What Is This Knowing That Is Not a Thought or a Perception? - 1st Aug 2019

Okay that's an easy question. So I'm going to the state of Indiana in America. There's a village or a town, call it village in broadcast but this yes by Indian standards very small, no population so small town called Bloomington and that's where my son's university is, Indiana University. So he is joining there so I'm going to take him to this place and as all good Indian parents settle settle this I mean and then come back with the self. Just couple of weeks we have a break from satsang.

Yes exposed to something to see the phosphorus in it but what is this always been every few hours there's officer that's to reconfirm what it comes from another snake was something undone you know the speech that motivates this village is something's not right have you seen your interaction with other those kind of things sort of a chuckle.

Yes so thoughtless thoughtless general checking and as this one of an attempt is seen to do it as he attempt is done the checking is also happening scientist so nothing's really mean checked on it's like in a problem is created in a check because you can see this but this this trouble that follows right after see this you did that so is this speech this this one that punishes some me I feel quite attached to and I respect it for some reason I want I want to see this clearly because even what I'm saying doesn't seem like to ski audio different or what is being shared in some singers there are moments that it's obvious from his heart bought into the things that were thought I mean that was then believed it in the power of being when it's so real and it was was another thought of you that believed in.

Can we talk about the problem which is not there when you are there but you have to present it to me for me to look at it now? You go to the doctor and say, 'I have a big growth on my head' or something but whenever you come in something so how is the doctor going to help? But then the doctor will obviously ask you this question: 'Are you certain that it is real?' It seems to vanish every time I'm around and sometimes what happened upon hearing this next time you make a decision seems like that I feel some things are not less that there is a problem or not. The thing is not whether there is a problem, the thing is whether there is a you want to have that problem. So the objective of satsang is not to come to the end of problems for a non-existent me, it is to just see that there is no such me for whom there is a concept called problem. So what happens when you come to satsang or when we have this conversation, you see that this the one who is at the center of it, the protagonist of this story itself feels non-existent. So it's not to the problems suddenly go away for me although the mind may have that interpretation of that but actually you just get some space from this operation motion about yourself.

And it was good that you quit too when I said who didn't come back. No Father I knew you were going to ask me that but don't tell me something else. What else you got? Yeah like don't use your dumb ass you mean let them tell me something else in some other way so that didn't come in use. Okay now I'm coming but this was serious business I built it up over the whole Wednesday great that we had this whole day and a half was gone. Let's give it some time, let's give it some attention, let's say okay what are the contours of this problem and navy blue and the mine we come and say but this is avoidance but let's look at the non-existent problem for long otherwise if we just look at it and see there is no me from to suffer from that problem then that is avoidance yes let's make it real first then let's come to the unreality of it you know what and and the mind will decide if you come to it when wanna then you would not avoiding it music then it was not avoidance we looked at it we saw did I did that non-existing me have a finger did have a hand they would have elbow we have a shoulder you really looked at it and saw that there is no such mean you wouldn't avoid it you really saw it.

I can't find this one who should I look at not that no my counselor can't be that fast is it that's a listen to me.

Yeah I can see that that's also thought that is time trying to comment on the observation that the me was in a series of thoughts in yes historian example there was there so was like a like a cloud or a wave of some sort just like not really even that but this the one through the narrative that seems to have some continuity and and the thing with that is that we are bound by our intellectual concepts about that which we call experience but it itself is empty of any such any such interpretation. So we get bound by that and say that till I have only when I have this kind of experience you see like okay so this was the part of a question that I felt I was forgetting that Nick the ostrich because she was saying that uh not really with myself and but she knows that I can't really leave myself so we're still defining myself as another experience as a lack of thoughts or some emotional state being either empty of any negative so-called negative emotion or presence of some so-called positive emotion so we still live in those things as the experience of the self you see but the self itself is not. So that is where my new master is this one: what is it that you know without having to think anything or having to perceive anything? On this break I'm leaving this rule with you with every length is very very potent. What do you know without having to think anything all proceeding?

This comment that immediately appears yes it's me but can that comment actually I'm blind don't worry about what complain it's okay she knows I'm singing up everything and your tip which is that because then the comment comes and then we get into okay but that is what it was trying to do now and then in the time to do that it was time to figure out the spiritual seeker is like the spiritual figure router the seeking is just the time to figure it out now especially who come to these kind of satsang which is like okay now we couldn't come to understand really you eat what is the nature of truths yes why we seem to come to the thing we come here and we see to understand really what is the nature of truth but it's not about that because what happens then why this why does it sound like bad news to some easy why is only bad news to some because then if you like unless I have a perception or a special experience which I can say okay that is the truth all I have some great understanding now that this is the truth without these two things I'm just lost but you are not this is what you have to check we refer to the innocence of a child all the series have said you have to come back to that innocence to enter the team what was that Muslims it

Then why this? Why does it sound like bad news to some? It is only bad news to some because then, unless I have a perception or a special experience which I can say, 'Okay, that is the truth,' or I have some great understanding now that 'This is the truth,' without these two things, I'm just lost. But you are not. This is what you have to check. We refer to the innocence of a child. All the sages have said you have to come back to that innocence to enter the kingdom. What was that innocence? It was not judging ourselves from the basis of some concept or some so-called experience. It did not mean that there's a 'me' just because something was experienced around. So, this is empty of interpreting, empty of judgment, even judgments about the mind itself.

So, even what we are saying in satsang about the mind is just to get us to back off from full allegiance to whatever it's conveying me to be. We don't need that; it is provisional so that we are not binding to every story of the 'me' or 'mine.' But once it's seen that we don't have to become the mind doctor and say, 'Oh, mind is doing this, mind is not doing this,' but this is what it means, it leaves as well. It doesn't say, 'Now you think you're doing whatever it was.' I use that simple metaphor of the screen. So, the volume of thought is like the number of cars that are on the street. Now, the amount of traffic on the street is a nuisance only if you have to cross the street. If you don't have to cross, you are wherever you are, and it's fine. Then it doesn't matter if there are a hundred cars, one car, or no cars. So, let the mind do its bit. Maybe we receive 'blah blah blah blah blah,' or let it be. Or does it? Until then, you play opposite. 'Okay, Mr. Mind, what do you think about this one?' Actually, already it's saying to each other, 'It shouldn't even...' I can tell you this stuff.

So, that's why I'm pointing like this: What is it that you know without having to think anything or perceive anything? And I'm not saying that it's not there without having to be independent of that, independent of thoughts. Thoughts and perceptions are there, because some might hear it saying that 'I have to put an end to my thought and put an end to my perception and go to this' because for somebody, yeah, something like that. But it's not that I'm saying independent of whatever thoughts may be going on or whatever perception may be happening. What is it that is known to you? If your mind is telling you things like, 'But that is too much, this is too deep, it is not possible for me, I am not there yet,' or it is saying, 'It is obvious, I know this, it is the Self, it is awareness,' just let that come and go. And what you know independent of that? The objective is not to come to a mental conclusion, because that would also just be a thought. What is that knowing which is not a mental conclusion or a perception? Which is another way to deal with: What is that knowing which is not a thought or a perception?

Just contemplating the existence as: What is that knowing that is not a thought or a perception? You know, somebody twenty years ago, the words that we have to use, like 'it's myself,' the first few times that used to happen, we felt a little... 'Will we be objects?' Players everywhere, those kind of questions came in. Actually, to confirm the question itself takes care of even that. It's like: What do you know without having a thought or a perception? Without needing a thought or a perception, now what do you know which is not a thought or a perception?

Is it? So even the Self is a thought?

Yeah. I mean, what I was trying to get to was that the word 'myself' or 'yourself,' when I was using it, I was imagining an object. 'Can this be the shape, the body?' But it doesn't mean 'myself' is a thought. Thought is a thought. Now, thank you, also mixed with this sort of a silhouette of a perception, even some sense about 'doesn't mean with the boundary' in some way. So, what do you know without the thought or a perception? Is that... I only asked him to do that, forgot the way it came out. But what do you know without needing a thought and a perception? What is that knowing which doesn't need the thought or the visible? How is that written between 'What do you know without needing a thought or perception' and 'What is the moving now'?

A mess. But when I say, 'What do I know? What do I know without the thought or perception?'

What do you know without a thought or perception?

Presence is not a thought.

It's okay. That sort of... your approach should be then, 'How am I supposed to answer you?' because you can't see me at all. But the invitation is to not even rest on these conclusions, because what can happen is what you're saying is absolutely right in a way, that you come to this, let's call it sense of existence or presence, or that it is aware even of this music. But what can happen is that even this, the mind can make an experience out of it or a concept out of it and say, 'So, the next time the question is asked, "What do you know without a thought or perception?" yeah, we solved this one, it's awareness or presence.' So, that labeling can then put this question also in an intellectual box, and then I'll have to find a new question. So, all these pointings over the years have been pointing to the same thing, but because the mind then concludes that 'This is the answer to this,' we need to keep coming up with fresh... yeah. So, yeah, it's in the cash box.

But presence or 'I exist,' that's also a thought, there's a perception. So, the cooler version was what this is reminding us. He's saying: What is that knowing which is not a thought or a perception? It sounds a bit like you... like we can put some distance using this 'no,' because we already have concepts of knowingness and awareness. What is that knowing then? It doesn't sound statistical. Or: What do you know without needing a thought or a perception? I'm going sitting there, who cares about all that? What is it that you know? Because this can happen also over the years, it has happened. We sort of bring one nostalgic trip to satsang in a way, because many times we come to great insight, but then we end up with this in one way or the other, saying, 'Yes, yes, there is awareness, and to awareness nothing is happening.' You see? And it took me a while to figure out why that still sounds like a problem. Then I figured that what you're really saying is, 'There to awareness nothing is happening, but Ananta, what about me?'

So, then at one time we'd even give them another pointer, which is: Who is aware of this awareness? Because when we said, 'Are you aware now?' then we saw that there's an awareness which remains untouched, unmoved, everything is fine, the manifest plays out beautifully, but it has no impact on this awareness. But the mind makes an experience out of that and says, 'Okay, awareness is one thing sitting over there, the manifest is this whole thing sitting over here, but what about me?' So, when you ask, 'Who is aware of this awareness?' then the gap between 'I,' big 'I,' and this awareness starts to close down and it is actually... there's no distinction. So, in the same way then, if you just say, 'What is that knowing?' and to knowing nothing is happening, so they want to keep it like that. What do you know without needing a thought or perception? And this is very useful in a way because it also can be asked to see: What is it that you want which is not a thought or perception?

You take the seeking out of the seeker lately, as you can see this table struggling about the seeker, because we can only stop them from trying to fill the right thoughts into our intellect or to get some set of experiences which we think will be very, very final. And then one new thought can come as, 'Yes, now this is causing all the problems, so I must come to the end of thought.' When I come to the end of thought, then I'm fine. But end of thoughts also is... so who must come to it anyway? And even the thing is not done. So, in case you're quietly settling for that, we little... let's know that would wane. No, without the thought or perception, you say 'nothing' or even 'nothing' is just a thought. So, and that's also a thought. Or that what you are trying to see without a thought or perception, it is blank. But blank is not perception. This looks good. This is the fun part. So, don't go at all. Blankness is perception. What else do you have? So, that is perceived. So, there is perception. But what is here? What do you know that is not a perception, including the perception of absence of content or absence of phenomena which we call blank coming up?

So you don't know anything.

So you also left. The question came, then blankness came, but came to you. Who? To who? Because you also left.

For seeing it's good for him. Here. Here is room.

Okay, so nothing is coming out, you see. Here, who knows that? It is known to you. That is all you ever need to know. Yeah, because the mind will play the same trick which will be to say, 'But that is nothing.' But this is the nothing which I'm calling the Self, and that is self-knowledge. Okay, so let's recap. So, yeah, the idea, 'I don't know,' or the perception of blankness, please, what can I say? For whom or who is here to be aware or to know this? You say 'hereness' because there's some hesitation to use the word 'I' or 'me.' So, it's here. Here for... then with some diffidence, a sense of like, 'me.' I can't deny that the blank is perceived by me. The 'I don't know' concept is appearing for me, you see. This can't be denied in a way. But there's a shyness in a way to use the term 'me' because this also senses that it's not personal. It's not like an experience that a person can say, 'This is my personal experience.' In this, 'Am I really having that experience?' or 'Can I really say me?' And sometimes there's a sense that 'I can't call that me because that sounds arrogant.' Some can even have this idea of it, 'I can't call this me because that is too arrogant,' you see.

So, whatever that objection may be, in a way it is undeniable that you are reporting on it because it is your direct insight, isn't it? You're not making it up. You are not hearing it from someone. That comes back then. See, it's blank. So you would... but not in the way that we've understood ourselves to be or perceived. So, this knowing which cannot be taken from... it cannot be taken from you is all that you ever truly know, you see. And you notice that the mind was trying to be busy, but this, which is the treasure in open sight, in a way. So, what is it that you know without needing a thought or perception? So, attention turns in summary. Using the question, I'm trying to see here what you mean, but I'm looking out. Looking out is attention. So, I take what happened to your attention. It follows perception. So, attention can either vanish into its source or it can go to a perception. So, don't worry so much about what's happening with that. The question is independent of the play of attention or concepts. But both can play out still, could be separately.

But the biggest thing about this is that there's no difference between 'I' and... he says that what is same and his... I can tell he's struggling to put the words to, which is that there's actually no distinction between 'I' and 'no I.' Rather, that there's no distinction between Self and self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not something that the Self has. That's it again. Human, conscious human being, and human being has a set of concepts, and based on that, those concepts, that is the knowledge here. But this what we call Atma Gyan, self-knowledge, whatever you call it, is not something that someone has. Atma has it. It is that hidden in plain sight. That was the term I was looking for. The treasure is hidden in plain sight. So, everyone missed the thought as seemingly at a distance, thought that it's seeming at the seeming distance about... yes. And it was really... what is the distance between bondage and freedom? Just a thought. But the suffering was just thought-created. An idea: 'I don't see this at all.' And the suggestion that all this was not understood. And some of our grooves are saying in a way that we've found a home in those grooves in the past, and the same gurus will keep coming and saying that, 'Now see, now you've not done this.'

In plain sight, so everyone sees Mr. Thought as seemingly at a distance. Thought is seeming at the seeming distance, yes. And it was really—what is the distance between bondage and freedom? Just a thought. But the suffering was just thought-created, an idea: 'I don't see this at all.' And the suggestion that all this was not understood. And some of our grooves are saying, in a way, that we've found a home in those grooves in the past. And the same gurus will keep coming and saying that, 'Now see, now you've not done this way longer than...' and 'You lost your time' so 'This is how you messed up.' You know, having me be there just gives... and it's enough to notice them. That's it. I think these grooves must not be there, and still the same groove playing out. You noticed it.

I very much enjoyed this conversation. You feel like this clarifies? Sometimes we feel a bit shy to speak up, so I'm glad you spoke up because this is what we can say. Like, you can say, 'Actually, I don't know that at all' or you can say that it's just blank. That's a perception. Now, what do you know even to make those things? You're saying that 'I am perceiving a blank' but 'I am aware of blankness' and 'I am perceiving this thought which is saying I don't know.' So how do we know that they're independent of thought or perception? This Self is known and always known, but not known in the way we think. Now, does it have to be stabilized, abide, stay? These are the thoughts which can still grab. But then you can say, 'For whom?' or 'Who has to?' 'Does this mean you're free?' 'Who?' 'Only does this mean you know?' 'By who?' So don't rest on any conclusion.

Any other reports on this? There's a pull to hear it again. Record? Yeah, I didn't do that for the home team, their location. I can surprise you. Excuse me. Oh, so I'm glad to do this coming in because just now noticing even small things. Like, we keep hearing, I keep coming here, I share in satsang, but I don't know who organizes the tissue boxes and how all this stuff gets organized quietly. And if you are doing some of this, for which I'm very grateful, because now I don't get too much of a chance to look at these things, and yet it happens so smoothly every day. Of course, we have some technical problems sometimes and things, but thank you. Thank you for helping to organize so seamlessly. I don't know where the cutlery comes from for the luncheon. Yeah, it is all very beautiful to see sometimes. Usually, I don't notice this at all. One man came to the door that day early in the morning. I opened the door and as it gets... so he said, 'No, I'm here to clean the place.' You clean the place? I didn't know.

If I can remember that: what do you know without needing a thought or perception? It's known even now. No, that's it. You know now, you heard me, and now that's it again. Or the blue, that's known now. It's just, just so. Who knows that then? Also, all that is known is like a knowing. Now, whose knowing is that? What's its relationship with you?

This report, what is its basis? But all that there is is knowing, K-N-O-W-I-N-G. And I can't say whether that's me or what. I can't say anything. I just know.

I'm using: what is the basis for that report? I see thoughts, yes. It's good, man. What is your basis for the eyes that can see thoughts?

It exists before them. I exist before the thought.

Okay. And how is it? Is it there as a thought, perception, or... and is there any difference between this which is there as 'I' and that which you call 'knowing' earlier?

Yes, it is.

Is there any difference between the two, the way that you're using the two terms, 'I' and 'knowing'? Any difference between the two?

Okay, so what is the difference? What is the distinction? It's a faculty.

Okay, so then how is this 'I' known? Like, it's applying the faculty to itself, like that?

Yes.

So what is the difference between the faculty and it? For there to be difference, they must both have a quality, isn't it? So what is the qualitative difference between them? Oh, for you, a little distracted. So the basis for the claim of distinction is not found, yes? So for the moment, we can take it was conceptual. But the report has this... seeing that there's an even knowing itself. Distinguishing them is also an experience, is a content.

Yeah, I mean everything just comes and makes it seem... lies within. It collapses. You already said that which is also me. I am the one which is having all this. I created that. I go inside and then it is only me. It arises that way. Yes, but then how can I say about this knowing is beyond thought? Because it's just me. Everything. Then how can I distinguish without... so it is like my hands and legs can be beyond that. It is just me. How can I be those?

So the bubble of manifestation and everything that is perceived, which is 'I', and that which is aware of this manifestation as you. So how this report... this is beyond thought, but I know this. It is thought that feelings are me, yes. There's no distinction.

Is that all you know?

Through this question, I mean, all that I can say... but if you say something different in the sense of a meeting and thoughts, in the sense that is all you know what you have thought and perceived. In a way, it is rephrasing the initial question, but it is a useful rephrasing because it is something about this also me. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying, is there anything else? That's what I said. This is one of the faculties to know what else it is. The fact is we all think we know. I'm going to ask you a question. This, yeah, it is thoughts, feelings is part of it, but it is not just... I'm doing one, probably one section. But knowing is not just that. It is there. We can feel this, yes.

But then it is... I cannot say unlimitedness.

Can you say limited?

No.

Like the limited, unlimited, it has to have... it has to be more tangible to first apply any of this limit or not limit on it. Let's start together. So what do you know without needing to think or perceive? What do you know without having to think or perceive? Without needing a thought or perception?

Nothing.

Is 'nothing' what you are perceiving? A blankness or a thought saying 'nothing'?

No, but it is going to the question. It's not coming to the... that's how I'm asking.

So when you see nothing, are you referring to a blank perception? Are you referring to nothing from the mind, like at all? It is trying to see the question. What is trying to see the question? What is trying to see the question? Is it... it is trying to see the question.

Witnessing.

So how do you know about this witnessing? Is it a perception you're having of the witnessing? Is it just a thought saying 'witnessing is doing this'? Or it is coming to the blank, but how immediately is... I mean, so blank is perception. So without that, what do you know?

Nothing.

That is a thought. Without this thought, what do you know? This 'I' that doesn't know, do you know that? How are you claiming 'I don't know'? How do you know this? I know, pressure. This, let's all look together. Is a blank... to blank we say this perception. So without that, what do you know? Then you say 'nothing.' Nothing at all. Without that thought 'nothing,' what do you know then? Now we are looking here. We told the blank is perception, so don't rely on that. If I don't say that is the thought, if I don't say... so are we stuck now between the concept 'I don't know' and the perception of blankness? These are the only two things. What is witnessing them now? You know that it is said. How do you know that? So it just is knowledge. It's just known. It's a comment. I am perceiving. So the object of perception is being perceived, but is the 'I' perceived? That ecology says, can the perceiver be perceived? This way is clear. It is you. How is it clear without perception?

There is no magic. That is a good deal. Is something supposed to happen? Because sometimes you can feel like that. No, but it seems to be happening for them, not happening for me. See, what am I doing? You often do this long, alright. There's something you can do. Don't be nervous. You can do it right. Actually, this is a more helpful representation of what I was trying to say with 'what do you know?' Nothing. And only upon asking, we know what it is loaded with.

We're looking on the short reviews. It's cessation of thought. I think I tried... it is one where it always... you try that, it springs back a hundred times. Say you have a light, right? At least the same letter stopped it. Don't want to think. The more you push against it, it comes back. Let it come. It's okay. That God example is that... is that to me? You should look at it nicely. Really comforting with that. Because cessation, zero thought, I don't think so. It's a portion that's going to stop us. And what can't stop is there. So even the property then... he said liberty, reducing just for this moment right now. My veto, that was the same in a way. How I would interpret that question is to see: what is it that you are without thinking for one moment? It's check to the same, same sort of requirement. What an intense... it is very good states. The interpretation of 'are you the other thing?' I want to know. It's my purposes online or through using... oh my god, more like 'oh my god, can't take it anymore.' But that's info. Oh my god, I get the... I get the picking behind there. Are you... you like Renata moves make? If you close the doors of my...

Your mind away, bushier layer. So playing this song, oh yeah. What is that thing? 'I married a female.' I can also think 'I married a male.' Look at my son. Thank you so much, employer, because you don't have to bother with perception. You can invite them. We had a few certain words sung with guests, special... you give special memories. As the box was rented, sublime to ridiculous. Yeah, I thought somebody who knows everything because the indweller... it's great, a song. Oh, you want to see the guy there? This became a big sensation. Oh, wait for that one-hit wonder. Like a one-hit wonder, that's all.

Very soon, actually, all this goodbye seemed like too much. But I say call from there on the 17th, and we lose like one day flying Monday and time difference 18th. Title you... so six o'clock, cotton has come, not imported car. So I've invited him to come here, some of you in the building know you'd like to come. Welcome. If I had satsang in hell, that leave your way, old friend and very sweet man. He used to heal, of course, all those conversion for many, many. And he also used to follow... or indeed, Mahajan, contemporary of Nisargadatta Maharaj. So he has some very beautiful stories of Ranjit Maharaj. Like the whole house, Ranjit Maharaj's whole house is half this room. And then some of his followers, they said, 'We'll buy you a house here' and things. But he's so... he said, 'But that's all.' And you just had a bed and small kitchen. It's really small, but nice stories.

So he moved to Mauritius, or Maltese, one of the issues. He's been to some retreats, you may have met him. Yeah, he couldn't make it in the morning, so I invite you in the sitting and reading. So this evening, as at first I told him to come to the office at 5:00, but then I felt I will come back. I said, 'If someone comes to Bloomington, I'm happy to meet those.' I don't feel like I'll be able to travel. In fact, one did see Cadbury. I feel like he sent me a message saying he liked... I told the relatives also same. Good. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Pranam. I love you all very much and hope to see you around soon. I'm sure, every level.