What Is The Need For Any Description? - 10th Dec 2018

No, no, you... yeah, good. So irrespective of the quality of the thought and what it's pointing to, whether it is spiritual or it's just making lunch or something like that, you see, who is it talking about? Who has to... like the one who has to buy orchids is which one? And I'm not even saying that the 'has to' is wrong or something like that, you see? There we can... that also can be questioned, of course, but we can keep that for later. But the 'I' who has to is which one? So if consciousness has to, consciousness will have to. It won't. So what is the function of this, this aspect of the flower? But this, this also is unexamined, that without these thoughts the body action cannot happen. You could do so many actions right now. You're not saying 'I better move, I should move my head left and right.' It's not saying that, and yet it is moving, you see? So to go to the shop, there's nothing but movement of feet. Many times, Fiat, Mohan knows all of these powers. So all of this activity, when we ascribe some doership to it, then it makes some limitation about what you are. Because all this thing is happening, so much unfolding. It is not the belief or the motion that consciousness has to pick up on an idea of belief or construct for it to move this body is invalidated in a moment, you see? So much movement is happening in the body and not all of it is accompanied by thought. And many times what happens is that action happens and then a little thought comes and says 'You shouldn't have done this.' This is called guilt. And the thought can come later, very good with it, that 'It is a good thing.' It's called pride. The 'you' is still what? If this one is still not found. So the one who should do or should not do, if you can't find it, it's like almost like saying, 'No body is allowed into this world. Okay, now for the ones who enter, they should sit down in this way.' It's absurd, you see? There nobody is there that who should and should not, you see? And it's a very strange part of our human conditioning, well, and especially satsang that listening, that for most of us now we have seen over and over that there is no such person. You open it over, there is no such one to whom these apply. And yet it can seem like it is not there, but these thoughts might still be valid for someone. The action is not there, just like the imaginary friend. Then to see that, okay, but it might still be valid, but for nobody. That's kind of a strange conclusion, as the thought is still valid but for nobody.

So when a choice is made, it's made by the consciousness?

It's me, yes. I could say that, I'm happy to see like that, that all is the will of consciousness or consciousness's choices in the end. But really what I want to push in a way is push you beyond these notions of choice and doing. Choice also implies doership and tuition. So we need not understand the functioning of this realm of activity. We then use these concepts of who's choosing this, whose will is this, who's choosing this, who's doing this. So if you saw that there is no such agent, you see? No such agent with that kind of will with or lack of it. There is no such agent at all. Then what choice can that one make? You know, doing this rather than that.

Yes, yes, yes.

And that is just on the basis of how we are interpreting it, you see? It's just like looking at the ocean and say, 'See what that wave is doing.' You might speak to children like that. 'See how far it's jumping.' And the other way we was taking it easy, chilling, you see? I could say that to a child, 'Look at that wave, how much it's jumping.' Okay, now, but would you say it really that that wave was doing that? No, you see that it has no such agent evolution capability. It just doesn't apply to it. The same way it is for this body, you see? Same way it is for all action. That's right what you said, you know, you are neither the thinker of your thoughts nor the doer of your actions. So it is only because it is interpreted as... okay, so let's rewind it. So we saw that the non-existent one cannot have a choice of either do or not do because it doesn't exist. Now one way to see from a broader level is that all is the will of consciousness or the choice of consciousness, you see? But if all is that, then there can be like nothing else. I mean, there is no such thing as consciousness not choosing, you see? Because it doesn't... it doesn't appear, you see? So even to ascribe choice or will to even consciousness is nonsense actually, because it just is what it is, you see? But because we have to make a conclusion as to whose will it has to be, it feels a fall down to say that, 'Oh, it must be the will of consciousness,' you see? But what I'm questioning is this notion of itself, like one who could have it. The personal one doesn't exist. That we check over and over, it doesn't exist. So that one doesn't have it and everything else is just that. So what is the point of saying will? It is only that. No, I mean, it has no contrast, it has no choice or not choice. You with me? Yeah. So if this is clear about what I'm saying about consciousness, then even the need to say that 'This is happening because it is the will of consciousness' or 'This is what's happening because I must have chosen' or 'The person must be' or something like that, you see, then we see it's all just made up. The one limited one does not exist, so can have nothing including will. And the one that is the being, the isness itself, it just is. Where is the question of it using will or not? It is only that when we need to have a conceptual explanation for some movement or lack of movement, then we say, 'Okay, this is why this is happening.' Suppose this was not part of your paradigm at all. You say, 'No, what if my choice will do?' I'm saying go beyond even these, choice and go. Go beyond choice itself because it doesn't actually apply to anyone. If you can't find what something applies to, does it continue to have meaning?

So sometimes there are thoughts, yeah, they come. Sometimes there is... so what's it mean? Yeah, choice or the appearing of thoughts. So you said it's not a choice exactly, so they just come and go, you see. So but one way to say it is that, 'Oh, this is the... what thought appears is also the choice of consciousness' or something like that. But actually when we improve that notion of choice making, so in this unfolding, yes, sometimes thoughts come and go and it's fine, you're not picked up. But sometimes they are here, yes. What is that? What is that? That is the question.

Yeah, are you looking to let the thoughts come and you tell me when you... what are those of you? Then a bigger vision will become. What is that thing? What catches it?

For instance, I want to know this thought came and something else. What is that? So it seems that it's brother, it's like an email or something hiding when I already... um, spill it out a little more positive image. For instance, I want to know specifically is the thing that is getting me away from from what I am, from you know, it's a limitation. It's like, yeah, but what is that?

So what is the process? No, what is... what catches? You say that sometimes they just come and go, hmm, sometimes you pick them up. So I picked up on that and say, what that picks up? Don't use... I mean, think that you heard in something, right? Check. Just something appearing like this. So it's appearing, you say there is distinction because some come and it's fine, fine, but some come back. So what is this?

It seems that there is more interest on this thought, this image, this item. Interest like attention. Attention, wall staring at it. It could be unraveling because otherwise we'll keep hearing it.

But okay, so you stare at the thought harder because every time I say something as you say, you know, they're not... you cannot have two thoughts at the same time. So I don't stay caught in a thought for five seconds, yes? Not... yeah. So because this comes and goes, no matter how hard you stare, is it really so? Attention, you could go full like that, what still comes and goes? No thought comes and stays and get that feeling move. What is this one? I have to answer to that. Look, this look, we cannot answer with looking. Looking is useful because you say a thought comes, 'I'm a French girl.' Yeah. So is it just a question of how much attention was on this? See that the attention is very quick on it, yeah. But the intensity of the effect in the belief, yeah. What is this intensity, belief? Where? What is it? What is it? What is it? What is belief? Seems like more a vibration and something. What all positions can I take? Like what? Like thought is coming, attention is on it, and what is the posture of this belief? What is even... okay, so let's make it simpler. Just look at the thoughts as they come and then play with them. If your attention now, don't give clear back and forth a little bit, and then see if that apparent grabbing which you were talking about, what happens with any of them? And then just share.

What is it? What is it? What is belief? It seems like more a vibration. And what all positions can I take? Like thought is coming, attention is on it, and what is the posture of this belief? What is even... okay, so let's make it simpler. Just look at the thoughts as they come and then play with them. If your attention now—don't give clear back and forth a little bit—and then see if that apparent grabbing which you were talking about, what happens with any of them? And then just share a little more about what that grab feels like. What is happening? They always come and go. Clear your attention on them and if something grabs in this way, just look at what is that? What is that thing? What is that grab? And notice for which hand grabs. Feels real, yeah? If it feels true, not true. So this is always... unless the posture is like this posture of truth, the posture of a certainty. What is that? What has that sense? Is it very thing-like?

So what is that? What does it look like? It's more like it's going, yeah. Looks like something is like in the regular frequencies, some sort of some change, and it sort of gets more attention. Like some attention is there, a lot of attention. Suppose it has full attention, then it's not even that attention on that thought. What happens here is like maybe there's this one thought, it went, and there is something that wants to approve it.

Yeah, so what is that which wants to approve or disapprove? And then no, don't worry. And then well, now what is this? Like she says, she talks about the self-image that we have, a limited perception. I don't know exactly how it is. Is that the product of this? Is it the product of this or is it that itself which grasps? So is that limitation or self-image the outcome of this grasping, or is it already sitting over there when you say it?

Yeah, the self-image, like the limited self or something like that. Is that a product, a seeming product of this process of grasping, or is it just naturally here and waiting to grasp? Or is it neither, or what is it?

It's not here naturally. It is a construct. A construct of these thoughts. Of thought, yes. So this is what I'm saying. So it's now no more a product of this process. It is not just naturally here. Is it? Can it be like just notionless? This notion, we see, be the limited one? No. So therefore it has to be that this comes, attention goes, and the grasping happened, and then it was left. So what you see yourself actually without notion, in the unborn state? Please clear this. But so then if that limited one, the self-image, is just a construct of these thoughts and the belief system, then what is naturally here? It is not the self-image. If not the self-image, then what is it? How can I answer you? It's easier to answer that which is constructed and not both. Not easy to answer that which is this natural. What causes this difficulty? No words. And there are no words to describe this. Is that in the way? Beyond, in a good way. Beautiful, beautiful. So in that which is indescribable, so beyond even description. And correct me if you don't see this, beyond the greatest descriptions we can have because it just can't be limited in any box like that, you see? Not even in the box of say peace or joy or bliss or love, you see? Cannot be put into any of these boxes. That is just here naturally, you see? And if this is all just like words, just inferences what we are saying, so naturally this indescribable one is here and the limited or the sense of limitation, suffering, all of that is a product of construct. And we notice how also the construct works. It's just a thought that comes, attention is on it, and this grasping, you know? Intellect would be forever, you've got it, respond to it saying 'yes, yes' or 'no, no' using something, and then that adds to the construct. So now the only question is, does this... yeah, this is what bothers you often, which is: does this happen on its own or can I just stand back and not? This would then be at the point of criticality, isn't it? Because otherwise, just your natural self, so naturally here. No limited construct, no ego, nothing. So therefore, more than anything else, it feels like this must be tested, experimented with. Is it possible to just stay back and let go? I say totally easy. That's all. So what we discussed now is all our saying in satsang. It's good we do the exercise. Yeah, they just keep talking, keep talking, but I don't know what's really going on. So it's good to get this look, look and say, okay, what is your tasting experience?

Yeah, it's agency. Thank you for doing this exercise with us because we're really at the time and really low, you know? I don't like just the bouncers, isn't that you know? Or get answers like we did over then. Like no, because my mind answered to this one question like, you know, you have this concept which kind of gets your attention and it's the limited one. Is it like, yeah, one would take? Or is it like just then in my mind said, 'No, of course it's the one who takes it.' Was the other take exact? Just like but no, you know, it sounds stupid but it's a new revelation in a way.

Also, each time I feel like it's a new thing, I guess. Yes, because we can have this presumption there actually that the one that never exists is actually just sitting there waiting to grab. But you cannot. It is just the product of an idea, and not even a real product. It's just like if you had the idea you're sitting in a movie or something. It's just not true. And yet, so what does that? And it's quick to say, give an answer like 'it's identity, it's the ego.' Hands on, learned, yeah. But it doesn't mean anything exactly. Actually, it imposes some entity, you know? It's like this identity we take it, you know? Thank you because you've learned all this, you've heard all this, you know the terms now—it's ego, it's identity—but have you met it? And told me too? So that's why this exercise is good, you know? Because then we go beyond the terminology. What are you actually tasting, you see? What are you actually seeing? What are you actually finding for yourself? Because you can say, 'Yes, it is identity.' All of these things, we're just going back to the level of mind and inference and saying, 'Okay, I know this is what it is.' But when we are made to look, like actually look, who is that? And it's very good also because you find sometimes, and you will see how persistent this mind is. Keep going. But like that, you see, we're crossing these levels in a mall or something like that, and you cross this toy store or car store or whatever, and then it keeps making these announcements of offers. 'Now on 25% discount: happiness.' I could buy that. It may be true, all this medium part of us have been wrong, but this one could still be true. And especially for you now because you know you're almost there, you see? So especially for you now, 35% discount. And many times it's become our checker guy, you know, making spiritual interpretations. 'Now this is what always happens with you. Take care of this problem.' But in that moment, except that thought, that offer, there is no problem, seriously. So when it is making these conclusions about us, that this is our spiritual problem, in that moment there is nothing but that easy offer for sale. It is the problem now with the calculator. 'This is where you always get stuck.' It's coming down to conclusions. And that's why I call this a checker guy my arch-nemesis, because everything I could say, they could hide too. It's a checklist. 'And this should not happen now. Now you are doing it.' 70% anything like that. And it's just feeding you these offers and then you feel like, 'Yes, because this is about my freedom, it is about my spiritual journey, therefore I must look, listen to it. Might be meaningful, maybe I'm missing out on the truth or something like that.' But it's not that. This truth is what actually is more simple than a conclusion. So once you start to see like that, that it has so many offers for us, these conclusions with such confidence, you know? Confidence and authority. Yes, I understand. Yeah, I understand all this is there. 'You always get stuck.' It's with authority because it has all this evidence that it seems to pull out. Is it what we can't see anything about that? We can't say that any past has ever happened, anything but the mind says, 'I see, now this is what your current condition is and this is what causes you problem.' But it's just that. But as you're coming to the more and more talking, there's just letting go or not latching on so much to these. That's still also... detect that because any time the mind will also feed us this idea that, 'But you are just hostage. You are just hostage to these thoughts and you're stuck.' Is it possible that one thought can just come and go? And this one thought can just come without me taking it to be a valid representation of what is? That's all. To be empty only means that: to not take any construct, mental construct, to be a valid representation of what is. Like somebody came and offered you a painting of business. 'This painting of business is there, it costs a hundred dollars.' Do you buy? You may buy a painting of Krishna, Buddha, Christ, of the Masters and prophets, and I'm thinking of all of them. But someone came who says, 'I have this beautiful painting of business made three thousand two hundred years ago, yeah, and business in full glory. This painting captures it fully, but you have to give me the money and then I give it to you.' Would you buy such an offer? Is it? But every time we buy a spiritual conclusion, that's exactly what we are doing. We find a representation to truly be representative of reality. If someone says, 'I have a sentence now, this sentence captures business completely. It's just seven words and I'm going to reveal it.' Would you follow that? No. That's important. You need to keep reminding. Brahman cannot be spoken, you see? Cannot be represented. At best it can be pointed. All the masters keep reminding you. So if it cannot be painted, if it cannot be represented in any concept, if it was not naturally here, then there was just no chance. Because if it had to come, and all the experiences come—so an experience means there is some attributes, some color, shape, size, whatever, so time, because coming into a state in this time—but if there is such a thing which is the truth we are looking for, then it must be natural and available right here, right now, independent of any conclusion that the mind can make, any visual representation that the mind is painting for you. There is a meaning, but see, because it is here now, there is no question about it.

But there is this thought that comes regularly that is, 'Okay, I'm aware of it, I'm aware of it, it's fine, but I still get caught very, very, very regularly.' Yeah. And so the thought that, 'Okay, but Ananta is aware of these, aware of their nature all the time or almost all the time,' because we say sometimes. So there is still this, you know, like now suppose the tables look on. Okay, this is satsang without Mom, and Ananta has come. So Ananta, there's two at one that of course everything you say is very clear, just naturally here. And I'll tell you something funny though. The only thing that seems to catch me is that I still think, I still feel like it caught sometimes.

I did something to your report just to make the irony clearer, which is that the only thing that seems to catch me is the idea that I get caught more than you. So you see, does it change? Does it affect the nature? No. Right now, because actually think, but the only thing that catches me is that I get... they keep catching it in that itself and those in the so-called problem itself, you see? That is the only all-seeming obstacle, is that conclusion that we make about ourselves that 'I am this way but he is not.' So from that clarity of this, so clear it is just this. There is no even all of this other, all of that too, even this meaning. But as you get meaning down, but all this was sold suddenly now there's a 'him,' this of 'me' is something that always happens for him. So there is time, there is space with all of this, something that doesn't happen here.

The so-called problem itself, you see, that is the only all-seeming obstacle: that conclusion that we make about ourselves that 'I am this way, but he is not.' So, from that clarity of this—so clear, it is just this—there is no 'me' in all of this. All of that too, even this 'me,' but as you get down, all this was sold suddenly. Now there's a 'him-ness' of me, something that always happens for him. So there is time, there is space with all of this. Something that doesn't happen here for me, is it this kind of thing? So, it's again going back, looking at the ocean but still asking, 'What does that mean for the coconut? What does that mean if only that coconut... and why this coconut cannot be exactly like that?' It is as if in one small thing, yeah.

But what is it like? Your first question is good. You said, 'Does it affect anything in reality? Does it touch what is not really here?' No. You know, we need to still report on something like, 'But I still have that concern about when will this one be like that one?' Is it? But what is it? Is it company about yourselves? You and either this or that, or you everything? There is reason all these conclusions are also made up. But in your seeing, definitely wasn't the 'me' and 'him.' So, sometimes even though they might seem harmless—small doubt, anything like that—but in that one sentence, all the separation, duality, all of that... and the minute we start presuming that to be still valid, then again we are claiming ourselves back into the limited.

And this is, in a way, the sort of pitfall of having this kind of dual sort of thing that I said. What is true is just truth, but still it is, you know, like that. So that's why, just like this kind of thing, because then you is again back to duality. Now the thing is that, empty of having that notion, does this body not continue to play out? And like it playing out, it does so. So if you still put that sort of condition that therefore it makes a limited version seem here, which is not my experience—which I've never experienced—then we're back to the realm of fantasy, back to the realm of imagination.

So that's what I'm saying. Either we produce that one—maybe I do, we produce that one and see, here it is—there must be something flawed in your design. Whatever is reporting, is it so? I don't see, 'Here it is.' Obviously, I can't find it. It is much more honest because it's contracted. So, you need to get away from this 'fantasy-fication' about it. Forget it. It can be one tiny thing. This is it, it is the Self, but actually there is also a person or something like that. It can just be like... but then what will we find? What did we look at? What did we see? We didn't find any evidence, although it's here. It would be thousand dollars. So what is good? I don't know. We think that my luck, I don't know how. Yeah, I'm trying to find it.

This expression, like for instance, you saw my face when you said that you were angry the other day, upset. One way, my name is like a minor, but so my another upset, yes. But you saw the face I just made, you know, like a kid who is caught, you know, who has done something wrong. It's just that, in a way, what is also apparent is that this one is very, very soft. He is resisting, and sometimes in the softness, some things which are clearly points for you to get stuck in, maybe to sugarcoat it, so maybe they are missed.

So this recognition is also coming here more, you know, that sometimes in my kids loving it, something which might be holding you back in a way because I don't want to hurt your feelings or something like this. Like this thing, like all my children, like you've seen with my kids, they are mean, wrapped around the thing they know. But that is fine till the point that it doesn't become detrimental to Satsang itself, isn't it? So I feel like it is important to, when I spot something, I should point it out clearly that this could still hold you back. And especially in this case, because a lot of the talk about consciousness comes from that source here. What is spoken is consciousness, and not seeing that there is no individual there.

So there's got to be like, okay, all of that is okay, but you know... and you really, really can feel because you... this kind of thing. Then what are we saying? Why are we living such a dualistic life? We say one thing for like Satsang time, but then when you are out of certain tangents, this kind of thing—it might be a moment, an incident, who knows what, or the source of that thing comes from—but I cannot find myself approving of that conclusion. What are we doing here, you know? Yeah. And yeah, it's true that sometimes it's a little bit too contradictory, but it's not in a way, you see. In that way, it could be good if it is contradictory, which means that it prevents you from making any conclusion even about what you are discovering, tasting for yourself. What your mind is, still that is okay, you see.

But if we start resting now on one conclusion, either of us, then that is what... that's my total. It's where we went through that: can any painting define it? Can any concept describe it, really? What if we start looking at that as a representation of what is, and see? But actually it is like, you know, it's like this. See? Then expenses, but start again. Okay, yeah. So, yeah, definitely I cannot describe it. It's good to... yes, but there is a sense, maybe it's totally made up, but it doesn't feel like that. This uses this instrument to do its own thing. Yeah, it's okay. It's not about contact as far as concepts go.

But if you really investigate, what would 'use' this mean? When you say the water, I mean, I am all there is, I am consciousness, God Himself, is it? Now, what use I have for using? And what is using that? Therefore, it implies that I have a need, something is missing, therefore I have to use something to get me. So all of this brings us back into that kind of worldly paradigm that of doing. Does consciousness do or not do it? Am I using? How is this being used this way or not being used this way? All of this applies the sort of limited paradigm which is contrary to what you find, you see. Now let's use this as an example.

So consciousness uses this body for... what were you going to say? Finish the sentence. To do its thing. To do its thing. Consciousness uses this body to do its thing, confirming experience. For instance, if I go to the shop to buy an orchid, without this body, consciousness is not going to be able to do it.

Okay. So what I was saying more is just like in speaking these words, see how consciousness is using the speaking of these words to do this thing, to do its thing. Okay, don't conclude it, but just check it. You just check.

Yeah, yeah. This is why I'm speaking, because this is when it really comes into focus. In other ways, we can hold on to a motion, live at reducing.

Okay, but remember I'm pushing you beyond even this stuff. So these words... okay, let me say from my experience and you say from yours. Oh, I see some words are appearing, like spilling out of this mouth. I don't find any sort of sense that if I say like this, it will be helpful for me in some way or at least... I just don't find the use or not use, or like a purpose or non-purpose. What do you find?

Until it's funny, because of course I don't see my face, but sometimes I'm aware of the face, yeah, you know, of the expression, expression on my face. Then I was not well, just... yeah, definitely it's not me doing it.

No 'me' doing it. And also not consciousness doing it with like, 'This is what I want, and because this is what I want, I will do like that.' Is it this kind of thing? Now, that's how you use the term 'play.' It's one of my favorite terms because it takes away this notion of getting to something or consciousness having some intent or purpose behind this kind of thing. It's much more like... very good, 'play.' Also that it's not perfect as a word; it's better than 'purpose' or 'intention' or something like that. Just play. What is the intention of this play? What is the purpose of it? To play, you see. Why you want to play? To play this. It's just like that. You ask a kid, 'Why you want to play?' 'Just to play.' You will know why.

In the same way, it is also not perfect because even 'play' can seem like consciousness one day was getting a bit, you know, so it just wanted to... it's not like that. It's not like this is so empty of this like desire or something like that. Why would it want to have a desire to achieve some purpose or even like a desire to play? But that would in a way... like you can see very, very beautiful masters have said these kind of things. So, I'm not truly contradicting that, while contradicting that a bit. Again, what is the need to put that description? It is just our need, in a way, playing as the limited one, to have a sense that 'I figured this out,' you see. To put words to the wordless.

Like if you met two lovers and you see the guy, he's just talking about what love is: 'This love is that, love is like this, this is what happens in love.' And the girl is irritated after a point. She's like, 'Yes, I am in love, you are in love. Why we have to define it so much? Love is this and it is not that.' You see? And you notice that the ones who are in love find themselves most tongue-tied about describing love because these things we do, they see that whatever words I use... so, even subtler, even prior to such a purity in pure love, you see, it just is. So we speak at the joy of experiencing. Is it like a war that it has to experience the joyful? It's okay, but I push it, you see, pushing it beyond even these constructs.

So the only thing one can, or you can actually say, is that well, you can't say anything about this, but you can just say things are appearing, this is happening, and this seems to happen. That's it. That's it. And you start inquiring into this. I'm telling you, start hunting for duality and you notice that what is appearing and disappearing... exactly what I'm saying. Maybe sometimes we give it too much value, like when we start exploring like the clay versus intense joy, all of these models of why universe or why manifest creation. Versus even when we start looking at, oh, we talking about this appearance being a play and disappears and disappears. So when we check, you find what you find. You have to again buy into the notions of past being existent, future being real, all of these things. Away from this naturally, what is to even say something appears or doesn't appear?

And I know that these can be, can seem very subtle nature. Hearing this, many of you might even be saying, 'But now that is too far. I was okay to play versus purpose. I was okay to up and down also, but now he's saying that even appearing disappearing was just emotional. How far can I approach you?' Will push, not push. Posted something on heart or total of Sat-Chit-Ananda, those two right there. I trust that Satguru's grace is taking care of the situation, which is from walk after posting that to here. It's night, just in that one thing. So many conclusions, like subtle and hidden, like... and then even in a way to see that trust being taken away. Just this, like article, such a joy. No need, like even joy is really small to explain like what. And then you wonder that why would you want to exchange this every time? But even that 'why,' I can use it over to something because even in that is contains this life.

It's like... but it's true, it can easily... you can become self-judgmental. Guy, did he accept the consciousness residing here? Just you know, will it reduce the role of mind? If you pick up the notion that consciousness is the one doer, will it reduce the role of the mind? Is that the case? But this is presuming that you cannot do without even this notion. Drop this mind, so something else is to take out. So as long as it feels like something else has to take over, this is good. As long as something else has to take over, because it's like saying Guru Kripa equivalent. So let, let Guru Kripa give it a go. You are not the boss, there's somebody else in the back there. Mean it? Yes, it's very helpful. However, we can top that because it cleans up so much mess. Is equal guilt, right? You see the exert remorse, resentment.

Presuming that you cannot do without even this motion, drop this mind. So something else is to take over. As long as it feels like something else has to take over, this is good. As long as something else has to take over, because it's like saying Guru Kripa is equivalent. So let Guru Kripa give it a go. You are not the boss; there's somebody else in the back there. Mean it. Yes, it's very helpful. However, we can top that because it cleans up so much mess. Is equal guilt, right? See the exert remorse, resentment. If you see that all is past as grace, brings you all is the divine grace, then what is the room for all of the suffering? What is there? There is no actual thing like suffering, and it is just a matter of for all of these things you drive: remorse, resentment. What else? A collection of just summarizing situations mixed with conceptual things. So, nice recipe.

Now, once you say all is past as grace, then who to resent? Past to resent? The master? And they say like that, if you have to get angry with someone, be angry at the Lord, that consciousness. We drink, then again you get into the game. Then, 'I shouldn't get into the game.' See, if the game seems to like that's what he said, it's too broad, too many different players and all of them. Then you make it, you needed extra credit also. Consciousness blame also, all of that extra stuff in you. And the more you will not do this, the rest will start to get cleaned up in a way. I call this revealing. And master's feet, does it have to be physical?

Taking control of mind is impossible, so it is better to create something else and focus a lot. Yeah, I think this consciousness, if I accept it, yes, is something else other than mind, which is consciousness, which is making me do things. Yes, then company might reduce the domination. Yes, and then the process of emptying will become easier. Yes, I'm really enjoying these interactions. We said we're leaving everything to consciousness, so what happens then is that you said there are many other pursuits and the mind gets fully consumed, like a mind talking exactly. So it goes into those, yeah.

So what happens is that, that's why I say just hold on tight to the Master's feet, because then you can hold that on. It's like the, you know, this elephant in the marketplace. He's very, you know how the elephant is? No, this trunk, it wants to taste everything, touch everything. So what does the elephant man do? He gives it a stick to hold to the trunk. You hold this stick. Now it stands, then it can't go here and there. Now you'll observe through the mind will have a tendency to do that. It will drop this and say, 'Okay, oh, you even claim that now that I have truly seen that it's just consciousness, now I can go into some deeper than something like this.' This trick is so that your that monkey mind, I know this trunk does not keep you distracted. So that stillness, that tilt, ah well, that comes in. It's only this monkey meter of the mind, gentle top of the mind, which keeps it so, so much the center of our degrees. Keep it. Grace comes ultimately, it's going to happen. Yeah.

But no, but also you are not setting any result for yourself or outcome. See, then it has to happen if it has to happen, whether it has to happen, yes, no, maybe. All of that is consciousness. You can feel whatever resonates most with your heart. If it's consciousness, consciousness. As God, call it Krishna, Krishna. If it's Rama, no matter which representation, Christ. That's what I'm saying. That is the condition: God for God's sake. Not too open, not too closed, or not any outcome which our mind is deciding. Because again, then we keep checking this like this, 'I was told this kind of thing.' So, we try to use the term surrender, which I understand completely that it is a big term to use, but it is in that context that I use the term. Sometimes surrendering with one eye open. Surrendering, 'Oh, you do whatever you do, you do whatever, but just make sure this door is already, this window is open.' So whatever that condition might be inside, no, I'll take much.

Well, what is the difference between the will of consciousness and the Guru's grace?

No, this whatever term we might use, we'll use up through Lord, divine presence, consciousness. It's always synonymous. Even if in the terminology there's some qualitative differentiation or something like that, but actually synonymous. We can just consider it to be synonymous.

Father, thoughts which have desires embedded in them seem to get picked up and hungry thoughts about food and the desire to eat take up attention and belief. How is this to be dealt with? The natural reaction came to be to fulfill the desire till it disappears.

Hunger was just an example. I said what we did that, I hope all of you all were laying along to see what is it, what is this grasping? Who grasps? This kind of inquiry, this kind of investigation for those who are implementing like this, open to inquiry in this way, then that is good to go. So those who are not so much temperamentally inclined to this, then to see them to care how they will desire. Thomas is also, also Guru's problem. What gets fulfilled or not fulfilled is also Guru's problem. Or does my thinking more, nor thinking about it, have to do with any of it?

Thank you. You want to cry?

It's very good news. It's very good news. And this is, this has happened here. So helpless that all those difficulties were happening in my business and before that I had thought at that quarter it, you know, and just like I saw that when really like started slapping you around, it was still full of suffering and all of that. So I remember crying out in helplessness, 'I give up now. I give up. What do you want from me?' This point of full time down the corridor species, Mr. Crushing of the ego is not fun to experience in hell. But who uses this term? He says it's like vomiting. Nobody enjoys it while it's going on, but you feel like the once it's over, crushing happens. What a being, what is being crushed at all? I applied all our arrogance, like what everything that we thought we knew or everything we thought we would, we could conclusively. If you had more defenses, if you have no these defenses, what could be attacked? We just open space. What will assault? Cut soul? Even we erect the effigy there or we read sort of entity mentally, identity there, then can be top to top that good idea.

I just been asked the same. I didn't and you say something, it's like a concept being victim, keep screaming. I'm still putting it in the box. Yes, I don't want to do that. Yes, good. So the true self I camouflage with the limited 'I' thought.

Camouflage with what? The camouflage is what? Is the camouflage did that tangible? It is just conceptual, this the thought. So you are starting to see that. That's why I was saying that even whatever is conceptual and becomes part of the camouflage, and 'I don't want them now, don't want that' is also camouflage. Like either 'I want, I want' or 'I don't want, I don't want' is camouflage because you can retain the idea of your limitation based on either 'I want, I want' or 'I don't want, I don't want.' We neither are up to apply to you.

I don't want to pick up concepts enough for the mind, you know? It's like just collecting more garbage and I don't want that. It's just adding information. It's not so.

Yeah, so there are one of two positions. It's like you could have like all of us below now with the idea that 'I want better and better concepts because my life gets better with them.' Maybe that is one position. The second position is 'Right, I see that they are all garbage now.' Like two points like that. Now what I am suggesting is you let go of both. 'I want, I want' and 'I don't want, I don't want.' These are the two ends. What is more than 'don't want'? Really don't we like to easily see they don't want it can't go beyond this framing, isn't it? Like you said. So, see if it is possible to check and see that right now you are not in that frame of either wanting or not wanting. Can we look at it?

Yes.

Right now, is there someone here who has the position, 'I do position wanting or not wanting'? You can say whatever you have to give. This and there's no right or wrong answer here.

Within there's still this desire of we're still collecting garbage and you're not getting it and this these motion that you are still collecting garbage itself is not doubled, it's also included just emotional.

So let this also come and go. Is there someone who owns that? Is I could be the owner of it? Is this body saying 'I don't want hugs anymore'? Who does it belong to? I mean, where did you in your finding in termite or down? So when you look, did you come across like such an entity for whom it could belong? So I did of this position are not applicable because that one itself doesn't exist. The one who could say 'I want to do this, not do this' or 'now I don't want to have any of this garbage in my life.' It's just thoughts. How does he do? Tell me. Because many times what can happen is you feel like it has to be either this or that, like it has to be 'I want' or 'I don't want.' Doesn't matter. Wanting, not wanting. The main fix of it, I think I don't get anymore all the way enough is collected. That itself is not this difficulty to draw strong identity. Show me where it is.

Yeah, if there was actually a strong identity anywhere you would actually be in trouble, but we're just playing with these dollars in our not exist at all.

It doesn't seem like a doornob. That's why it's my own only look. If the design were that it came and I doesn't even seem like it's real, then what fun would be? So it is not real. Who per see? It doesn't even seem like it is real, then there will be no fun. It is that Maya then which does not even seem as if it is because it seems as it is revealed because it seemed as if there is a snake. Well, just hope that seeming mixer mix gives a Pied Piper juice. But that seeming can be seen through, which you are doing the trillions here, that the strong identity is the singing through it. Now, the one who was really strongly identified, are they going around reporting, 'No very strong identity here'? Is it? They don't even spot it. The one who are really caught up in the mind are never saying 'my mind is so strong' because they feel they are it. They feel like their conclusion that the valid one, they are speaking the truth. It's just they don't have this sense of distance. They cannot tell like something that you say which is or whatever something it knows that what you will have say he is going. What's the point?

Yet there's no does they have to be a point?

It doesn't then not be a wonder, you know? But then he's not be a point does not automatically imply that it is pointless. You see, now it's again in that operator training. Really happy used the word because in the limits of our intellect it is either meaningful or it is meaningless. If that has a point or it is pointless. And we have been trained, conditioned by everything in a way to see your life should lead to more and more point, more and more meaning. We should be a point home. And now we're starting to see mind is meaningless, it's all garbage. So no time. But you're not being able to replace your new point please. Like, 'I see that the mind is garbage, but am I not coming to the true meaning of life which is this new point?' You see? But we are not. You're breaking the barrier of this paradigm of your life being stuck in the middle of these opposites. I'll fire you for them. So, so if point, if having a point or pointlessness did not matter, how do we now?

Sometimes it's so easy, yeah, I'm there, yeah. And sometimes it seems that's very you ball we took myself evening.

This motifs and I enjoy very much at work because you are starting to notice the the tricks of the mind and you can see that this, this, and it keeps you juggling under oscillating position because you only nose like that a pendulum really. It does not understand neutrality in the mind in like the pendulum. It's just like this will or this and at the point of pointless either bought it around easy Odyssey. We keep dreaming and putting you in the middle of that cream and we'll make a limited version of you. But in Satsang...

The grace is very much at work because you are starting to notice the tricks of the mind. You can see that it keeps you juggling in an oscillating position because the mind only knows like that—a pendulum, really. It does not understand neutrality. In the mind, like the pendulum, it's just like this way or that way. At the point of pointlessness, either this way or that way, we keep dreaming and putting you in the middle of that dream and we'll make a limited version of you. But in Satsang, what is happening is that you are waking from those dreams. What applies to me? What applies in reality? When you find that nothing the mind can offer you applies to you here, it's a joy. It is very beautiful.

This distillation is a kind of constraint which our intellect is. We have a recognition of that because many times, even in spirituality, even with the so-called advanced seekers, they cannot find themselves able to let go of this paradigm of opposites. 'I do this way or that way.' You cannot escape the tentacles of words, and then we hear more words. Especially with the compass of languages, we have so many words. Something that adds to the talk is more and more tentacles, more and more. But sometimes we just hear something and we say, 'Oh.' The moment you start right, whatever it is today, then these words start melting into this peace, passing into this peace. But we don't have to interpret the whole thing. In the gap, we start a new business.

And after a time, tranquility is inseparable. You don't open this or open that. Tranquility is too much. How beautiful Satsang is to do. Such a beautiful day, a lucky day.