To 'Associate' With Truth Would Mean There Are Two - 4th April 2018

Maybe just something inside tries always to make some last step. Let's say it's trying to still shackle here. Maybe this making the last step is the locking of the last door.

If there was... I like what you say, by the way, about the mechanics of the recognition. I also enjoy much the mechanics of the recognition. But to become what you are is not a mechanical process, so that has no accounts. So, that already is now out of the jaw of this plane, you see? Then, like, it is summarized what happened. There can be some wonder from joy in dividing these mechanics of this recognition, but not with the sense that I have to complete something like a recognition for the sake of just joy. Yes, not even joy. Maybe I could say for the sake of the truth itself, because even as it's already done sometimes. So, the wonder of the truth itself, even if the byproduct of the truth is not joy. I think these children have this also if they want to take up the car and slip. Sometimes they might even feel sad. I told my Tony a car hit those water in that duty, beating each other. So, from that perspective, it's fun, but not for them. From the perspective that I have to come to some final stand, because then again, that would be coming from this misidentification about what you were. So, I cannot make myself to associate with truth. Myself associate with truth? What associate me? As you see, you believe that there are two. Is there you and the truth? And now we are trying to link the both of them up, get them married? Both the bride and bridegroom? Do you something wrong?

That which perceives this movement is moving also. I don't like this question, maybe because it's never really properly worked, huh?

Maybe it always worked, but our idea of it working is something else. Can we explore a little bit? Maybe the answer is simpler than what we expected to. Yesterday, when I asked, 'What is the quality of that one which said all of this always?' That question, 'What is the quality of the body that looks at all of the qualities?'

Yesterday I was completely taken by the satsang and I cannot say when it happened. And I don't know now.

We can look fresh. So, everything that is perceived has some qualities, and so it is full of attributes and it is subject to time. That means not only does it have qualities, the properties also change with time as time goes around. Now, that which is looking at all of those, what is the quality of that one?

Some frustration is here because you have some history with this question. Many, because Guruji has just asked so many times. It's just his main question. And these are better... something just tries to get mechanical. There's too much condition about this.

Don't worry so much anymore. Many, many persons you ask, maybe one last. So, look at this one where we just say that which looks at all that is changing, all that is full of qualities. Can you find... okay, let's make it simpler. Can we find any quality of that one? Is there any of these qualities? Because somewhere, sometime, I feel like, okay, too much effort. Are there any of these qualities of that one which are just apparent? One doesn't have to take any effort. It's just like really doing something. Because I know if I start doing something, completely...

So, because this is where these two other qualities... between quality says golden, says greenish, yellowish. That which is looking at them, does it have any obvious quality? Adamantine? Color?

It's like there was no effort to see this greenish, yellowish, some silver. In the same way with that which looks at all of this, is something very apparent. We just normal me. There's a normal me, that's why I'm sitting here. Normal me is looking.

Any quality of this one which is apparent, like other shapes?

Yes, yes, yes. Which one? Scientist children? Maybe the feeling of heaviness is there.

Yes. Tell me when you want to stop another line of contemplation if you like. Feeling of the witness is there. That is also personal. I already forgot the question. I'm saying that this feeling of heaviness, that is also perceived. The polarity of heaviness was also perceived. That which perceives this quality of heaviness, can we say that that is also heavy? Like here, I can say that that one is here because you are asking, but is that just envelopes? Like it must be kind of there for that kind of... that's why this question, if this thing is completely different from the one.

So, let's come back to: Are you aware now? Is this something you're inferring? Aware means I'm here in the end. I don't... if this is a very... I know it, or I know itself is more than enough. Because when you are saying 'I know' now, you're not saying that I have a concept of it and you are not saying that I have a perception of it, isn't it? Silly with me. When we say 'I know,' we're not talking of any sort of conceptual or intellectual. So, it's a deeper... it is not... it is a movingness. So, the 'I' and the 'knower,' are they two different? You see, the 'I' and the 'know' that we're looking at—'Know' with the capital K—are they different? Is there an 'I' there separately from the 'know,' from the knowingness?

It's kind of floating, say. But the knowing is floating around. The 'I' is... the 'I' is that which is aware that it is floating around. It's floating around because you are aware it is floating around. Are you the one floating around? Are you the one looking at the floating? Primarily the perception of floating around this experience we're here feels like very much which way the floating seems aware of this.

Okay, you say something nice. You say it is here, but I cannot give you the right answer because we learn in satsang so often that the right answer is 'I am this one.' So then don't give that answer. I want to ask you another question then, which is: Who is aware that it is here? The owner of this perception state? They continue. All the perceptions come to you and this huge self-aware of... funny thing, I feel some resistance. It tries to work it out, but it just becomes blank.

Remember, so I give you an option, multiple choice. Is Chaitanya sitting next to you aware of this and he is telling you? So, is it secondhand information or is it correct? Okay, correct. Definitely I know what is going on with you, you know. Yes, this one that knows, is it separate from the knowingness itself? That which is aware of all things we won't hear, like you say, is it separate from that awareness itself? There is no such a superfluous to resistive and anyway open to the happening. You are aware of them. This 'you' is that itself also movement, that one that is aware. So, this other hand is the... what is the rest? I mean, you sit down kind of no doubts, but we do so without doubt, without answer, motionless, without the question, without the answer. Your existence is to you and you are aware of this existence. What kind of self would it be if it needed an answer to complete itself? That's a really good question. So, I'll take that in. Before that, said, 'I love you so much.' After the same idea. Thank you.

Then puppetry says, 'The sense of being aware seems also to be fading over time. Is this okay?' So, but you are aware of the fading. You cannot become unaware no matter what you do, because then you will not be able to report this anyway, you see? So, maybe what you're talking about is the sense of perception while giving your attention to particular things, something like that, which seems very similar to awareness. But you are aware of the intensity of it or the feeling of it. That which is aware, is that feeling of you? Okay, let's do an experiment. Don't be aware. Don't be aware. Who managed it? There is no escaping this awareness because even if you were to say, 'I'm not aware,' what you're actually then saying is, 'I am aware that I am not aware.' Yeah, this aware cannot go, no, because it is you. So, if something is fading, that which is aware of the fading itself is not fading. It does not have any state like intensive fading. So, maybe the sense from the question is more of for being more attentive. Those we are talking about the functioning of attention, not that which is aware of attention.

I see the divine tries to make a play, even truthful tribute this one and to become it. Yes. So, what did the image it is been take for you? Like black empty space is different from what you see very much. Maybe many, many, even when the mind tries to come in to our aid and say, 'Okay, he keeps talking about awareness, so let me present one awareness.' So, maybe get close to the visual of awareness, this empty dark space, because that's what it sounds like, no? Do you think then the question is: What is even aware of that? Is there an empty dark space aware of the empty dark space? Some consider big white light or something like this. That's also just a painting. She says, 'Can it be like this?' And there is no speed second of recognition and then quickly turn that the mind has to give some alternative thinking exists. It is fine, you see, because whatever visuals the mind might be presenting to you...

Do you think then the question is: what is even aware of that? Is there an empty dark space aware of the empty dark space? Some conceive a big white light or something like this; that's also just a painting. Whatever visuals the mind might be presenting to you, you are aware of them. Sometimes I actually fall for it because the mind can try to represent this very closely. What is the close representation for you? Like an imagined spaciousness? Yeah, it's very good. So you see that the mind will paint a limited one or something like that. The mind is busy painting these visuals. That is what I am a notice of; that is what is ahead. This is what you see. That which is aware is even back from that.

Sometimes even the great phrase 'I am' can lead to some confusion. It is better to say, 'I have this.' I will say, 'I am.' What is better to say? The starting point of the 'I' is where? Isn't there, you know, I'm using space—like there was no spatial correlation as such. See, the 'I' represents what? The observation point. Everything reports to it. Everything reports to where? Is there a very fairness about it? And the most amazing thing, most amazing in this, you disappear. I guess I disappear. The first person was here, then it disappeared. Perception disappearance. The notion disappears. The perception disappeared. Can you disappear? The notion can disappear. The perception will disappear. Can you disappear? Did you appear in the first place?

Then I will recognize this. See, we recognize the 'this' followed because we see the quality of it. But how do we recognize yourself?

Good point. If this looked at you like an orange, would you call it an apple or an orange? Now, this about you: can you see? You see, this is the most beautiful thing. This is your only non-phenomenal recognition. I ask you, if there's an apple on the table, you look for the qualities of the apple. You say, 'Yes, apple.' I don't know what will be stunned whether you perceive the qualities or not. But when you be talking about yourselves, what are you saying? What did you find to confirm that 'I recognized myself'? What color was your Self, or shape? It's just presence. Presently, I can't... presence. The presence is also ultimately perceived. This was the sense of presence-ness. Yes, beingness is also perceived. That which perceives it as a presence, so although its dynamic movement seems to leave this presence-ish sort of feeling, it's cool, stilled. Can we even say a presence is even presence-ness? As a quality, it is not there. I wonder who will hear these effects. Even presence-ness as a quality is not there.

Most amazing thing: I will conjure up the rainbow in this room, and that is nothing compared to this recognition, which is empty of quality and yet it is recognized. It is going to live inside, inner inside. No one will come and see what? Nothing. That's why we say, to counter the mind, you can confirm 'I am aware' without seeing anything, without perceiving anything. It is the strangest thing. If I say, 'Is there an orange on this table?' you perceive that there is no orange. You know, how will you say yes? You see, let me say, 'Are you aware now?' Did you perceive this awareness? Yet you say yes. Oh, you laugh like telling the truth, and you do not yet—you do not perceive it. The most of me which is covering... there is nothing else like it. Closest you can come to in some ways is that when you report on attention, attention also is empty of quality. Seemingly empty of birth and death, shape, size, and yet even attention you run out of. It is limited. And you, that which is aware of you in this attention, there is no concept of running out.

Now, this wasn't everybody says, 'Yes, I am aware.' No, please, like the mind will compensate, but you only say yes because you are aware of something. That's why you say. How so? Then would that mean that I'm using 'sitting' because a chair is there? But independent of the chair, you know what sitting is. You see, if you like saying, 'I am only saying walking because the street is there.' You know what walking is. Yeah. So you learned how to walk, you learned how to sit, but who taught you to be aware? Huh? Is somebody teaching babies to be aware? It is just natural. It's just this. This is your own changing. It is not the 'of' that is making the events. That awareness, which is the source of all the 'ofs.' Attention on that which is aware is so hard to sustain. We last a few seconds anyhow. And who is to keep the attention within? You don't have to do that. Let your attention go free. Then automatically, as you're coming to satsang, then the words that whatever has to be guided on its own.

That's really when I ask you, 'Are you aware now?' Take the question within in the innocence of a child. Don't try to do anything with your attention. This is feet naturally, yes. One, then the Master will guide you further if there is a need like that. It is just naturally there. The movement of attention cannot be so much there. It leaves you as... I think my arm became so adventurous it decided to leave the rest of my body. Your attention is always coming back, putting content back to you. So try this instead. Let looping these things like this. If you feel like attention is too difficult to contain, you send attention out. Okay, sir? Send it out. This literally, let's see if it's possible. This: have no attention. Throw your attention out of rustles. 'I have no attention for yourself.' You do get rid of your attention. Don't want it anymore. It's fought enough. It's gone to all kinds of objects, and maybe to leave out those objects. So now we don't want it. So, attention out. We do it. Then you say it in haughty me. And what were you like to do? Keep your attention? It already is.

Who tried the experiment? You try it on. You try to throw it in. Genova left you completely? It can't leave you. And you would have to keep your attention on yourself. When we're trying something, we're only trying to keep the attention on themselves. Actually, it cannot get out of your way because what tool you have to get it out of the way? You spoke about it being very cheap. Okay, so they started there. You want to get it out of the way. What will you use? What shall you have? Nothing. So how are you trying to get it out of the way? This is time to push it out of the scope of your attention, which is trying to keep your attention away from it. What does it mean by getting it out of the way? 'I'm not being stuck in something.' So I'm saying don't do any of that. Don't bother with any of that. Let everything in come and go. Even your attention can move wherever it wants. It can never leave you.

Then as you come into satsang or you are doing the inquiry for yourself, as you ask the question 'Who am I?', you don't have to control your attention after asking the question. Automatically, you don't even have to check from this. Automatically works on its own for granted through it. Let hand-wringing... there's an anticipation of the answer. Who is aware of this anticipation? Is that 'I' which is aware anticipating? What is the anticipation? It's an appearance of hearing and disappear. Remain when domine at the phone in my pocket, looking at my trousers and everywhere else in the house. Yeah. So trying to look for the Self in the objective realm is like that. We will only find objects in the objective realm, isn't it? Then are you an object? There is much everyone intuitively knows that 'I am not.' And also, how we will find it in the world of objects? And yet that is the habit because we used to seeking in that way for everything. We have got used to looking for things in this objective world.

If you like, give them the Self. I define here as a feeling perception, as an object that sunlight has some space. And some of these are pointers, like when we say space and we say the inner light of consciousness. But this light is not this light. This space is not this space. It is that we move certain qualities to when you away from this motion of a limited existence. And then mean again, even those qualities you notice that if you look at all the scriptures given without the specialty, this is what they do. You say you are like that space which is completely untouched. But what? Even this space you are. Do you say, 'What is the point of this?' No, you can say like that, but it has a point because we go away from your sense of being this graphs of jail see into more spacious everything and then tries to push you even beyond that placing. But not even that space. Shiva, let's say, go like that, right? It's no use. But even this light happens in the light of your own existence. So it takes you out of the sense of, 'Oh, I am just an object with birth and death.' Be something with your standards given that light. No matter how present or how eternal that light is, it's really asked whether one of those are clear that we will not find the Self as an object in this world of perception. Care about them.

So now where else can you do? So there is a looking happening. Okay, is it looking happening and all it is finding is perception, perception, perceptions? It looked everywhere and Self is not here. Now what about looking at the looking itself? You keep an object. What to do with the world of perceptions? Guru kripa kevalam. Guru kripa kevalam means it's my best advice. What to do with the world of perceptions? Leave it to the Master's grace. The word 'kevalam' implies this only. It doesn't exclude anything from its core. Only, only the Master's grace is. So it doesn't leave any scope for anything else. Not me, oh my desire, and my Master's grace is my plan and how to work. Master's grace had to work on my plan is good half-surrender. He is, 'I settled everything to you, it's on your grace, just make sure it goes that way.' Keeping our plan. I am trying to invoke the Master. Please, Master. This means only Master's grace is. No perception left to the divine of divine grace.

He said that I find that only when some relaxation is there, then this kind of recognition is turning inwards can happen simply. Otherwise, it just seems too difficult.

I know this. I know this report for many years, and he has reported this. And it is because we're used to... we got used to getting things in the world in this way. We want to achieve something, you have to give it your best shot, like rah-rah-rah. Just, you know, this thing. Actually, for me, it is the best if you're generous very naturally, just sitting here and allowing these words to work on their own. That is the best because the words themselves have a certain power and are seeming post-intervention.

She says it comes from the habit of trying to escape suffering. We try to climb at this, but actually, it is just amplifying the suffering itself, giving me this sort of personal drive which is contrary to what the words are wanting to you.

My loves, I've read all the comments. I don't really have the energy to read them aloud. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Guru kripa kevalam.