What Does Knowing Mean Actually? - 23rd August 2016

Very good, very good. So can we say that usually when it is said 'I don't know anything' or 'I know something,' we are talking about the description of something or the image of something from memory or from imagination?

Sorry, that was too long to remember.

Yes, yes. So I'm saying that when we say usually that 'I know something,' aren't we talking about the concept of something, which is the description of something, or a visual mental representation of something? Isn't that usually how we denote knowing?

Yes, when you are, you know, in life going on, talking to people or... yes, you're just saying, 'Yes, I know he is coming then' or whatever, or something like that. Yeah, yeah. Well, the schedule is like this, or something like that.

Yes, very good. So does everyone agree that this is how the word 'knowing' is usually used? To get a concept of something or to get a visual of something is usually how the word 'knowing' is used, you see. Then when we say 'I don't know,' it means that I don't have a clear concept of what I want to communicate, or I don't have a clear visual either of what is going on. You see, it is like a blank, isn't it? Isn't it good knowing which fluctuates between having a concept of something and not having a concept of something, or not having a clear concept of something?

You broke up. I didn't understand your voice.

Yes, I said: Is this mental knowing, which is having the description of something or having a visual of something, is that the only knowing?

So you say to be fresh here. So what is here... I... there are no thoughts here, and this is what I see. And there are no thoughts, and you could say this is what I know, or so this is what I see, what I, yeah, see.

So the non-existence of certain phenomena like thoughts is also known. When we say 'I don't know,' what we are really saying is 'I know that I don't have a good concept right now.' Yes? Okay, I can repeat this for everyone. Usually in the world, when we say 'I don't know,' what we are saying is 'I know that I don't have a concept or description right now,' isn't it? So there is a Knowing of it which is prior to this kind of mental knowing, isn't it?

Yes.

You see, now what does this Knowing—let's call it the Knowing with the capital K—what is this dependent on?

There's no dependence. There's no reason at all. You mean me? At all? No dependence, no, no.

Very good, yes. But even so, he says a very good question, which is that isn't this Knowing dependent on the sense of being? You see, and when we check, we see that there is the appearance of the waking state, 'I am' also, you see. So don't worry, some of you are getting confused by this. So isn't there a Knowing of even this I am-ness, that I exist, which is independent of any sort of mental knowing? Independent even of the presence or absence of being to report it is true or not? Of course, you will need that, you see. The reporting, of course, is dependent on that. But the Knowing, which means that I know I woke up at 7:00 but I just wanted to lie down in the bed and keep my eyes closed, you see. So what changed at 7:00 a.m.? This sense of existence came, isn't it? This Knowingness must have been there to see that changing of nothingness to somethingness. So Nithya says that it is completely independent. Now how many of you agree or disagree?

I agree on direct seeing. Agree. Very good, yes.

So again we go slowly. So what have we covered so far? We started with this point where Nithya said 'I don't know,' and I said that is a beautiful place to start the inquiry. So what is it usually when we mean by saying 'I know something'? What is it that we mean? Let's go again. What is it that we mean? Mentally means, yes, visual images or descriptions, isn't it? Thoughts. So this is one kind of knowing. Now then we said, is this the only knowing? Isn't it also known that right now I don't have a thought, I don't have a clear thought about something? You see, now this Knowing is which one? What knows that right now a clear thought is not available or I'm not getting a clear... what is this Knowing? And I said for a while we'll call this the Knowing with the capital K.

See, mine disappeared.

Very good. So he says it raises a question that mind disappeared and now it's making a comeback. Yes, it's not being here. Cannot look at you. Will let him... what do you mean by knowing? I said I'll ask only questions today.

Take given mind. He enjoys seeing me do the inquiry. When I try, you do some magic and it just disappears, everything. Okay, so you said that there is only two kind of knowing: one is a mental description of something and one is the awareness, the primal Knowing. Yes, I say that there is one something which is an experience of something. Yeah, so suppose I am having some experience like I am tasting a mango, yes, or I am testing a pain in the body. So I am having any kind of experience. For this experience, yes, it is neither a mental knowing and nor a primal Knowing.

Yes, so what is this? This experience is known by, what is experienced by, consciousness, you see. It is tasting the mango, you see. Now that this phenomenal perceiving is going on, would you say that there is no difference between the tasting and the Knowing of the tasting? Qualitatively, fundamentally, of course there is no difference. Yes, it's the Knowing which enables the tasting to happen, exactly. But of course it is a knowing... the experience of something is a knowing which is neither a mental and nor a primal Knowing. Yes, we can say like that. The experience of it also we can put in the category of small 'k.' But fundamentally, the Knowing of this phenomenal tasting remains unchanged, isn't it? And that is where all of this reporting is, all of this tasting is also known. If this Knowing was not there, then would there be any awareness of the phenomenal experience, be it sight or tasting or feeling? So when we say the description of something or the visual replica or something, you see, because whether the replica is happening here or the replica is happening seemingly here, it's all just replica of being experienced, isn't it? Okay, we'll come to your question in a bit because it's a long one. How, where are we with Nithya?

Father, actually, everything can be really, like you said, very short. Because when I, you know, I'm just here and of course I'm aware that I'm here. And with this, it's just everything stops. There's no... it's just, yeah, that's it. I mean, what to say? Nothing anymore. No, I'm trying to find something that's actually totally impossible.

So yes, let's even look at this. What does it mean when we say 'I am trying to find something'? Can you break it down further? What does it mean?

It's just empty here. Um, what is empty? Is the appearance empty or what is empty? Of course I can see, you know, I can see everything here. But what I see is empty.

And empty of what?

Of personal things, I would say. Maybe of personal relationship to it also.

Yes, yes. Also starts to become empty of description, isn't it? Yeah, of this mental meaning that we have been giving it. Appearance just remains just a simple appearance and it becomes empty of description and, as you said very beautifully actually, of a sense of personal relationship with what is appearing. You see, it is just appearing. Very good.

So what now comes into my mind is when this triggers, triggers coming. Yeah, like with this doership or something like this. When something personal comes into it and that it gets... it just gets personal in the way. And sometimes very subtle, only very subtle, you know, person, or you just sense it that there's something, some 'me' in it also.

Yes. So also you can describe this to everyone, you see. You can describe this to everyone: How can something which is appearing, how does it start seeming personal?

So it's just not actually... I have to interpret something. I have to, when something occurs like maybe a feeling or so, I have to believe something about it. Yes, I have to go relate to it. I have to relate to that what is appearing.

Yes, make it something somehow my own. I have to make it, yes. But can it be that the appearance is just the appearance, but a thought comes, and without belief in that thought, does something really change about the appearance?

No, nothing at all.

You see, so something becoming personal therefore is just a pretense, isn't it? What I mean by pretense is that nothing really changed even at the level of appearance. Now the appearance, there is always like... it's just an appearance. It is always just...

Yes, some the relationship from thought, belief, and appearance, that has to come together from home.

Yes, and even in the coming together of it, nothing has really changed except that now there is a presumption or condition that something is mine or not mine, or I want something or I don't want something, I like something or I don't like something. You see, all these presumptions come into play.

I just forgot the meaning of the word 'presumption.' Sorry. Pretending. Yeah, it's actually very easy, you know? You just certainly not have to... you just don't relate to anything. No, don't believe anything. It's just always, always this. Not always.

Okay, so let me now play the devil's advocate, literally. Yeah. So when you say, so you say, 'Okay, then I just don't relate to anything.' But isn't that such a lifeless, boring, insipid existence?

No, not at all. It's very light, very beautiful, very alive. Really alive, actually. Really alive.

Won't joy stop if I stop relating to things?

No, no, no, not at all.

What is the problem I will get if I stop this personal relating?

You broke up again. Your voice broke.

Yes, I said you have to warn me because you are giving me good advice now. You have to warn me now: What is the trouble I can expect if I stop relating to this world of appearances personally?

No trouble, not at all.

What trouble? I mean, it's just beautiful.

Okay, so no trouble. You say no trouble if I don't relate to anything personally. Yeah, then why do it in the first place?

It was just a habit, really. Actually, it's really just somehow the energy plays like this. Some energy pull goes to it because it's just this, yeah, was just learned for such a long time to do that and to believe. And it's... if you don't know who you are, who this is, if you don't know that you are this, you cannot do it otherwise. It's just, it's just like, yeah, it's just like happening like this.

It sounds very simple to me. Yeah, it sounds very simple to me that, yes, appearances are coming, the interpreter is coming up with interpretations or meanings about them. All I'm meant to do is let go of these meanings and interpretations and allow life to just be. Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

If you don't know who you are, if you don't know that you are this, you cannot do it. Otherwise, it's just happening like this. It sounds very simple to me. Yes, appearances are coming, the interpreter is coming up with interpretations or meanings about them. All I'm meant to do is let go of these meanings and interpretations and allow life to just be. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, but you just cannot do it in that sense. How to say that? I mean, when you are here, it's just very natural. It's just how it is. I mean, that is the natural state, actually.

Yes, but what do you mean when you're here? What does it mean when you are here?

Then you are here. Yes, when you're just not relating to anything. I mean, not being, you know, just here in this present as this presence. And when you're just empty. To be here is just being empty and not relating personally to anything that is appearing, what is coming up inside, outside, or whatever this is. I mean, just being here. And when you are here, it's actually very... it is not actually possible to... I don't know how to believe, actually, now at the moment. You really have to think. Really, I don't know even how to think right now. But so, therefore, thoughts have to come, yes, and you have to go to... you have to believe them. But when you are here, it's just... you have to... I forgot where we were, actually. I totally forgot.

And you said with one hundred percent certainty, the only way to come to suffering or trouble is first the appearance of this interpreter thought, you see? And then even after the appearance, there needs to be a belief or identification with it, isn't it?

Yes, Father. I have the feeling I don't even can follow what we are talking here because, you know, it's just so empty.

So you know that you don't know.

I know, but then I don't know.

Yeah, yeah. It's very beautiful. Now, if I were to be a bit radical and say that the small-k knowing, you see, we cannot really testify to it being true. At best, as Maharaj said, you can say the only truth that I can say is that 'I am'. But ultimately, even this is not the truth. Therefore, in that one simple statement, he discarded everything that is known in this mental sort of way, isn't it? Because that was the truth which is... the truth must remain truth by definition. At least the definition that we use here is not something which is coming and going, you see. So within the waking state, the only seeming truth seems to be that I exist, I am. But because we have experienced other states, it is seen that ultimately this knowingness, this awareness, is not even subject to this presence. It is not subject to implies that it is the only subject, but it is not dependent on anything, including this 'I am'. Use the words, you can say the only truth is that 'I am', no attributes. And the job of this mental knowing seems to be to present interpretations, attributes, and conditions for this pure presence 'I am'. Is it?

I don't... how it is here right now is more that 'I am' and also 'I am not' is more true. Both, yes.

What do you mean by 'I am not'?

Yeah, what do I mean? It is really both. 'I am' is the first appearance, really, yes. And 'I am not' is even more what I am.

So this 'I am not' means that rather than saying 'I am not', because in saying 'I am not', this, isn't it? You're not canceling the 'I'. I know it can sound a bit technical, but what you are saying is that 'I' is more than even 'I am'. Yes, right. Right, yeah. Yes, right. You see, so this 'I', which is the 'I' that remains as Bhagwan said, is it possible to lose this 'I'?

No.

If it is not possible to lose this 'I', and is it okay if we call this 'I' the Self, then what is the spiritual journey about? The journey for the Self?

I don't know. I have no idea. I have truly no idea. It is just... how to say, Father, how to answer a question like this? Whenever you're just here empty, you know, and when this is the only truth, so to say, how can you answer a question like this? I have no idea. I mean, really, I mean seriously, how to answer any question?

Okay. I don't know how you're doing this, actually. This part of the play of appearances, isn't it?

Yeah, it must be like this. Like going shopping or something like this, no? It's the same. There's no difference to anything else.

What? Yes.