What Truly Is Grace? - 20th May 2024

So what is that source? We say love comes from there, peace comes from there, life energy comes from there, all true knowledge comes from there, morality comes from there, truth comes from there. What is that 'there'?

It's like nothing in the world. It's you can roughly say it's the most subtle and everything, and it's within. It is just the unchanging bliss.

So it's like nothing, yes. But is it like a box? No. We go to it, it is nothing in the world, but can we compare it to a box and say once you open this box there is bliss, there is peace, there is joy? It's like the best box of treasure in the world, you see? Even the sages have said the diamond is in your pocket, or you're sitting on the treasure begging for food. But is it that way, that you go over there and anyone who goes over there gets this box of goodies?

You become the box, the whatever that... what is that thing? So it's gifts, we know. It's like a seed. It's almost like if you use metaphor, it's like a seed. It's so... I mean, but without form, everything is contained in it. So it's basically contains... it's sort of like the most subtlest is in it and everything sprouts out of it.

Yes, okay. So it's a box, it's a seed. Beautiful, beautiful metaphor. It's a seed. So you go over there and this seed may sprout and may give you these beautiful... but the seed itself is a metaphor for that which is beyond understanding, beyond phenomena, is it? But are these metaphors direct? Because then anyone with access to that box, anyone who comes to that seed, should then have access to this. This should be available across the board, you see? And a lot of us actually believe that: that my job is to do whatever practice, whatever my masters told me, so that one day I can get access to this beautiful door. And once this door is open, then life is full of the good stuff. The door to heaven, is it? Then what would be the role of Grace? You got the box, it's all yours. You open the door, the room is yours. Then what would be the role of Grace?

To stay with the box. But there's no role of Grace to find it.

There is. So what is that? The Grace will give us a glimpse of it, the taste of it, we can go...

Grace will give... so the Grace comes from the box? I do not agree with that feeling. For me it is some form of me itself which is unchanged.

A form of you that is unchanged, unaffected?

Yes. So this form of you then is the source of joy, peace, happiness, as well as it gives the Grace. It is the only living one.

The only living one, which is then very different from the box or the seed—maybe a seed is sort of living. So there's a living one inside of us, is it? And he said something very beautiful; he said, 'the only living one.' These two realms that you talk of, one is this and the other one where... so it's like I'm conceptualizing, but I'm trying to conceptualize in two different ways. One is that layer thing that you say, yeah, if you take it as a layer, it's just one space like an onion: one layer, second layer, they're all in the same space. And the other one that you talk about like a portal, like this space is different and you go through that portal, there's another space. And which I don't know what to make of this. This is as far as I can go, one of these two, or maybe it's not even that.

So remember that we're still contemplating: what is that on the inside? It seems to give us more satisfaction, more peace, more joy than anything on the outside can. And then we are exploring: what are its attributes? Is it a scientific phenomena? Is it like a box of treasure? Once you dig deep, like the churning of the ocean, you dig deep and you get the Amrit of this immortality. So is there a magic substance over there which makes you immortal? Is there a tree of knowledge? Is there a box or a room full of good things that you enter? Then if the question is what about Grace, then we start to realize that it cannot be something scientific or boxy or phenomenal in this way. It has to be living for it to give us Grace, as long as there is a 'us', you see? Give us Grace. Because if there were not an 'us', then whose Grace is it, and for whom then? So even the sages, greatest sages, have said that it can only happen through Grace. Grace for whom? For us, or what we take ourselves to be. So who is the giver of this Grace? Is it then like an automated system? You have—what is that called?—Fastag on your car. You cross through that particular gate and then automatically, because you have the Fastag, then Grace opens the door for you and you go. That's what I'm attempting to deconstruct it like this, slowly, slowly.

So Grace traditionally has been called something which is an undeserved gift, you see? And the broader definition of Grace is everything. Everything is Grace. Everything that happens, we should look at it as a gift from God and therefore it is Grace, you see? But Grace is usually referred to in the world as something which is an undeserved gift, an undeserved blessing, that I was not worthy at any level but somehow this happened for me, and that is Grace. So all of us say that we may try and try and try, and we must try to a full extent, but the revelation of God, the revelation of the highest, the revelation of the Self, the revelation of that which is within cannot happen without Grace. So is the substance which we are looking for and the Grace which helps us find that substance, are they two? If anything is two, you have to say it's one only, you can't say it's two.

So what is that within ourselves for which our effort is not enough, but it seems to be needed, but also there is a Grace that has to operate for us to discover this revelation? And who is the one that provides this Grace or not?

Lack of name and lack of name and role is Grace. So the moment we try to say what is Grace, that is not Grace.

Yeah, but who provides it? Who's the gift from? Where there is no objectification of any subjectively, who provides it? Where does it come from? Is it inherent? Like if it's daytime, then sunlight is inherent. Is it like that?

Yeah, when we stop making names and forms, it is.

So is it like Fastag, where the Fastag is this one: stop making name and form? Is it? We can look, we have to look. But then there's no room for Grace because we have said we made the effort, we drop name and form. Then you may say that even the dropping of name and form happens by Grace. So you made the effort. So how does that system work, that you tried to drop name and form and it was given to you? Where is the gate? Where is the Fastag door?

Our choice. It's our choice to do what? To drop the name and form.

So you dropped it. So then it's an entitlement. Can we ourselves start living as a Grace kind of?

So then the revelation of the reality of the Self... you drop name and form, and your dropping of name and form then entitles you to the revelation of the Self. Is it like that?

To have entitlement, you need some name and form to be there again, right? Right, right. But I'm saying that now suppose that you are the middle of the scientific experiment. We are the ones making the reports. So we are noticing that in the object that we are observing, the attachment to name and form is gone, the labeling of name and form is gone. So and we, in our observation, we are saying, 'This one is living empty, this one is open and empty.' So then should we as the observer say that this one now automatically will get self-realization or the revelation of the Self? I don't know. Worth exploring.

It's like raining, Father. It just... it's raining Grace. It's raining continuously. Just be available to it.

Yeah, so it's like that. So now you're empty, so now it has to be available to you because it's raining all the time.

The labeling of name and form is gone. And in our observation, we are saying this one is living empty, this one is open and empty. So then should we, as the observer, say that this one now automatically will get self-realization or the revelation of the Self? I don't know. Worth exploring. It's like raining, Father. It just... it's raining. Grace is raining continuously; just be available to it. Yeah, so it's like that. So now you're empty, so now it has to be available to you because it's raining all the time. If you're truly empty, then it's like whether anyone or anything likes it or not, it is yours. The self-realization then... realizing is the source. The source is realizing. The source is the only thing that's everywhere. There's no self-realization... there is self-realization because the Self has dropped duality. Yeah, then there is no realization of the Self.

Well, it's a little bit like this. So within the Self are the expressions, various... all the forms of expression of the Self. And through substance, creation of substance from nothingness, creation of substance, creation of form, and then individualization. And there's a macro, micro, and then, you know, there's a whole. So it's the... now the whole is... it's sort of going from identification to a local that's its own creation, to realizing that it's everything everywhere. So for Consciousness, who has the power to get identified or to drop the identification, you see, there is no revelation of the recognition of itself or its own source, which we call awareness. Is it like that? Even Bhagavan has said that the dropping of avidya, the dropping of Maya, is to come to the Self. Is there an ultimate knower within the knower? First, Consciousness arises in the state and then the form appears. Now, if the Consciousness is invisible to the knower, maybe out of habit or conditioning, then it crawls onto the first gross, the object, the body, that within which Consciousness arose.

Yeah, yes. So that then, you said, is forgotten?

Well, it doesn't... attachment... maybe it's like out of habit. There's... that's what we call the mind. There's an attachment to the form and then, you know, so it's like...

So is that mind effective, having an effect on the knower itself?

No, it's a little bit like the form itself is a projection. It's like, maybe another crude metaphor is, the Consciousness is like lots of pixels. So it doesn't change itself, but it flashes certain patterns of pixels and that feels like the body to awareness itself. And then there's an attachment to that. And then, you know, it's like, okay, then I'm that. And then, you know, the world appearance. But it's those pixels always changing. Like the appearance of motion is just like different pixels flashing. The screen is not changing. These pixels... the feeling of awareness, feeling that this is something happens outside the realm of Consciousness... it's within the realm of... it's feeling the Consciousness itself. Within the realm of Consciousness is the first experiencing. The awareness itself, when looked at independently from Consciousness, does not have any changing attribute, any attribute at all. So even the feeling which went from a neutral feeling to a feeling of seeing something is not actually in awareness itself or the pure knowingness itself, but in its play as Consciousness. Then firstly identified as an object, as a person, then dropping that identification. In the dropping of the identification, is there... after the dropping of the identification, is there no role for Grace?

Of course, in the dropping of identification also, Grace has to operate. But let's look at it. I'm trying to understand your question through an analogy of the dream and the dreamer. So there's Narin right now, and then there's the Narin in the dream. And in the dream, he is suffering or whatever; he's stuck at the airport, can't board the flight, something is going on and he's stressed out. And the dream Narin is stuck in that dream. And experientially, I'm speaking as the dream Narin, there have been situations in my dream where I say this subtle feeling that this can't be real, but I'm still not able to wake up, so to speak. Then there are days where the same... I have this typical dream that always happens when I'm stuck at an airport trying to look at my boarding pass, but it's written in some strange language, I can't find the gate, and I'm running around. There are days where it's like the awake Narin leaks into that dreamer and then I'm able to get out and say, you know, in the dream there was a feeling that I was dreaming. So are you saying that Grace is basically the leaking in of the actual awareness into the dreamer, allowing dream Narin to get back into so-called awakening? Is that...?

Yes, in a way. So what makes a usual dream different from a lucid dream? And then how does that... who does that process of lucidity belong to? Or who... like, does it... experientially it seems like the dream Narin actually has no control. It feels like that. No control.

Yeah, yeah. So the days where I wake up, I'm thankful that something woke me up. So I don't know beyond that. So let's call that process of coming to lucidity or waking up either way. You see, because the dream also becomes harmless when it's lucid because, right, the dream character may experience the sensation of some fear and all, but you're really not scared because you know it's a dream. I know it's... so either coming to that lucidity that I am not an object in this realm, you see, and or just waking out of that where this realm is no longer appearing to me. Who is the provider of that lucidity or that waking up? The Absolute. I just want to speak experientially rather than creating concepts. So like I said, I've had this repetitive dream pattern of being stuck and either my phone will turn into stone or it'll be in a different language, all crazy situations. And every time it's different, yet I'm stuck. So okay, I go through these dreams many times and then... but in the waking state, I have this vague memory that you've been stuck at these situations and crazy things happen. And I thought about it and I thought about it in the waking state. And then after a few weeks, while in that same dream again, I'm stuck somewhere, something told me, 'Boss, this is that same stuff that's repeating, so you must be in a dream.' But I still didn't have the freedom to wake up. I could detect that something is wrong here. So I don't know beyond that. Yeah, so it still seems like the choice is not mine, the dreamer's choice.

I wonder if you are even getting the drift of where I'm going with this, in the sense that... okay, let's keep exploring this. So I don't want to give it away, then it'll become another concept. If it comes from within yourself in your own contemplation, then it really becomes a true insight. So we've looked at effort and we've looked at... whatever the effort may be, nothing actually in the realm of spirituality is an entitlement. You see that? Or I don't know if all of you agree, but you can contemplate this. Otherwise, it should be that the hundred times somebody with authenticity asks 'Who am I?', they should come to the revelation. But some ask only once and some may ask for their whole life and they don't recognize the Self, they don't realize the Self. The false doesn't drop. The snake looks like a snake; it is not seen as the rope, whatever metaphor you want to use. When we drop name and form, at least it seems like absence of suffering is guaranteed. Yeah, but is absence of suffering realization of the Self? You can dive in more also. It's very interesting.

For the absence of suffering... so yesterday during the weekend, I was supposed to perform my some social responsibilities and somehow it was very irritating. And I could notice, Father, that I'm open and empty, but it was still not the absence of suffering. So my question would be that, so when after being open and empty, having that bliss is also a Grace, and not having that bliss is up to Him, Father? Was it like I was not open and empty and that's why I was not having the bliss, or I was open and empty but still it's up to Him?

That's exactly what we are exploring. That's exactly the question. So you've taken it one step ahead. So instead of just calling it Grace, which again becomes... there's no 'Him' in the picture, it is knock, knock, knock and there's a force field called Grace which either operates or it doesn't operate. Now you brought Him into the picture. So what is His role? Mercy. His mercy is Grace. I'm trying to ask everything neutrally, otherwise many times you will just follow the drift of where I'm going. I don't know. So in short, you are asking it: after open and empty, how the Grace comes in? Let's say open is up to me, staging the... setting the table is up to me. After that, what? I don't know. It's like this one can see. Before you see... sorry, something is coming. So we are still exploring what is this inside us. We are still exploring what is this inside us, you see.

So we've come to various options. We've seen that, okay, there's a shining box full of all the good things which the world cannot give us, but you just have to dig within or do the Amrit Manthan within, and then once you discover this nectar of immortality, then all love, peace, and joy are for you. That is one option. Similarly, you can look at it as a door which can open. You think you can open with your practice, with your whatever your Masters told you, then the door opens and you find this beautiful room where you can stay forever. That is the second option. The third option is that it seems to be incumbent upon us to really follow the pointers of the teacher, but we can never say that 'I have followed this to a point where I can get to the box or open the door.' There is something which is beyond our both our understanding and our control which leads to that revelation from happening. Now I'm asking this... everybody must be more or less together... so I'm asking whether we feel that there's a system where you accumulate enough points and then the door opens or the box is found, or what is that system? That is important.

So, Father, the astonishing and awe-generating thing is that it feels like it's always the Absolute. Like every word, everything, every sensation is the Absolute. And so there's nothing that can be done by, you know, the set of sensations that are appearing in the Absolute, isn't it? The only thing that can be done is to drop giving value to it and saying that, you know, 'This is me attached to the body that needs to accumulate virtue.' That's all bogus, right? Because there's a bunch of sensations in Consciousness. There's no virtue, there's no life actually in sentience. It's going to fall apart like all matter. Isn't it amazing? As you said, right, everything is just like... all matter is entropy, everything is going to fall apart. So it's everything, all those sensations. So the... there's nothing. It just has to disappear and give full credit to what already was there. So Grace is actually... it's not an accumulation, it's deletion. I mean, from the balance sheet, you have to delete the fraudulent assets that are claiming ownership on it, right? You have to just delete that and then just give full credit to what already is.

Okay, so this Grace, how do you invoke it? Like, is it just a point system? Is it based on, like you said, no virtue? So then what is it? You see, it's like there's a spaceship called Grace which is just circling the earth and then gets... zooms in to delete the false, to take avidya away for example, or to come to the revelation, or to give us love or whatever our spiritual goal may be, you see. Then how to call this spaceship? Or there's no way to call it? Then... so then we are saying that we remove the false. Even to remove it needs that spaceship's help. But suppose that you were able to...

Virtue, so then what is it? You see, it's like there's a spaceship called Grace which is just circling the earth and then zooms in to delete the false, to take avidya away for example, or to come to the Revelation, or to give us Love or whatever our spiritual goal may be. You see, then how to call this spaceship? Or there's no way to call it? So then we are saying that we remove the false, but even to remove it needs that spaceship's help. But suppose that you were able to do this by yourself. Suppose you can't, but suppose you were able to become open and empty by yourself. Then Revelation is inherent and therefore an entitlement. Is that what you're saying?

Come here and... I know they tried really hard and I know that open and empty, at least still there, they felt that. But beyond that, they never felt what you've had us experience in the next... yeah, so exactly right. So what is that? What sets the boundary? What sets the boundary? Do you evoke it by trying to, like, by being it? So like by almost like vibrating or feeling at that same frequency as what it is? Like if Grace is what... what is it? It's just maybe like feelings of love, of compassion, of kindness. Is that how you feel when you're feeling like you're in Grace? Is it the same? It's like, do you evoke it when you do it like a cloud of love, like a frequency, like electricity? Frequency of love, like radio channel 91 FM, and just a frequency of love. And if you can tune into that frequency, then you are entitled to Grace? If you can tune into it by being it, by receiving, by giving it, by whatever way you can just come to 91 whatevers or whatever it is, right? So you just get there and then the mechanics of it will take over.

Only pray. But prayer to whom? We have one choice which is, well, which is we have a choice, right? Which is how we frame ourselves. If we frame ourselves as, you know, the real ones that are searching for God, so we have framed ourselves as, 'Okay, you know, so I'm the one, I'm searching and I have to find it,' right? Or there's another choice which is available to us, which is: what I took myself to be, now that I see is actually, you know, it's just a bunch of sensations or an appearance. It doesn't persist even over the waking state and definitely doesn't persist between waking and dream. So I have a choice to say it's false and so I kind of discard it. But the hard part is, it's easy to say these words; when you're in the world, it's not really easy to walk the talk. To walk the talk really means giving up the attachment, giving up desire, right? Because you have to keep saying it's false. You are asking, 'Who am I that has the thought?' rather than reacting to it. So that's where the sadhana comes in. And then somehow this sadhana of giving up attachment to the world whittles away the false. Maybe that's what they call sadhana.

Does the sadhana do it? I mean, eventually it's the conditioned self unconditioning itself. And who is the one who gave us this free will? The Self. It's all the Self. The Self, yeah. It really is then. The Self gave us this free will and then what is His role after that? He gave us the free will and maybe somehow showed us that our sadhana has to be this. And then, suppose I did exactly what the greatest sadhaka in the world did, then is God-realization, self-realization, whatever you want to call it, then that should be mine in all fairness? As in, the sadhana should be the Self's, because it can't be mine, you know, there's no 'mine.' So it has to be the Self's. But I mean, Bhagavan does assure us that if you actually do what He says... I think the great ones do assure us that if you do it with full sincerity, yeah, it should reveal itself. But they also say it is all ultimately up to Grace. Bhagavan has said hundreds of times. So what is this Grace? I want to know how to make it work for me.

There is no 'us' to have that freedom to choose. Yes, and the Master has to show me that. So I don't understand how I can have, as this talking, moving being, the ability to invoke backwards or however... it has to come from that place out of mercy, Grace. Why and who it chooses, that... okay, let's say we can't determine who it chooses or why, but whose is it? Who does it belong to? There's nobody else. No, so it belongs to you only. No, not this entity here. There's only one. So now without this tension, this Atma, which is that the Oneness and the duality playing, you see, without that, at least like in duality, it is completely clear that we can say Grace is needed; it has to come from something to us. But without this, if it was just Shuddha, you see, is there a role for Grace? Yes, there are no two at all. So what is this Grace?

She woke up the instant I said... because to recognize that Advaita, I mean, when you start, you don't start as... I mean, you begin with a sense of being separate. You begin with that sense. So there's this individualistic, separate 'I' which I'm saying there isn't actually. It's not actual. But even when I'm starting as an individual, I somehow... that Grace, the truth of the Advaita, is that Grace which takes away that... truth is the Grace?

Huh? Yeah, God is the Grace. I mean, because when you start, you feel yourself to be limited. You don't feel yourself to be unlimited. You wouldn't need to do anything otherwise. So when I feel myself as limited and I begin the search in the form of a Master, whoever, it's that one's Grace. It's that God-truth on the one who looks separate, who's seeking to... why can't that one, the real one, just like forget about... why can't the real one? Yeah, because in reality nothing has happened to that one. No, sir. In reality, to come to that reality, that reality only forgot itself. So now it needs to... it is the Supreme one. It can't forget. Awareness has never forgotten itself as Awareness. Now, Awareness didn't forget, but Awareness also has the power to play as Consciousness, and so it can behave any way it wants. It's His dream. You can't... then why is Grace needed? He can just drop the play.

Who can drop the play? The one. The one only drops the play then with its own... what is the need for Grace? Because when itself it feels, Father, that it's not... when I feel separate, when I feel different. So Grace is fake till we feel separate?

No, Grace is real always. It's fake? No. Till we feel separate, it is. When I then discovered it to be myself, I mean, then you find that Grace only is yourself. Then I find that it was always there; there was not a separate me to begin with. Correct. So there's no Grace? Yes, it's like that Atma. It's like it works both ways. It's because as an individual self I'm not... so let's see. I'm saying, let's take it further a bit. So Shankaracharya, without whom our India, Sanatan Dharma, would not have so much prevalence of Advaita Vedanta for sure, you see, when he met somebody who was just learning Sanskrit grammar and spent their whole life being a grammarian, he said to them... why relate to grammar? Yeah, so he said to him that you're wasting your life basically, and you must start taking the name of God. And why take the name of God? Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, without whom none of us I feel would be in this room, talked about this being the ultimate. Ultimately it all depends on Grace. You have to accept, I mean, the humility to accept something other than that you create this individualistic you. You know that you could create this universe, but you didn't know. No, I did not. The one... how can you? The one is the one. Yeah, but you don't really know that. You don't know. You know there's God. You can't be so proud that you can't feel that there is something beyond this individual you, and that you can call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter as long as you realize it's just not me alone here.

So let's look at another way to look at this. So most of us must have studied the Yoga Sutras at some point, or many of us may. So you do whatever, the eightfold path and all of that, but the Ishvara Pranidhana, to surrender to God, why do they talk about that? I should just be able to do all the... speak the truth, do my yoga, do my pranayama, do all the right things. Then what is this God business? You studied the Yoga Sutras, so what is the need for Ishvara Pranidhana?

Everything setting up this table also includes me, and to get rid of that, to worship is when something which is created is something which is beyond any doership, any action, any doership. It's just... you just have to receive it. Just have to receive it. So you get rid of doership. That is surrender to God. I think if it's not me, then it and me and my action, then it is surrender to God in a powerful way. When you... I told you, I think two or three of us were talking about not being able to sleep at some period, you know, waking up at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. and then trying everything, being open, empty, calm. Nothing worked. And then you said, 'Just surrender and pray to God and tell Him that it is His problem. I'm not even going to try and I don't even expect to fall asleep as a result of this prayer. I just... it's up to You now.' And honestly, that's the only thing that has ever worked. And to his point, I don't think any of us can make ourselves sleep. Sleep is like the biggest form of Grace that we experience every night. So it just comes like a fog, and if you try to mess with it, you're probably going to be in trouble. That's what I feel.

So he said, 'Natha, still bow down.' That even many have realized, you know, come to recognition, but it doesn't last very long for them till they come to your surrender, to your lotus feet, or ask for devotion, because it just goes away. And I remember you saying to us like that, like you're going to do the Advaita, that many of you recognize something but you go back to picking up that 'I' again and again. And unless you stay in God's presence, that tanmatra, that 'I' will never go away. And so you kind of invoke... I mean, we've realized by now that it's nothing to do really, there's no 'you' there now, but it is His Grace which is... I mean, which was everything initially and now is. And I found that really so beautiful.

So Sri Ramakrishna said that this 'me' is very chalak, this 'me' is very clever, is very shrewd, true. And therefore we must always keep it as a servant, he said. And I'm sure it's a translation from Bengali. So I came across this yesterday, and of course we've been talking about the same thing, that unless we find a way to come into servitude of God, into a deep love for God, then this 'me' is always going to be up to its tricks. And you don't have to take my word for it; now Sri Ramakrishna is saying the same thing. And if we keep our spirituality purely scientific and personal in that way, then we will not be able to come to a servitude or devotion. For a box or a gate, as great as the gift may be, it is impossible for me to bow down and to be in servitude to a system, a process, a thing. So to be able to bow down is a very important gift. It is a very important gift in the human condition. But in this modern world, we are not able to receive this gift, give this gift to ourselves actually, because we want to skirt around the topic of who is really sitting in our hearts. And this contemplation must be brought to the fore. The contemplation must be... you never have to buy into any conclusion that I'm offering, but at least the contemplation is worth looking at. Because you don't want to spend the entirety of your life without having contemplated this topic. So if you really look at it, it all boils down to what she said: what is there inside me that makes me content where nothing in the...

To skirt around the topic of who is really sitting in our hearts—this contemplation must be brought to the fore. The contemplation must be... you never have to buy into any conclusion that I'm offering, but at least the contemplation is worth looking at, you see? Because you don't want to spend the entirety of your life without having contemplated this topic. So, if you really look at it, it all boils down to what she said: What is there inside me that makes me content where nothing in the world does? So many beautiful options have been spoken about today. There's a box, there's a door, there's a seed, there's a frequency; there's so many things, see? But can I come into servitude of any of them? And why is it that the greatest sages across traditions, across cultures, across forms of spirituality—whether they were Shaivite, whether they were Bhakta, whether they were Vedantin, whether they were Christians or Muslims or Sikhs—they all have given to themselves a place where they can bow down. And they are all saying that the outer place is just representative of the inner place. So, what is there inside of me that I should bow down to? That question we must not skirt around, although it may be very uncomfortable for some of us. Who is sitting in there that is worth bowing down to? And is that a reality or make-believe? Is it just not... because I don't feel like Grace can come from a box. I don't feel it is scientific or technological. I don't feel like it is phenomenal, and I don't feel like it is unintelligent.

So, if it was just a natural thing like natural sciences in the world—then water evaporates, then it cools down, it condenses, so then the river becomes the cloud and the cloud becomes the river—then what is there to bow down to in that? Should I bow down to the river, the cloud, the raindrops? It's all a process; it's a scientific process. Then what is this surrender? What is this Grace? Why have all the sages talked about it? Even the Zen ones who don't talk about it, you see, they still call themselves Buddhists. We talk about the Buddha nature. Buddha nature—why not just nature? Could have just said nature.

The domain of science is basically the domain of matter, but even the great scientists say that matter came, you know, from intelligence, certain intelligence. I mean, even within the domain of science, we say a Big Bang and, you know, and then we try to look for subtler and subtler forms of matter. Then they find that there's no causality or, you know, there's no sort of predictable laws that you can say that, you know, their intelligence is inherent in this. I mean, somebody as great as Einstein spent his whole life trying to, you know, create this or discover this unified theory and he just gave up, right? So they find that, you know, that at the end there's this sort of—call it nectarian intelligence—which is forming the very basic building blocks of even matter. The formlessness can take any form; it can be a wave, it can be matter, anything. And we have no root; it's outside the domain of... I mean, it's beyond it. I mean, science is kind of like a special case of a certain appearance of it. So then, we bow down to, you know, the one that creates everything and in a flash can change any appearance. So, you know, one world can appear, another world can appear; it's all due to the one. And that one is, you know, basically the intelligence that's experiencing it too. So that's why it's living—the living, the only living intelligence that's, you know, that's even giving us the ability to think about it. It's just that we've never recognized it because we've got compartmentalized into, you know, thinking we're the body, not giving... it's like we've taken ownership of the Supreme intelligence as part of ourselves, which is, you know, we need to give up.

Yes, very good. And scientists are talking about it in the last whatever years, and the scriptures have spoken about this for a long, long time. In the Upanishads: from the wholeness comes the wholeness, and the wholeness remains untouched. Even the whole comes out of it; even the wholeness comes out of it. Which is what they're saying is that it is beyond all physical principles, because if something comes out of something, then that at least leaves that much, reduces that much in matter or energy, which is fundamentally the same. But the sages are pointing us to that wholeness from which a wholeness comes—a Nirguna from which Saguna comes—and yet in the coming of the Saguna, the Nirguna remains whole, although Saguna is also whole.

So, let me say for myself that if it was a mere intelligence, then I don't feel like bowing down to it. Because like Mr. Spock multiplied by 10,000—then I'm going to bow down to that? And what else is it? And is it... of course it's beyond gender, but is it like a... we may say lightning bolt, isn't it? Or something intelligent, which is the growing of a plant is intelligent, but we don't bow down to most of this intelligence in the world. Only some plants you pick; you may pick Tulsi Ma or something like that. So, if it is just an intelligence, then would you surrender to it? Would you bow down to it and live like you bow down to it? I'm not at all saying again, I'm using the word, it is unintelligent. But is it only intelligence? See what I'm getting to. No, best to not think about it. Best to not think about it, see it. What do you find? Or do you find? And is it possible that the 'what' or the 'it' is actually, like someone said before, a living being? A living reality.

Living is too... living being is too far. Someone said, I feel like you said no. So he said the only living being, life itself.

So living being comes with characteristics. Living being comes with like, what kind of character is it? It is living, that's right. Saguna itself gives a form like man or what? What do you mean by... so if the seeker sings, and if it is purely Nirguna, then that Kirtan can never happen. The seeker is saying, 'Give me your Grace so that I can sing your praises of your good'—like you want to sing praises of your virtues in a way, or your attributes. And even for that we need Grace. But if it was purely Nirguna, then how to sing? So it's clear today, satsang is a combination of Zen, Bhakti, everything, because I don't want to give anyone any room to leave, you know, leave from the task at hand. You have to flower without blocking yourself. Flower deeply in all ways.

So what is the trouble with there being a living being? Should I surrender to an inanimate object instead? Or were all these sages lying and saying just, 'I'm tired of answering your question, just surrender'? Is it like that? The refuge of even the Buddhists, who are the ones to least talk about God, will say: Buddham Sharanam Gachami. This Sharanam, the refuge of Buddha, the refuge of the Sangha—what is there in the Buddha that I should take refuge in? Another type of Buddhist says, 'If you see a Buddha on the road, then you kill him.' They say that. So you get the distinction, hopefully, being in satsang long enough, that you're not making a mental concept of Buddha. But if that one still called themselves Buddhist—Nagarjuna still called himself a Buddhist in spite of saying that there is nothing, nothing, nothing. When people attacked him, said, 'You get out from here, why are you arguing with Buddhists?' He said, 'You're not getting the point—that you cannot come to true Buddha nature if you're hanging on to Buddha in your head.' And that is his point also. Don't think about it, sort of tension. But is there another way to contemplate which is not in the realm of thinking? So when they tell you, what are they saying? Is it thinking to hear the words of satsang, to meditate, to contemplate upon them, and then to remain in the intuitive insight? Is the Advaita Sadhana... you don't... the benefits apparently when I heard this was that you don't have to do physical loot-put, you can just sit and contemplate. I had no idea what it meant, what contemplation meant at that point.

Is it... so the question to contemplate then in this way is that: Why is it that we are more comfortable with a force-field type of thing, a frequency type of thing, a box type of thing, rather than a living being? And then if I don't meet it in that way, then is surrender possible at all? I can't surrender to a cloud. I can't surrender to a fan, to a box. Only fearful surrender is possible, not positive surrender.

In the sense that fearful... are you saying in the sense that then I won't get the goodies from the box, or I'll get stricken down by lightning because if it is like lightning, or I won't attain the manifestation frequency? Is it like The Secret will not be mine if you don't take it to be living? If you don't take it to be living, then only fear... only fear can be the driver.

Like in these ways, saying exactly. The fear of missing out could be formal, or fear of getting some bad stuff which I don't want. The box is that you inquire enough, or you do enough Sadhana and all of that, then you come to a place within yourself where this box is there. From the box love comes, peace comes, joy comes. So just you got access to the Pandora's Box now, so to speak—the good Pandora's Box, only good things come. But isn't that how many of us are approaching our spirituality? Inquire enough and you will be enlightened, or just pray enough and you will come to peace. That is the question. And where is that? So will that ever become our lived experience, our tasted reality, or will it just remain notional, like a feel-good notion? That is what we have to recognize. Whenever he comes after a break, then he comes in this tantrum mode, which is very good, I enjoy.

Wait, sorry. So as far as doing is concerned, you said set the table and be ready and just wait. And now setting the table and surrender is coming. Can you set the table with the hope that one day the cloud will come and eat your food, or a box will come and eat your food, or a frequency will come and eat your food, or a seed will come and eat your food? So all this time, all whatever setting... open and it's to remember like the cornerstone of spirituality, if you ask any spiritual person in the world, is that they will say faith is the cornerstone, isn't it? Now, faith in what? Faith that my life will be better? Is that faith? Then faith in what? Whenever you refer to God... so when you're setting the table, you're setting it in faith, isn't it?

If you ask me to have faith in Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, it's very simple and easy, yeah. But now when you're saying it's God and it's a living being... so living being I can only see or even...

So that's not a bug, it's a feature. But you're saying, so Krishna will come for dinner, Ram will come, Jesus will come, Buddha will come, whatever. But that is again... so where is... so now how will you meet Ram Ji? How will you meet Krishna? That is the question.

When Father, when you say presence of being, that I can... I can feel the presence of being. And now you're saying this being is a living being. Is it not? I know it is not non-living, but I still can't see it as a living... non-living and living. Non-living like when you negate, it's not frequency, it's not cloud, absolutely yes, there's no doubt. But again, when you say it's a living being, then...

So what makes a living being living, which it is not? Should have some shape? It should grow? It should live? It lives or no? It lives, no? At least that it does, yeah. What gives you life without which you are dead? That has to be living, no questions. That only is the... because the answers have to reveal themselves to you, sometimes ineffably, sometimes without words, without construct. But the recognition within our heart of that is important. Still not answered the Grace part. Two things are as also told you. You heard the question that the Shravana part, then you do the Manana on it, and then the Nididhyasana will happen. But before we switch topics, the living being question is important. So there's a presence in your heart, correct? Now Ram Ji is different from that? Krishna is different from that? Where we didn't have that luck, so how to meet him now? I agree with...

Probably sometimes without words, without construct, but the recognition within our heart of that is important. Still, I have not answered the grace part. Two things are as also told. You heard the question that the satsang part, then you do the Manana on it, and then the grace will happen. But before we switch topics, the living being question is important. So there's a presence in your heart, correct? Now, Ram Ji is different from that, Krishna is different from that, where we didn't have that luck. So how to meet him now? I agree with you, if we had that luck that we were born in a time where Ram, Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, you see, they were in the flesh and blood, let us all just go sit there. That's all, see? But since we don't have that luck, then where to find them? Are they unfindable now? And also, there were people who were next to him at that time and they did not find it, correct? We are also next to him right now; we are not finding. That's what this whole conversation is about. What is blocking us from finding Ram, Krishna, Jesus right now is what I'm asking. Because we are scared somewhere and we want to skirt away from the main topic of spirituality, which is: what is spirit? And if it is not a living presence of God, then how is it spirituality?

Anyway, in our next life, if we are born as some cats or dogs or something, then we will also bitingly tell ourselves that we wasted our human life because Krishna was within ourselves. Like we can say about those who were around Lord Jesus, Lord Krishna, Lord Ram and say they were so stupid, they wasted the chance, and Ravana was stupid, he even fought with him, see? But is our level of stupidity not the same, at least similar? When Kabir Ji says the opportunity will not come again and again, he is trying to get us to avoid the stupidity, isn't it? But why is good news sounding like bad news to you? Asking, 'Nothing can be done now, Father, it's like what to do?' But about what? If you are mistaken about something or I'm mistaken about something, then you must talk it out and find out who is mistaken about it, no? Isn't it?

So if I'm saying that his presence is right there in your heart—whether you call him Ram, Krishna, or Jesus, it doesn't matter what words you use, or Sita Ma or whatever, they are beautiful names to call him—then you are saying that to take it to be a living being inside my heart is a step too much. And I'm telling you that it is not. I feel like this is a crucial conversation in life that we must resolve, isn't it? Either you can... we do so...

You are asking us to surrender again. So it's like, go, go, let's surrender. Surrender to whom? Surrender to a living being. But where is a living being? You surrender to a living being. It happened. How many weeks were you away? Sorry, how many weeks were you away? Two. So who should we surrender to? Energy? Life? Living? Living is... if it is living, it can be dead also, right? So that's where it is. And you're as soon as saying it's a living, it's a property, it can be non-living also. Today it is living, tomorrow... so what is the promise? The promise is of that... of what is it then?

What did Jesus tell us? Find the Kingdom of Heaven within you, and therein is the promise of eternal life. Death is what we are going for anywhere in the world, isn't it? Everything else is leading to death only. But there are some strange ones who have come and told us you will not die. For the only way is to contemplate it now. What? Tell me.

You are saying it's a living being. I say I cannot see it's a living being. I can at least see...

It's telling you that you can see it as a living being, but you... something is resisting within you, which is what? The mind, which is fearful. The mind says, 'Now we are going too far, we are going too far.' It's like Judas' song. This is what the mind plays. I played it for you, I'll play it again. So, I'm only giving you good news. There was some quote I read about this. What is the quote? Anyone remember? One of you sent it to me. That something like—I'm paraphrasing—but spirituality is the only place where all the good news sounds like bad news. So I'm introducing you to eternal life and the presence of God in your heart. How is it possible that that is sounding like bad news?

Okay, so the presence in our heart, we don't take it to be a living being. What should we take it to be? That is where this whole satsang was leading to. This idea that it is like... let's take it to be a scientific something. But I don't take myself to be a scientific something, not really anyway. Even the ones who say like that, you see, will wish each other 'rest in peace.' But if they truly took themselves to be a scientific something and say, 'Okay, now you rest in the grave only,' but everybody wishes themselves rest in peace—others, not themselves. What are they saying? Who are they saying to rest in peace? Not the body that's going to be eaten by worms and... or the fire is going to burn it. So there's no peace in being burned in the fire. So who are they wishing this peace on? And what did the sages... why are the sages saying surrender, pray, be in servitude, have faith, listen to the will of God? Can we listen to the will of a non-living thing?

It's not something new you're hearing in satsang. It's just maybe the break has got... and this is probably the hundredth time or thousandth time that I've said this. Or it's very good that maybe you are encountering it for the first time like this in a full-on way. There's a part of all of you that wants to run. That's to be expected, see? But I'm also hoping that life has made situations for you that you can't really run. So most who come to satsang feel like they... like Guruji says, equally strong mongoose and snake in a fight. We feel stuck. The world is strong and satsang, the pull of satsang, is strong. So one end has to give. Which end is going to give? That we cannot say, and it has to be from Grace.

I know you're not... yeah, it is kind of... it is kind of... I see what you're saying is that the... like the parent who pushes the child in the swimming pool and laughs, they know they'll be okay. Was that kind of critique or criticism? Maybe they are two strong words. But for the Buddhist idea of emptiness, Shunya, it robs it of what you're trying to show us.

Yes, and it was not the original intention of the ones who were the proponents of Shunya, you see. So I feel like almost like a fake fight happened for thousands of years between the Vedantins and the Shunyavadis because everybody took the other one at face value instead of really getting to the essence of what was being pointed to. And my feeling and my understanding of this is that anyone who comes to the essence of it, you see, are really talking about the same things and therefore can't actually argue, you see? Because they realize how difficult it is to put in words and how we have to be fed those words from the Atma within to express this inexpressible thing. So we are always able to relate to that difficulty and can understand. But the ones who take it to be like a scholarly knowledge in the head, they will find a lot of things to argue about.

So I don't feel like, for example, if Adi Shankar himself met Nagarjuna, I don't feel like they would have fought. They would say, 'Ah, okay, you're using that and you're using it like that,' you see? Because one is saying 'Neti, Neti' and one is saying 'nothing, nothing.' It's actually not that difficult. But the only thing is that one is already saying that when you reach the fruit of 'Neti, Neti,' you will come to that Nirguna reality, and another is saying that 'nothing at all' so that you properly do the 'Neti, Neti.' So it's not... you see, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves Buddhists, they would call themselves 'nothing-ists.' But...

But then what I'm hearing you say today is that the better way of dwelling in it or Manana is 'Our Father in Heaven' is something like that, where it's embodied, loving, alive, all the words that you use.

I'm not saying really that I'm making a conclusion about what is better or what is worse. I'm just saying that don't block yourself out from this aspect of it because your mind doesn't like it or you feel like you're only going to be like this, you see? And I feel like it has been the same for... I've not heard of a sage actually in the tradition also who doesn't talk about surrender, prayer, Bhakti.

Maybe I'm already following what you are trying to convey, but just to be sure. I mean, I do believe that there is a living... there is a presence of God which gives me life. And he's a living being because of which I get the life. Apart from that, when I consider Krishna, so I also consider him as a merciful God, like a father who takes care of you. And when I go to him, I ask mercy like that, as if he's a kind father. So is that the perspective you want to bring in?

Yes. Now when you're trying it now, yes, yes. And deep more and more, deepening more and more, deepening in that. It's beautiful. Because I'm not able to connect the living being if you look at it—and I'm not picking on anyone, so I'm not at all saying because I'm using the word 'just' so I'm not picking on you, my dear, I'm not picking on you or any of you. Whatever you said, I'm just looking at it, just looking together with all of you saying that when we pray—and I've been talking about, we've been talking about prayer for quite some time—like if it was... if he or she was not a living being, then is prayer just make-believe? So you are very much on track with what I'm saying now. Because otherwise it would be very hypocritical on one end to say 'have mercy on me' and on the other hand it's just a box or a, you know, or a cloud or something like that. A cloud can't have mercy.

So is the... and whether that relationship becomes like the Gopis who took, or St. Teresa of Avila who took Jesus or Krishna to be their beloved, their bridegroom, you see? All that relationship becomes that of father and son or brother or best friend, that we cannot determine upfront. But are these relationships of the Gopis and St. Teresa of Avila just fantastical and make-believe, or are they authentic? And could they ever be authentic if they were just like imaginary? So my provocation, invitation, bringing everything is so that one day you will take his living presence within your heart to be a greater reality than your own hands or anything appearing to you in the world. And that can come only with faith. Like before also I've talked about, faith is not something that you just state conceptually; it's something what your heart shows you.

This living part, that also I don't get. If it's something which is unchanging, how can it be living? But yet, is it faith to say that I've heard this from you and I will treat it as though it is living and then see what happens, and then it gets reinforced, this belief?

Yeah, so this is what I follow as well, and there's no right or wrong in it. But at least how it flows this way is that we talked about like the notion of the fear of God, which conceptually I would never agree with, you see? But I said, okay, if Jesus talked about it, if these great sages talked about it, so I'm never going to presume that they are wrong. How are they seeing it differently from how I am seeing it? If Tulsidas Ji said the same thing that Jesus said, I don't feel like both of them were wrong and I am the one who's sitting here who's right, you see, who has now come to higher truth than they did. So how are they seeing it differently than how am I seeing it?

So if you do this with this man in front of you, that what is he saying that makes it seem different from what I'm seeing? And what makes it that way? Let's explore that. Even that much is enough for me. You don't have to say he must be right, because I'm very wrong on many, many... but at least if we can meet in this way that you say, 'Okay, he's telling me like this, and from whatever little I've known of him, I've seen that he tries to speak from his own direct experience, right?' So what is it that we are seeing differently? What is at the root of that? Still that gap, yes, there is that gap. That has to be the food for our contemplation.

For me, you don't have to say he must be right because I'm very wrong on many, many things. But at least if we can meet in this way that you say, 'Okay, he's telling me like this, and from whatever little I've known of him, I've seen that he tries to speak from his own direct experience, right? So, what is it that we are seeing differently? What is at the root of that?' Can I explore that? That's right over there. Still that gap. Yes, there is that gap. It has to be the food for our contemplation, isn't it? So we can be on two separate ends of things. You can see that the presence is just some energy, some feeling; we can say it is like that. I am saying that the living presence of God—whether we call that Atma, whether we call that Ram, whether we call that Krishna, whether we call that Jesus—is actually the presence of God in your heart, you see? Then these two are very different, actually, you see? Because one is like scientific, one is deeply a matter of faith. So there's a world of difference between the two notions, you see?

So, what could be real? And why is this man saying all this? How is it that he's seeing something that I'm not seeing? Is the difference our seeing, or is the difference because we are going with a different interpretation from somewhere? Is that what you would recommend, like contemplate it further? How do I see what you see? But then prayer wouldn't be possible. I can't, like, I have to first see what you are seeing and then I can pray. Yeah, the prayer will help you contemplate. Prayer teaches us how to pray. Yeah, it could be that there is some aspect of ourselves—so I don't want to immediately say that we are fooling ourselves or the mind is tricking us, no, so otherwise we won't contemplate it properly—is there an aspect of ourselves which is seeing it in a different way? See, what am I basing my conclusions on? Is it based on insight or just some resistance of fear or something?

Just to clarify what you said to us now, so that I see that I trust you. And if you saw it and I'm not seeing it the way you see it, it means there's a gap and I need to try and see it. Or like when I do the prayer, I find that I'm beginning to see it the way you see it. So if I interpret it like through my head or something in that way, I will not see it. You see, that's what you're saying.

In a way, yes. Yes, in a way. Or it could be that I'm seeing it through the lens of some concept and the way you see it, you express it to me so I don't die stupid. That can also be like that. You know, maybe I'm being conceptual about it and you're seeing it more clearly, so you can tell me. So there will be some help to this one to not die as stupid as whatever the way. No, as long as it is coming from inside, it's very welcome.

Is it okay? Can I just, before we come to the question, say one more thing? Which is that for a moment, if we were to just as faith or just even notionally belief, take what I'm saying to be true just for a minute, and then you can drop it. What would that mean for us? See, Ram—who the very word actually means the light of Atma, the very word means the light of Atma within—his presence is actually a living reality in ourself. In myself, I can meet him. I can find the presence of the highest intelligence, like he said, but also the most just, the most loving, the most merciful, the most kind, the revealer of the Absolute itself, the Guru of Gurus, the creator of all the universes.

If it is true that he lives in my heart, but we spent our whole life not looking in that direction because of some childhood conditioning or some notion that we had, or some upset we had, some grievance we had with God or something like that, so we just refused to turn inward in that way. We block ourselves. And if it turns out to be true, wouldn't you rather just face whatever resistance or whatever is coming for you from this looking and get over it and come to the truth of the matter? So that in a few weeks or months from now, you can say, 'Ananta is a crazy mad man, he doesn't know what he's talking about, I am out of here,' or say, 'Oh thank God, I found you in my heart,' isn't it? I feel it's a risk worth taking. And if you want to run, then I will understand. I will understand because what you have found after looking is completely different from what I'm saying, you see? But not just by thinking, isn't it?

So this is my proposal to you, because to come to this anytime later than now would not be worth it. And maybe I'm just expressing it differently today, but this is all I've been saying. It is not possible for us to set the table just like in a mythical way, just like, 'Okay, we're setting the table.' This is all I can do. It's not like playing in a dollhouse or playing doctor-doctor like children. It's not like that. Yeah, just like, 'Oh, because he said so, let's do like that.' You see what I'm saying? That at least to contemplate, to explore openly, is something that we must do. Because what if it turns out to be true? If it turns out to be false, then most of us are living as if it is false anyway. Most of the world is living like it is false anyway. But what if it turns out to be true in ways which are unimaginable? Our life will change.

And in intention, it's all the same. Whether we are trying to be free from Maya and to come to the recognition of the highest reality, or we are trying to turn towards him in our love for him, it is to come to the same Oneness. Kabir Ji was saying something very beautiful. He said that the conclusion of the Gani and the Bhakti are not different. The greatest Gani will still build temples and pray to God, and the greatest Bhaktas will still say that we are one. So why I'm provoking everyone today is just to step out of any sort of comfort zones, any mental barriers, any sort of things which are only blocking ourselves. And in this case, I have to tell you that what we may be blocking from ourselves is a lot of just love and light.

While all the questioning and everything was happening, you finally at the end mentioned it. Because what it just required was your first pointing: just don't believe your next thought and you're there. And there is a certain feel of something that's happening, but not very clear the way you mention it, like, but you don't know what it is. And I think it's just about deepening and deepening.

So let me just share a little bit more about this, which is what happens to us. If you walk into a room and two or three people are very angry and having a very angry conversation with each other, is it something in us also grabs onto that sort of vibration and something starts becoming angry? We may go back home after that and our kids will say, 'Why are you so angry today? What's wrong with you? Did you have a fight?' You say, 'No, no, these people are fighting like that.' This is the power of being around others, being around people. So can we fathom the power of being in presence, His presence, in the presence of His love, the presence of His light? If being in the presence of people in the world can have such an impact on us, and the sages have told us that that presence you can stay with in your heart, what will be the impact of that? I can tell you that this life, which seems to be just trudging along, then completely transforms as if there's rocket fuel in your life now. Not necessarily in an outward way, but inwardly, the depths that you will discover to yourself are unimaginable. Why is all the good news sounding like bad news?

So thank you, Father, because I think really you've kind of forced us to really experientially discover, right? So when we all feel the light, now the question is, we feel the light and we feel the body, and you're forcing us to make a choice and say, 'Now you can only be one or the other.' You know that the body is—you can see it within you like a subject, you can feel the sensations like an object—you can feel all those things within you. So anyhow, it doesn't make even logically, it doesn't make sense that you could be something that's sort of like in front of you, like a bunch of sensations that you can literally feel and map out.

So you take the leap of faith and say, 'There's the shining light.' So it has the quality of something living because I know there's light. So then there's devotion and faith, and faith in the Guru, and you say, 'I am that.' And then you sort of say, 'I am that,' and then kind of like a union happens between that and you, the kind of the witness in that, because it's everywhere. So you just merge into the everythingness and then you start to feel just intense peace. And I think the feedback—so there's a faith required to reject the body and say, 'I am that,' which is not nothing we've ever done before in our life. So there's faith in the Guru to do that. And then the feedback comes through just the peace, the bliss. That's the feedback to say that, 'Yes, you're right.' You won't feel it in any other way, but that is, you know, you're just not affected by anything, you're just feeling just joy. So I just want to thank you because you force us to make this, take this step and discover for ourselves.

So fundamentally, I'm just driving home more and more the point that we can't be spiritual without spirit, and spirit is not spirit unless it is God's presence. It works like that in Satsang, that first something starts sharing like that, then just the heat keeps getting more and more put on after that. Because maybe something just felt that there's an aspect of our spirituality which is like lifeless in a way. So let's breathe some life into that before we run out of breath. Humility, yes, faith, all intertwined. And our biggest block, and that is why humility is needed, is like we were saying last time, that our biggest block is whatever we think we know. So humility means to be able to set that aside and look afresh. Yeah, like, can bowing down ever be sincere? And what is the point at which it can be sincere? In India, from childhood we learn Namaste, and we also tell Westerners, we'll say, 'Oh, you know, our culture is so good, the God in me is bowing down to the God in you.' But if you never take that to be true, then what is it? It's all just lip service. So bowing down cannot happen unless we really feel like a living God lives in our heart and a living God lives there as well.

Years, years. I don't know, I don't count, but like it's like so much change in the world, but at the same time I feel like in the inner world it is much better and progress is much, much faster. Whatever happens, it is pushing more and more, it is doing that. And really pushes to go through. It is so easy that you don't go more and more with it, and that is definitely thank you.

So what would it be to have faith in God, Father? I don't want to—for me, it would be to meet His presence and then every time I leave it, to return to it. Now, would it be faith in God if it continued to be like just a tool or a trick, but it was actually about me? Because I've heard that to have faith in God or belief in God, trust in God, then my life gets better. Can I have faith in God while still having me at the center of my focus? I had faith in God and yet I was the 'me.' But you showed us through all this time in Satsang that when I truly come in that presence, there isn't a 'me' anymore. And I don't know how to say it, it just is not there. And then that question—but I did begin with that one, and it was just your Grace. And that's what keeps, like you said, imagine if you met God, how would that be? If you're angry or not, that's how it is when we are in such Satsang. That's what I mean, and it doesn't allow you to go away, you know? I mean, you're fighting something.

So I have a confession, actually. My confession is that there are a lot of times where I don't have faith in God. A lot of times I don't have faith in God because I feel like the simplest test of faith is whether my hand feels more...

I'd begin with that one, and it was just your grace. And that's what keeps, like you said, imagine if you met God, how would that be? If you're angry on... that's how it is when we are in such satsang. That's what I mean, and it doesn't allow you to go away, you know? I mean, you're fighting something. So I have a confession, actually. My confession is that there are a lot of times where I don't have faith in God. A lot of times I don't have faith in God because I feel like the simplest test of faith is whether my hand feels more real or God's presence feels more real. Because my eyes are showing me this hand, this world; my heart is showing me His presence. Like, in His presence, the world doesn't matter. It's really non-existent. And it's non-existent in a very different way. It's not like a conceptual non-existence. It can't be compared, the existence or the non-existence. It's not a comparable non-existence.

Exactly. So to follow that which your heart is showing you, intuitive insight is showing you more than what your senses are showing you, what your mind is telling you, is true faith. And many times I don't have true faith where I'm taking this to be reality. And when I take this to be reality, what happens naturally? God is taken to be unreality. Whether you like it or not, it is true. Whether we admit it or not, it's true. If you say, 'You did that to me,' then we are saying 'you,' we are buying into the notion of the 'you' and the 'me.' There's no room for God in that equation.

I want to ask you about faith, that sometimes the presence is not apparent. Like you started today and said that we are empty and the presence is not apparent. So that is also an act of faith?

Of course, it's a leap of faith. That is a huge leap of faith. Coming to satsang is a leap of faith because there's nothing worldly on offer here, really. At least if you're listening to what I'm saying, then you know that nothing truly in the world is on offer. So it is a leap of faith to say, 'Okay, I'm going to come to satsang, spend this time in satsang,' although I may not get anything in the world. In fact, I will not get anything in the world. And yet, that somewhere is already a leap of faith, to set your sights on that which is unperceivable, as strange as that sounds, you see? There is a leap of faith already. So we must deepen in our Gana, we must deepen in our Bhakti. We must not label ourselves, we must not restrict ourselves. It is not at all at odds with each other that we can't do anything to attract God's grace. I mean, what do we do to attract God's grace? So we can't do anything to bring Him, you know, to force Him. You can't force Him. But we can do... it has both sides, no? We can live in faith, we can do our number, and then He comes or not. His revelation can never be something of an entitlement to us. His revelation in any way can never be something that we say that I'm entitled to it because I have whatever. You could have whatever, but that's nothing. That's spiritual pride. That is exactly spiritual pride: that 'I've done this practice, I've understood this, I've had this experience, I've lived my life like this.' None of it counts at all. And that's why even Bhagavan said ultimately it is about His grace. Then the mind says, 'Then what is the point? I won't do any of this.' But the sages have also told us that we must do to the extent of our ability. Whatever effort we think we have, we must put it towards the realization of God or the realization of the Self. So the ego basically has no escape; it gets squeezed more and more. Sometimes you make these spiritual conclusions which then our ego gets attached to, so it is very important for those to get shaken. Then you must come to... so you can't really settle in your head at all in anything that you can call 'the way.' Then you're forced to live in your heart. And once you're forced to live in your heart, only then can you come to true insight, true servitude.

So Father, I'm seeing that sometimes when I'm praying, if it's mechanical, if I'm not with the presence of God in my heart, it's mechanical. But it's a cry from somewhere to say that, 'God, make me come back home to You.' But it's a mechanical prayer. And I'm seeing more that when I'm coming face to face with God's living presence in my heart, it's undeniable. Then not even one 'Ram' can be uttered which is not from the heart. It cannot come out in a mechanical way. It comes... so I don't know if there's a question, but sometimes when the disconnect is there and it is purely mechanical in a sense, it's okay? I'm checking, it's okay that I'm...

Yes, because when the disconnect is there, then besides the mechanical, what option do we have? Isn't it? That's why I say that sand and honey, when that disconnection is there, then to pray, to inquire, to contemplate, to bow down to whatever tools we've been given, you must follow.

And when God's... there's no denying God's presence, then to take... like I've heard you say this so many times and the scriptures also say that you cannot take God's name in vain. But it's like that from the heart, you cannot just loosely call Him. So when we are in the presence, then to call Him is an expression of our heart's desire to pray, our heart's joy in prayer. And when we are seemingly disconnected, then it is a cry for help.

Yes, oh yes. And this, it may sound like a one-time event because I've linked it to self-realization today, but actually this grace is... I was sharing that I was just caught up in something day before or something, or just caught up in something of the day before that, and I just, like for ten or fifteen minutes, I just wasted time. And the minute I turned within, His presence was apparent. And I was just so touched by it because I said, 'How can He be so loving or so kind?' It doesn't mean that the other things can't happen. You may wake up one morning and you're just trying to pray and you're feeling a sense of disconnection. It's very possible. But even that is His grace, not to become complacent, not to become arrogant, like, 'Oh, I just turn and God is there.' We can never take that for granted. Never take it for granted. Even when we pray mechanically, crying out for Him, that is also grace. That's why I said that at one level everything is grace, at another level everything that turns us towards God is grace, and at another level the revelation of His presence, love, light, is grace. So all of it, because our vocabulary is so limited, we have to force these words to have a particular sense.

Father, can I say something? You know, I feel like I'm beginning to see anew. And you keep saying that it's the God that we are meeting. I feel like it's the God that we are meeting, beginning to taste that in a fresh way. Like it's the God, it's not 'a' God, in the sense not a God just like an idea of God, or just the... 'Oh, God has delegated some of the minor gods to be in our heart.' No, it is the one. You say it so many times, but that this is the living presence, the only living presence is within me. So when I say that, is it really... am I really finding the presence? Am I really finding God? Then that is not a valid... I must not doubt, no? Because if I'm meeting the living presence that I am, there can't be two. And it is Him.

No, no, no. In the sense that there are no two living presences. So if you're meeting a living presence, it has to be God's. It is.

Exactly. So I don't have to keep... because this thing gets me sometimes, the question of the doubt. Because the mind has not found anything, it has no phenomenal evidence to prove, so it says, 'Are you fooling yourself?' But I'm finding I am, even phenomenally I can say I'm meeting... so it's so sweet and it's so different things in different moments. It's not like one thing. But it's so distinct. I've never felt how I have been, you know, very... so I don't have to doubt this?

Not like... are you wanting me to answer the doubt? Somewhere, because you can't find this presence as an object of belief. You may have believed that one day I will find it, you see, which is a concept. But you can't meet that which is mostly beyond perception, even the perceivable aspect of it, without faith. You can deny if you're just purely mental. Of course, it's all nonsense if you're just being mental and rational, you see, mind and intellect. Then of course you can deny. I mean, even though it's not perceivable, you cannot deny that... yes, but in the sense that you cannot deny, your heart can't deny it. Your mind will still deny. It's based on what you pick.

Father, nowadays when I go back from satsang, many times it's happened that I feel like, really, who made it possible? Like, you know, it's really like God, all His grace. All stupidity comes from this one and all grace comes from Him. You're making us meet God. It's so big, I can't believe sometimes that this is happening. I don't want to keep my thermometer on, you know, 'How much is it? What is it? What's the temperature?' But I can't deny how much of God to me it is. Enough, yeah. Is this like that Jesus is saying about faith the size of the mustard seed? But not about... it's not really about the size. So if you met God, like the beautiful story where the lady only is able to touch His garment, enough is it. I can't believe sometimes that we are meeting God, we are able to say. And that's why I'm pushing everyone today to... because you can create a conceptual boundary against that meeting, and that can be based on some conditioning from somewhere. But I'm just pushing everyone to move beyond that and look beyond that.

And I must say that I never feel like, honestly, I never feel like I've done anything for anyone. Because in your coming to God, it is so much joy, so much peace for me. So it's just my life's joy is in this. I never feel like I moved an inch for anyone, actually. To come to satsang, I never feel that I've done anything or moved even an inch for any of you. It's just that's been just so much for my joy, that you're coming to God, you're becoming open, you're turning towards Him, you're inquiring into the nature of who you are. It gives me so much joy.

Yes. I want to just finish saying that before when I used to come to satsang, I used to feel like, you know, it's not possible. You know, like at some level we... it's not possible, and some level we are always longing for it. Like this... I mean, I don't know what I want to say, but I have no words. You can take it back. Father, there's been some kind of repentance here, that how much He loves us and how little we love Him. How few moments have turned to Him just to love Him. It's so shameful. There's been this very ashamed kind of repentance that I've been feeling.

So repentance is good if we repent and turn, you see. So there are two moves, no? Repent and guilt, or repent and turn. So just always repent and turn.

But do you mean that repent and turn, like no more repentance after that? Because it's still been foolish.

See, when you are in His presence, you're not in repentance, isn't it? And you step out of it, then you feel like, 'Yeah, this is what I do, I'm so foolish,' and like this, you see. And then when we recognize that we pick the world for God instead of God, you see, then what must we do? We must turn. So in that moment of repentance, I've moved away a little bit. Yes, all time is gone. When you're just with Him, it's just like, 'Thank you.' Yes. So use that repentance as fuel for your turning towards Him, and fast, instead of repent and then despair. You see, what was that thing we heard the other day? We said in despair, the devil wins twice. This is the one-two punch we've been talking about for years. It says, 'See, you're like this, you're unworthy, you will never get it.' No, first, 'You're missing it, you're not doing well enough,' and then after that, the two-punch.

Yes, all time is gone, no? When you're just with him, it's just like, 'Thank you.' Yeah, yes. So, use that repentance as fuel for your turning towards him, and fast, instead of repent and then despair. You see, what was that thing we heard the other day? We said in despair, the devil wins twice. This is the one-two punch we've been talking about for years. It says, 'See, you are like this. You're unworthy. You will never get it.' And no, first you're missing it, you're not doing well enough. Then the two-punch comes of despair, that 'There's no chance for me. I will fail at this only. You know, this path is not for me. I'm not cut out for this.'

Some child told me, no? Who was that? 'I don't know if I'm cut out for this,' after how many years in Satsang? Anyways, I'm repenting it, adding more to the pile.