Unseen but Undeniable - 3rd January 2019

But if Consciousness is choosing to suffer, how you will push yourself? That is it. There is the distinction we're making there. It is Consciousness and me, God and me. And that relationship then can become like this: 'Why are you doing this to me? Poor little me, I have no choice in the matter.' It's just like that. This invented me obviously cannot have a choice in the matter because it's invented. The dog that is not sitting over there, how many push-ups can it do?

See, the beautiful thing about openness is that the truth of who you are is also apparent to you. Bhagavan said very beautifully—I saw a quote, maybe Aaya posted or somebody posted—he said the point of self-inquiry is to see that the Self cannot be seen. Fantastic, you see? You see that as the mind, it's a very silly endeavor then. Like, the point of self-inquiry is to find or to see that the Self cannot be seen? If I'm not going to see the Self, then what's the point of self-inquiry? It seems like it's saying it's pointless to do self-inquiry because you can never see the Self. That is the mind's interpretation of this. But he said it is the very point that it cannot be seen, and yet it cannot be... I'm paraphrasing on top just to... and yet can you deny it?

So in your openness, in your emptiness—which is emptiness of mind, emptiness of intellect, empty of positions—you find this unseen, and it is so apparent. And you also see that it cannot be lost. So what don't you see right now? Let's look at that. What don't you see? Is that about what don't you see about what you spoke?

No, just generally what don't you see. Go for it, don't worry, it's not right or wrong or difficult. I don't see any individual separate or like an entity.

Okay, so you don't see that. And what else don't you see?

I don't have the expression experience of everything is one. You don't see how this expression is true that everything is one. So you see duality?

Yeah, still see. I see that everything is separated.

How do you see it as separate? If you look around?

Because there is a label to everything and forms are different.

So this label, is it inherent in the seeing itself? Like, it's not... label is not inherent in seeing, but different forms and color. Form and color is not labeled? Is that not a label? You're labeling something as form or not form, space and object. These are also labels. In your innocency, if you call it pure perception or innocency, what distinction is there? What about that which sees? You see that that which sees, is that itself seen?

So this is now we are in a strange point, you see? What? That we consider ourselves to be the ego, that also we don't see, you see? And this which sees everything, that also we don't see, you see? So what is more true? Can we deny the one that sees? If you say that there is no seeing, would that seem true? Or there is no awareness, would that be true? Or would it be truer to conclude that I must be a person although I don't see it? What is true? There is awareness or there is person?

There is awareness.

So this is your seeing. I can only say there is seeing. And who is the owner of that?

I.

Yes, yes. But can you say that you are not seeing? There is seeing. I don't know whether it's... or what...

How do you conclude that there is seeing? It's your direct experience. Nobody told you. Right now you're directly... so it's yours. See, this 'you' is who you do not know, but it is yours. You cannot deny 'I know it.' That's what... yes, yes. So you know it, so that you cannot deny. This 'you' is which one? We cannot yet conclude. Let's say you see everyone together in this so far.

So this, that even the conclusion that there is seeing or there is perception is something that you're directly reporting. It is not third party. Nobody is telling you, or it is not just a thought, you see? And also you don't see it, you see? In the sense that the one that is seeing, the one that is aware of perception, that you cannot see. Tell me if I lost you somewhere. No? So this unseen but undeniable Self, you see? Unseen means no quality, no attribute, and yet undeniable because you are saying that 'I am seeing.' It is 'I' which is seeing, see? And when you're open, it is completely clear that this is how it is. Not conclusively like an intellectual conclusion, but to you it is apparent.

This is all that I want you to check. The only seeming struggle is to become open. So if you want to do it like Papaji used to sometimes say: 'Don't think for one moment,' you see? For one fraction of a second. Or you can say: 'Don't bother with thoughts, let them come and go.' The only seeming block—or block you think it is—is notion, is thoughts. You cannot own this with your mind. You cannot own it for the non-existent 'me.' To own it with the mind means what? Because the mind is just like a lawyer for the non-existent ego. Then it would be to ascribe selfhood to that which does not exist. Is it to say that the non-existent one is the Self? It is not possible.

So that's why the Master said the one who came to Satsang or felt like the one who's being brought to Satsang will be dissolved in Satsang, will not leave Satsang. And we take the cat example, many examples like that. So as long as it's still playing that way, that 'What's in this for me?' you see? 'What's in it for me in Satsang?' Nothing. And I keep saying nothing, but the mind will make a mash of even that and keep saying, 'He's saying nothing, but actually I have hope, you see? There's something here for me.' But it's not that. It is not for this 'me.' It is freedom from this 'me.' Birthday boy, birthday boy, freedom from this 'me.'

So if you had to sign a contract when you came into the Satsang door today, which is that 'I hereby hand over all that I think I will get for me, hand over all that I think I will get for me with no expectation of even freedom,' how many of you would sign it? The one who's asking 'Who?' the 'me' is... that even when signing this contract is something you'll get as a result of that. Good to see at least that trick.

And because this idea is so persistent, it can seem like it needs to be hammered out of us. Life is hammering it out of us and your own divine presence is hammering it out of you. So these constant reminders, these constant provocations, this constant invitation is so that this stubborn identity can be let go of. But if it becomes clear to you that naturally in this very instant as you are open there is no identity, then you will realize what the Master said: that there is no distinction between openness, freedom, and truth.

So we have to move away from thinking about what is happening to me to just tasting this openness without needing to make any progress report. It's not like 'I tasted the openness, actually it is very nice, it's happened to me five times before,' you see? It's not about that. It's not about getting into that frame of reference at all. Just to remain empty. Like when Guruji says 'Take a dip in the river and don't come out,' this is what it means. If there's a sense that 'I have to do it and I did it,' this 'I' can dissolve in that. But if it comes out with it—'Oh, that was good and this is what I must always do every morning at 5:00 a.m.' or something, you see—then it is coming back out. Take a dip in yourselves. Full stop. How to take the dip in yourself? Just remain open, motionless, unborn.

As much as we resist this, it all boils down to the same thing. I can explain to you this way, this way, this way, this way, any which way, it all boils down to the same thing. Once you take a dip in this, let go of all that is just conceptual. For all that I'm asking you for, you surrender all that, all those notions that you think are not just a thought. Every notion that you think is more than just a thought, throw it away.

I remained open, felt lighter, light flowing, no confusion of choices. Went this way till almost night. All of a sudden I yielded to some fears related to physical identity and self-image and the spell started. I remained calm till it had to settle. Got up in the morning wondering how I gave way to that spell. Now back to homework mode.

Yes, what's gone is gone. Everything comes and goes like a dream. Good.

When open to suffering, is suffering still possible?

It depends on how we define suffering. In my definition or how we use it in Satsang here is that suffering equals resistance. Suffering is this, openness is this. So we are open to everything coming and going, but when we grasp at it or pull at it or push at it, that state itself is what we call suffering, you see? If you're calling some arising like some pain or some grief or some joy or whatever arising, you see, if you're labeling that as suffering, then okay, then yes, of course suffering can arise while we are open. But if we're calling suffering that closeness itself, that push and pull itself, then you see, then it's like saying 'Can the hand be closed and hand open?' which itself is a beautiful thing to contemplate. Speaking phenomenally, traditionally it is the opposite in terms. So it depends on how we define suffering. If suffering itself, the term itself, meant 'closed,' then the question would change to: 'Can I be open and closed at the same time?'

Throw away what is more than a thought? I don't understand yet.

So what I mean is that if we consider... we've been playing this game called 'It's just a thought' where we look at these thoughts that are passing by. And when we feel like 'No, this is truly representative of Truth, truly representative of what is,' you see, then we expose that and then we see that it's just a thought, you see? So when we give meaning to a thought, when we believe a thought, what happens is that we take it to be a valid representation. So when we consider a notion to be representative of Truth, then we buy into that notion, then we buy into a limitation, an idea of the limited self.

So to see that this notion is nothing but a thought, it's just an energy construct, it is not representing Truth because no words, no concept can truly represent it. So we discard it from any truth value. We discard any truth value from it. That means to throw it away. This is the same as to remain in the Unborn, to not give birth to the idea of 'me' which is born and dies. This openness, this emptiness is beyond the tactics employed, you see? Behind tactics and ploys is the notion of 'me.'

So we might... the mind itself might construct a tactic and say, 'Okay, the mind will not go if I resist it because that which I resist persists. So what I will do smartly is I realize that the mind is the tormentor, but because it won't go with my resistance, I will love it to death,' you see? Very popular self-help tactic, but it doesn't work. Why? Because your core intent is the death of the mind and your ploy is to love it, you see? So it's like hugging someone so that they could die. It's like, 'Can I hug you enough so that you can just go away?'

So this duality, this discrepancy is already ingrained in us and we cannot fool ourselves to Truth. So to see that all my attempts to get 'me' to Truth don't succeed because the Truth is that there is no such 'me.' And where is this Truth available that there is no such 'me'? Right here and now. With no need to construct the paths, no need to have any tactics. Right now the Truth is complete. If you have a move left, then Satsang continues. Right now the Truth is complete. If you have a move like 'But...' or 'I know better, this is what works for me,' then if you're still inventing this lie of 'me,' then Satsang can continue. Empty of these notions, right here and now in this Unborn, is the Absolute, is Shiva. But the minute you grasp at it, the minute you try to own it, you see, it becomes the mirage that you can keep chasing.