold on to, you feel like, 'I need one branch...'
Whatever, but it feels like this. It feels like when you just say to them to keep God, Guru, and Self as all the same, that if you'd like to not know anything, it is too much, yeah? And it feels too fearful or something. Then notice one thing, and then it could be that all is God, Guru, and Self—the same thing always. Now, that term is also ultimately just a term. That's why is it that if it feels like it is too much to be so fully empty and I need to have at least one thing to hold on to, you feel like 'I need one branch' or 'one term,' then one of these. But it is not to mean that actually it is that. It is not actually that that distinction is true or something like that, that there is any sort of inherent meaning or duality in anything. It's just not true when we are rid of even that notion.
So let's put it another way. Is the real real only because there is no notion of it being real? So if you discard the notion of it being real, will it cease to be real? But whatever the notion might be, and as well-crafted as the notion might be, can it really represent the real? Is it so? That is why, as real as any notion might seem, at best it is the provisional truth because it can never truly represent reality. The reality of the river and the real. We might feel that if I throw away the notion of the real, then the real will go away. Then what kind of real would that be if it is so dependent on having the notion of it? It is supposed to be the great unchanging, isn't it? So how can it be that the notion of having it is detrimental to its own reality? It can't be so. Having it or not having it.
So to see that even this, the greatest that you might say, 'All is Brahman,' is also just a notion, not to be representing reality. Because even in the word 'all,' there is duality. There is separation, the one and many. These notions are there. So it is not possible to capture this reality in that fashion. And it does not go when we are rid of everything that we think is right or true, because it is by definition that which does not come and go. So therefore, even the highest notions, which he says enumerated loosely, there is no distinction between them and the lower semi-notions. Not even making a hierarchy of notions, he's saying throw them all out. Throw them all out and don't be scared that this reality will go. It is not going to be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have confused the bathwater to be the baby. We have confused our notions to be the real. Notions of reality are not reality.
That is why I've been emphasizing so much about removing words, this notion alone, because we are not yet able to distinguish between the two and we often confuse them. That's why it's important to clarify what we mean when we say, 'All that I know is the Self' or 'All that I know is God or Guru.' What are we actually saying? That I have a concept of it? I had some past experience of it? I have some memory of it? Is that what we are saying, or is there something more immediate and prior to any representation? So can the notion of Atma and the notion of Shiva really represent Atma and Shiva? So how holding on to the idea of Shiva helps you? It only creates obstruction because it'll have some boundary around whatever representation we have, because that's what makes it a representation. Even the representation that it is boundless is the boundary. Our intellect may not understand what sort of thing even the representation that something is boundless is to give it too much quality, you see? It is too boundless to even have the notion 'boundless.'
So to say 'only Shiva' is not in service to Shiva, but at best is that like it can be a useful last notion to have, the last provisional to take the key. But even this one will have to be thrown away as you become so empty of all notions, even Advaita and Absolute. As I love so much this Ashtavakra saying that away from the duality of even 'I am Brahman,' because Brahman is not dependent on me thinking 'I am Brahman.' But me thinking 'I am Brahman' only makes a representation of it, which will always have some distinction. So in this way, you can understand the intent, so to speak, the provisional intent of the sage is to empty you from all notions of reality, but to introduce you to reality and get rid of this sort of seeming obstruction. It seems to be the source of suffering, individuality, limitation.
So if you have no notion about anything at all—what is up, what is down, what is construction, what is openness, what is life, what is death, what is yesterday, what is tomorrow—have no notion of freedom or bondage. Now, which notion are you willing or unwilling to give up on? You may think that that is your medicine, that in your personal one you can keep, but besides that one, which notion are you unwilling to give up on? There's good and bad. That's a potent poison, but I know it's deeply conditioned. You know, this duality is not in our infantile nature. In a childlike innocence, we do not have that distinction. So if you're exposing in this way, then see how much openness you can muster towards not living with that very, very almost the basis of all conditioning, which is this good and bad. Good, what else? 'I am a human being.' No bigger lie. And they keep saying that we feel like it is arrogant to say 'I am God,' but to say that 'I am limited' or 'I am a human being' or something, just an aspect or something with some boundaries, something with birth and death, that is more humble. But our conditioning has taught us the opposite. Our conditioning has taught us that if I say that I could be separate from God and become something which has birth and death, you see, then I'm being humble. But this is arrogance to say that I could stay separate. The prodigal son has based around this whole concept that actual separation really happened and we're either being accepted back to the oneness, accepted back into my Father's house, so to speak. So this separation has never happened.
But this notion that 'I am something,' whether that something is human being or body-mind or whatever, we see. So muster as much openness as you can about handing this over. Because as you continue to stay in satsang, this will not seem so real. It will be taken away from you, this idea that you are not true. It is just not true. And then okay, so let's not even get into class today or to whatever notion we mean. Are you willing to hand it over? Don't judge it, whether you have handed it over or not. You don't make a judgment about yourself, but at least is there a willingness to hand it over? Yes? Willing to hand over good and bad? You can't? Oh, you can. So if it was possible, you would be willing to hand it over. See what happens. So this is what we feel like. These are the notions that you can't give up on. These are not hand-off-the-head. Everything else is good, but as far as this point, then me and you, it seems to be really when you pull on the other, it comes, yeah?
So interpretation like that, interpretation, judgment level. So what you know, right and wrong. So what is right, what is wrong? Is it related to faults also? Related to good and bad? Yes. So willing to hand over.
So you think that let's see what we see. We see that the world is one of the hair. All that appears comes and goes is unreal, is one of the hair, except right and wrong. Or we think actually all of that is also not hand-off-the-head. Okay, so we think that all of these we have to stuff it. What comes and goes is not real. All of this, every appearance is all of this term, all of this is one of the hair, except the right and the wrong aspect of it. Because right and wrong cannot be unreal. Therefore, all of that also, human being, willing to hand over even if there is no replacement on offer. Which means what? Okay, I take the notion 'I am a human being' from you, but I'm not offering you a notion in response. That is the thing. If I was to give you another notion, then at least that is something. So I don't want to offer you any conceptual power. I don't want to say, 'Okay, you are not a human being, but you are the Self' or something like that, you see? Because that is just words.
So hand over this idea that 'I will be there.' It's okay to not know. It's okay to let this need to meet this struggle, meet this giddiness. There is more truth that can fit into your paradigm of being a human being, you see? There is no truth which can really fit into that paradigm, into that lens of human-beingness. And it's like the glass that you're trying to fill the ocean in. You cannot. So lose this glass and you'll see that the ocean is just there. But again, don't take this metaphor too seriously. Lose the glass, or at least be willing to lose it. Just be willing to lose it and don't judge yourself on whether you lost it or didn't lose it.
Yes. The premise is that in certain circumstances and background, I would behave exactly the same as a murderer. Exactly. So that separation, I want to hold it. So explain what is not the hand-off-the-head in this.
No, you ask me. It's like a big thing, like 'I will not behave like a murderer.' We don't really know our limits, and yet it is a scary thought to feel like 'I might be just like that.' You don't comply with it, but to step out of these opposites, right? Yeah, not or say no bad. These are either end. Is this notion? What is the notion? The idea that I have to do something, you know? It's the idea that I have to do something to realize this. It's very popular and persistent, you see? So willing to hand it over. This is a possibility. It could be hand-off-the-head. Yours is like this, like knowing God is in your hand. It just kind of came from somewhere. What notions represent just longing and then the sense of, you know, not even exactly that. It's that, you know, He's always there, but you're not like the same with that. You have to take it's like a friend, Father, you know, that kind of relationship, the classical Advaita without attributes, yeah?
And yeah, so this like, you know, I said where you see just be open. So then I just the other than maybe this whole thing is just nobody. Open does not mean that now you have the valid conclusion about it. No, to just be open to let this idea go away. I mean, I do not hold on to it as if it's the truth that I have no experience. It's very open. So if there's the idea that 'If I let go of the idea of my love for Krishna, then the love for Krishna goes away,' then actually that is not love for Krishna. This is an idea of love. And the same idea can go. You mean it's not the mind's love for Krishna. It was then that this love feels painful when the idea that He is separate from you, He is somewhere else or something, you know what I'm saying? Then that creates just this intense longing, this existence. I don't want anything else now. Enough.
So forget about it, separate in oneness. Are you willing to hand over all notions about it? Anything absorbed, absorbers? But you see that these notions will not help absorption or disappearance. Because if it were just that, if I kept saying 'I have to be absorbed, I have to be absorbed,' then absorption would happen? Or 'I have to be one with the water' and oneness would come? Then all the sages would be advising that. So then we don't feel like it exists at all, because it is a complaint with other byproducts. Then we feel like it's something more than a thought. But it exists at all? Are you open to that possibility? This could be circumstances like led to where I am now. Whatever they all are accompanied by this thought rounding. I got this. So it feels like it takes me somewhere. It takes me to the destination or something. Even if it was to lead to now, what you're being pointed to is something more immediate. Something which is not talking about leading you to the future. It is not showing you a path. It is showing you what is already here. So is there a little bit of willingness to see that even these ideas of cause and effect and path and leading could be one of the hand-off-the-head? Because otherwise what happens is if you look at all of these representations, what are we representing ourselves as? Back into the limitation, back into the idea of goodness. To let it go. These are deep-rooted conditions although.
I am pointing to something which is not talking about leading you to the future. It is not showing you a path; it is showing you what is already here. So, is there a little bit of willingness to see that even these ideas of cause and effect and path and leading could be a horn of a hare? Because otherwise, what happens is, if you look at all of these representations, what are we representing ourselves as? Back into the imitation, back into the idea of goodness. Let it go. These are declared conditions, although I might be saying it just not easily like this. I know that some of them could be just deeply ingrained conditions which you may study with for a bit, but at least we have to shine the light on it.
I say this with this: what you feel actually may feel that this is even helping you, actually, is just the voice of limitation. Just the idea of giving too much reality to this appearance or pretending as if we know something about any of this when we don't. In that way, it is just like using induction to conclude that this is how it is, like inducing based on so-called prior experience or something like that and saying that these things work in order without this. So the idea of a journey is a horn of a hare. It is history, essentially.
I can take it because who are you in that whole representation? Who are you willing to hand over? Yeah. Water, fire, air, space—what is not made up of you? All of this. These are the five elementals, the main elements. So everything is in India, a cylinder with both Pancha Tattva. So these are the elements; everything is made up of this. If these elements themselves are a horn of a hare, then how do they make the exception for money? Plastic money, your notes? So the bank account number idea—for what does it represent? The idea of money. What is this officer? It represents our security. Many cool additions, zip and walk with it.
That's why I was saying that as we hear these words, take them literally and not metaphorically. You take metaphors too literally and our literals too metaphorically. So earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, ego, and transcendental light. So then I, you, the world, etc., the beginning, the end, the middle, the past, the future, and the present are all like the horn of a hare. Lust, anger, greed, delusion, pride, illusion, infatuation, steadfastness, guru, disciple, teaching, and all like that—and such are all like a horn of a hare. Everything is good there is surviving. It's a big help to expose that. That's really something, that idea.
Cleanest all losers. I can standardize all my leads on infinity and that itself, itself, multi-personality songs trying to be healthier, eat healthier, breathe. Whoo, there you go. Eating healthy—I know it seems to be dominating into how we know that upon handing over the motion that so-seeming movement will not happen in our perception. And we don't know that having the notion is helping those things happen in our perception also. Because the notion of being healthy, but without this, feels more real than I feel. I mean, it's actually saying much.
So the notion that Krishna is real and the notion that Krishna is unreal—both you have to get all notions this way or that. You remember that everything that I'm saying, I'm asking for it and its opposite also, so you're left unburdened by all of this position either this way or that way. How do you know that it might be? You can't predict just because I have the notion Krishna's here, you see? How do you know what effect you have in one, that motion is having on the perception of Krishna? But you are calling that Krishna's your emotion—I mean, considering the notion. But now you're saying it may be a notion and you're myself fully.
Everything that can be held onto and given up on is a notion. But I take my words even as giving because you see the possibility of giving it up. That's why it's poking the our library without this. I really want to this what you said. I have to give up that it is always exactly my Ramacharitmanas, these things. So I'm still holding on and that's to hand it over.
What is your first notion? I have given your license for one man said give up your second one. This is that probably they built it feels like too much, yeah, and I need to have one notion at least.
Then I give you a license for one. I'm not going to tell you that it is ultimately true, but if it feels like it is too much to hand over everything, everything, everything, and I need one, then I recommend it: Guru Kripa Kevalam. But you don't have to pick up that one; you can pick up any one. Not like making distinctions with when I just don't make anything distinguishing with this man.
No, but that seems to be in some special pocket because on one hand that mean thing will make no distinction and then we are already distinguishing Krishna, yeah.
If you make no distinction, then that leaves no room for any other notions. Oh, if you want to pick there too and then all this distance time with that?
No, I just want to check with you and doing this make no distinctions correctly because my mind can make up some story about that to make no distinction. So whatever I mean with in front of the eyes, behind eye, wherever, whatever, all bye, yeah, yeah.
So whatever appears, there's just no judgment about it. And even if a judgment comes, even that's not made no distinction about that though. This is a judgment; it's just that's that's what even appearance, not appearance, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just even happening, not happening. Me, other—all of these distinctions on guru, disciple, God—what are you left or the value that there's no distinction business or so also the notion of handing over all the motion. Yes, yes, that's also motion also. I have no idea what it means to make no distinction if you like. I have to pick up the motion first to even drop it.
Yes, I am empty. When you are empty, nothing—there is no and certainly there is no point in needed. So all of these are just pointers, notions, provisional tongs that we're using to come to this openness to the unborn. You know, any of this does not mean anything. Mean itself doesn't mean it like it's not meaningless. Like meaning what in English at the horn of the hare is like meaningless because it's illusory, you know? It's just like a made-up idea. But the horn of a cow or something like that representative of there is not meaningless. Yes, not meaningful nor meaningless because meaning itself loses meaning.
We can look at this for a moment to consider to see. So we can have this idea that I am a good person, for example. It can seem to be meaningful. Then it can feel like, okay, but I'm not a person at all, so yeah, it's become so meaningless. Is it so? But when usually it is head of the world, it will become meaningless; a new meaning has been given to it that it is now meaningless, that it is nonsense or something like that. So, but to withdraw the term meaning itself, like withdraw the intellect from something where it just does not apply meaning or meaninglessness anyway. To say like it is just what it is, neither meaningful nor meaningless. So to withdraw our intellectual capacity to give it meaning or to give it the meaning that it is meaningless also, you see? Both are meaning, you know. Meaning it is, it has meaning, means something. It is meaningless means something. But for it to be neither of that meaning is what I'm saying.
So all of these games, all of these experiments, all of these inquiries that we are doing, they are pointing in the same direction. Whether you call it 'it's just a thought' or whether you expose it as 'this is just a horn of the hare, this is real' or something like that, which is looking at what motion means if you like. Are still truly representing reality? What notions are truly representing reality? And you may surprise yourselves as you look at these because you've been immersed in Advaita satsang for quite some time. So, but don't have any of that sort of baggage and say, 'I can't have this motion now. What will Ananta think of me now? What will everyone in the sangha think, that I am still carrying this idea after being in satsang for so long?' Nothing to do with that. Just if you feel like it is a true representation of reality, exposing sometimes our motion will become very smart, like the notions will become an so motionless now. Even to play this game, I have to pick up a notion, a motion.
So, exposing it. I am not making a hierarchy of motions. We are not reading it your motion thing, what you still have that, how long have you. It is not little or nothing like Ribhu is saying: lust, greed, hurry, Shiva, guru, disciple—all together. He is not saying this is special, this is not official business, this category, this is that people, the status they run out. Yeah, yeah.
Natural tendency then is to do good and be good. I mean, they don't have a notion or an intention but it's just a natural, you know, it the load in your keys.
What I can tell you that for your presence to be a light of good, so-called good in this world, you see, we don't need to have that idea that 'I must be doing this' because many, many, much of humanity, most we can say of humanity, has that motion. Please out is not really representative of that motion that they were carrying. In fact, in the Bible they say something similar: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everybody has the intention but they don't actually bring that into action. Any, I'm not saying that you see this speak in a different way other when we speak to this meaning and meaningless.
So if we say this is holiest, then any question about giving it meaning or not giving it meaning or any opinion about it is just all that it undone from, isn't it? So when I said he understands that as long as you also see that all of the hair, that all of this is a horn of a hare is also harmful, you see that not too much is given to that in the same thing that all of this picture and you think in this chapter is also a horn of a hare. So horn of the hare is also on. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Thank you.