What Witnesses All That Is Changing? - 18th October 2017

Because when Nachiketa, who was a young boy, was offered everything that the world had to offer by the god of death, Yamaraja, he said, 'Don't ask me about the undying. Take everything that the world has to offer.' But the young boy Nachiketa said, 'Tell me only about that which is beyond death.' This is the story of a beautiful scripture called the Katha Upanishad. If you are Nachiketa, what is it that you want? If the Supreme Lord was standing in front of you right now and said, 'Ask for whatever you really want in your heart,' would you ask for something which also will come and go, or something which is beyond it? Why you? If the term 'appearance' means that which comes and goes, then are you also an appearance? And if you are not an appearance, then what are you? Who is aware of all of these appearances? Is that itself an appearance?

The nature of all forms is that they are changing. That is another clue. We will not find the unchanging as if it is an object. We will not find the truth as a perception. When you report something which is beyond the realm of perception, you know the mind starts to rebel. It's like the simple example: we use the mind to perceive the glass, so you report the glass. You perceive something and you have to use words. You see, 'This is a glass.' But when I asked you if you are aware now, do you perceive awareness? And if you are perceiving something and just taking that for awareness, I ask: what is aware of that? Like some of you, your mind might be offering you the jewel of awareness like some dark space or some luminous energy, but what is aware of that? Is that space? Is that dark or light? How do you confirm that you are aware? As a collection of phenomenal experience? You know the mind cannot help us when we leave the realm of phenomena.

You don't have to imagine the answer. You don't have to infer the answer. You cannot solve this puzzle. You cannot use your intellect, cannot use your reasoning, cannot use any concept. No imagination, no past and future, no sensation or emotion. What are you right now? Allow all thoughts to come. Notice what witnesses these thoughts. Allow yourself to be messy. Next time, as the thought goes away, notice what witnesses the space between two thoughts. Did the witness change, or was it the same? And if that which witnesses the coming and going of thought is unchanging, can you see that you cannot be the mind? The mind is just a bundle of thoughts. Who is this perceiver and what is the nature of it?

Think about it. There's not a point in writing questions which you have to go and pick up. If there is something that you feel like you're unable to just understand, then we can look at that together. We can drop it. And you know very well by now that actually everything is already dropped in this moment. But if it is recurring and seems to bother you persistently, we can look at it together.

Father, can I ask? Like you said, this thing that always comes to me—it's not like I'm looking for a thing. It's like the mind just gets twisted because, even when we're doing it, I was like, 'Okay, just set that aside, let it be confused over there, and just keep looking.' But there's always this thing. I'm like, 'I'm not looking for a thing.' How do I see? How do I confirm without it being a thing? It's kind of a recurring thing.

Okay, let's try a very simple thing. Give yourself some time and wait for a thought to arise. So we ask: what is it that witnesses this thought? And as the thought goes away, what witnesses that there is no thought, no mind? So if this question was asked very simply, like I was asking for some directions, then what would you say? If you don't make it like a thing, if you don't even make it like 'the inquiry,' and you see that thought—that is one part. Tell me what the other part is. Is it dying from the frustration that I am not finding it, or is it not being able to speak about it coming from the fact that I don't find anything with any quality there? So what words can I use to explain it?

Okay, so let's say it's become really strong, like we started to resist already. Even then, we can really slow this down together. Both of us, we are waiting for the next thought to come. Now, is the thought perceived or not? Let's not worry for a moment about who is perceiving. It's perceived. And before the thought came and after the thought, there was also a perception of nothing, empty space between thoughts. So that part is not in doubt—that there is perception of thought and the space between thoughts. Now, you just have to ask the question without any investment in the answer, because this is what is getting in your way. Without any investment in the answer, we just want to ask the question: what is perceiving the thought and the space between thoughts? Just throw the question in there and step away. Okay? Just like you throw it and then you step back. Don't have any investment in whether the answer is coming, or what the mind is saying. Nothing. So I'm not actually asking for the answer; I'm asking for the question to be invited. Although it might seem like I'm asking for an answer, let me clarify: I'm not really asking for the answer. I'm asking for you to invite the question in, because it is the inviting of the question which is enough.

Someone said the other day—I read it the other day—they said inquiry needs to ask the question and then get out. And then, like with everything else, then you have the commentary. What you're saying is that there is a non-verbal, non-phenomenal answer which is so clear. Now, that answer is what you are. What does this mean for the person or the objects of the world? Nothing. That is an important distinction. When you bring in the idea that this must now mean something also, now what? Nothing. It's really, really classic. I notice and I see also an addiction to the mind, but mystically, trust, interest, whatever it is—I don't know what it is, I don't know why.

So it's strong, but it seems to be like, because it's obvious, I feel kind of like this panic arises about not seeing it. You see it, you see it's clear, and then there's kind of like this really horrible, yucky feeling. In this movement towards that, it doesn't really matter. Just the one who sees—is the one that even sees the yucky feeling, is that one concerned by it either?

So the one that becomes concerned, or bothered by space or clarity or all these opposites—does that one have any reality?

It's only like relatively real. It's happening. It's like these reactions in the body. There's all sorts of activity that's perceivable in the mind. There's even actions that come out of all of it and blah, blah, blah. Like, it's all relative. But I have to say, like, I don't actually know if it's real.

Okay, so it's clear now. One we found which witnesses all of this—thought, no thought, emptiness or happiness, all these appearances. Now, this one you say is unconcerned by any of this. Now, is there another one that could be concerned?

It's not one. It's just like a whole movement of stuff. It's not really a one, like a thing. It's like a collection of things like thoughts, body movement, emotion. But it's not really a thing.

Yes, like one thing. All this we talked about—the world of change. Everything is constantly changing. So if we were to say that 'I am suffering because of it' or 'I am concerned by it' or 'I am frustrated because I'm not getting it,' does that 'I' have any validity that you have actually found, which is not just perceived?

No, it just says it doesn't. It doesn't actually. It says like saying that it's...

A thing—it's like a collection of things like thoughts, body movement, emotion—but it's not really a thing. Yes, like one thing. All this we talked about, that the world of change, everything is constantly changing. So if we were to say that 'I am suffering because of it' or 'I am concerned by it' or 'I am frustrated because I'm not getting it,' does that have any validity that you have actually found, which is not just presumed?

No, it just says it. It doesn't actually... it's like saying that it's something. It's like saying that, 'Oh, Shivani, I don't like what you're telling me right now.' No, okay, let's take a better example. It's like saying, 'Shivani, you know that blue cat with pink ears that is here? That doesn't like what you're saying right now.' So what would you say? And then you say, 'Oh, is that blue cat with pink ears really a thing?' This set of key things, look at feeling, a set of look at thoughts which make the... and I said, 'Okay, that makes up the blue cat.' But finally, that story I used to follow, I remember talking about, it's like, well, that's starting tonight to be more obvious. Oh, it's just a bunch of different things like patterns. Now I'm going a step further. I'm saying that not only is there a blue cat, but I am the blue cat. What would you tell someone like me?

So that you will go to satsang and you will find that there is no blue cat. But then I would tell you: So what do I get as the blue cat? How does it help me as the blue cat to know there is no blue cat? Isn't it? Isn't that what we do in satsang? Not just you, of course, everyone saying, 'So now I see that there is no such blue cat. There is nobody sitting there. There is no person. It's just an idea.' But it certainly still feels like it, or certainly these thoughts still try to sell me the story of the blue cat. What do I do? And then I say that allow all of this to come and go, but as long as you don't pick up the idea that 'I am the blue cat,' you cannot suffer any of the blue cat's problems.

Yeah, because there's this thing right now that's happening. Um, oh, because yeah, oh, this time it's like, oh, I was lost in it, but something just really hit me right then. Like, it doesn't exist. It's actually a bunch of stuff going on and you're collectively calling it a thing in me. Actually, me... we're just a bunch of stuff going on. This is just a bunch of stuff going on and we are calling it me. Yeah, it's breaking up a bit because like the motivation right here is being like, ah, to change the story. But it's not even about that, is it? Like right now, when you're seeing that it's not a thing and it's not me, it's just all these things, it doesn't even matter how it plays. Because suddenly this... really realizing that it doesn't even matter what's playing is that you're not even calling everything that is going on 'me'.

If you were to label every perception as myself, and then we would see that there are no others, even then you could not have a problem. It is this: that we are selectively picking out some perceptions which are related to this body, some perceptions, some sensations that are related to some idea of me, and saying that 'this is me' and everything else is not. See, because if you were to say everything is me, then we are speaking as God. I am that. I am everything. Everything is happening within me. And when you say that no thing is me, then we have gone to the Absolute, which is beyond even this appearance of consciousness and the disappearance of consciousness. Either is fine. But it is this limited concept of me that we become—that I am something contained in this body, I am something which has some meaning to what the mind is saying. There is no such one.

So what is happening is just happening. Stuff is moving about. Like you said, it's just moving. Nobody is moving it. Nobody is doing anything. It is a set of sensations moving about, but you are not contained in them. They might be contained in you from the broader perspective, as in everything is contained in you, but to pick and choose some sensation and call it 'me,' that is the mistake. These words that you're hearing are also you. If you label something you, some sensation you, and label everything you, don't distinguish between mine and the other one that is speaking is you, the one that is hearing is you, because the boundary is mental. The boundary is defined by the voice of separation. Either we say everything is me, or we say I am not in this at all and beyond time and space. Both will come from these insights that we are sharing in satsang.

Trouble can come when we put the mind back into the picture and say, 'I have seen all of this, but how does it really help me?' The one that is making that thought has seen nothing, because the one that has seen does not want anything. You see that in that moment of insight, you saw no one wanted anything. It is only that blue cat 'you' which says, 'So then what? Now what? What's the point?' Like that. That one wants a point. It wants something to change for itself. But that one never existed.

Alrighty, thank you. Although I just... it feels like I am nothing, then like I am everything. It's like everything, every appearance is like, you know, it's like you.

Yeah, beautiful this contemplation. Because Maharaj said to see 'I am everything' is love; to see that 'I am nothing' is wisdom. And my life just moves between love and wisdom. You don't have to force any sort of insight. It's coming to this to see that you are no thing. It's more than... and actually even better than saying nothing, you can just leave it blank. Because 'nothing' can also have a connotation of a phenomenal nothing, also phenomenally no thing, but it can be misconstrued to mean something. The 'nothing' itself can be misconstrued, misunderstood to mean something. We just, as I've been saying the last few days, the mind's attempt is constantly to fill in this blank: 'I am [blank].' I am that. You don't fill anything in this box in the mind field. And this truth is so apparent and so clear. The mind has the more difficult job to make a 'something' out of you. That's why the truth always prevails, because that is simple. You can never become something.

So beyond anything, this isn't a scam that backwards, but I'll notice like, for example with Jessie, you know what's... and I feel like this relates to me as well, like especially when I see her, you know, her flavor for example. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I just want to get this out anyway. It's like I really see like in some flavors there is like this tendency to think like, 'She's a thinker, she just thinks non-stop,' you know? And I feel like I'm the same. It's just the joy of it. I think consciousness just loves to play with this mechanism, or something, I don't know. But I notice it in Jess. Um, what's the point? Sorry, until I said that the audio is not very clear so we didn't hear you so well.

And evenness in some aspects is having to play with this thinking mechanism of thinking. Well, yeah, it comes to me to say this because I see it in Jessie. Like I see it in her, like she's just flat stick, you know? And she loves to think, she loves to use that mechanism, you know? Whereas some people can't be bothered, like Ruby. She's just opposite. She cannot be bothered. She hates the academic side of school because it's like, 'Why? Why do I have to do this? I'm totally not interested.' She just wants to see her friends, you know? Jessie loves it. She loves telling the teacher how good she is and, you know, all that. So the point is like, I feel like this flavor is here as well. And then on top of it—and this is not going back as far, I just want to explain how it plays out here—you know, like the appearances are on top of it, there's like the conditioning of like, I think my dad was insane. He's like, you know, screaming at you to figure it out and get it right and load it up. So then on top of that, there's this like real desire, whatever this thing is, to think inside. So I just want to put that out there, Father. Like I just want to... I don't know why, I really don't know why actually, because I know basically because I did that and then see me have...

And that's why these days often I have been saying that you cannot figure it out. You cannot solve it like an equation. You will not be able to compute the truth using the inquiry. See, you cannot solve it like an algebraic equation. And yet, because many of us have this condition that we have to get it right, we have to get the right answer through computing it, figuring it out. That's what I've been saying: drop all that. Before you can take the first step towards solving it, you are. That is all that is needed: to see what is here without any trying, without any effort. This is the condition that no person has ever existed. All there is playing is consciousness on that which is what think.

I just want to tell you so that like... sorry, we have an internet issue, sorry talking over you. Yeah, I just wanted to make it like known so that you know if I'm going off on some tangent blah blah blah, you can just say, 'Okay, stop.' Okay, even when you're talking it's like I'm nodding because I've understood that, you know, it's like, 'Yep, got that bit. Okay, next bit. Yep, got that bit, next bit.' Sometimes, you know, yes, I understand. So yeah, Father, just to tell you like so that you can point, you know, if ever needed. Just like Daniel Lewis and myself are coming for a retreat in Peru.

Thank you, most welcome. Very happy to hear. And then often when you say a retreat, you're talking about the retreat that I'm having. This would even otherwise, if you're just coming for the only time, this is something that we put in the blank of 'I am.' So either you give it to me, forget about it, or you inquire into the validity of this. I don't know that it is not true already. Either you can in your devotion hand it over, or you can investigate whether it is true or not. Either path will bring you to the same recognition: that you have never been a limited entity. There is no such thing as the limited self. It is only a presumption, only an idea that we have picked up.

And also we have always been doing in satsang, either I am asking you to let go or I am asking you to inquire. Words are being used about things you just focus on. Even trying to see the underlying belief for separation, and it's like a common mistake. It has just moved. So instantly there's a chance of a vector of separation, and then from that point of trying to see you are not separate. And it's saying each... it's that I don't know all the project. So it's good what you say, what is saying. And is that even to do the inquiry, we can pick up the underlying assumption that 'I am a separate entity and then I must do the inquiry to find this thing.' But the inquiry is one of those rare things which is asking you to question the assumption itself. Most instructions in this world are referring to you as if you are an individual entity. There's only these rare things like the inquiry which says: Can you question that presumption itself?

Now for many, when I did say 'give it,' I can feel a 'given' that has the underlying assumption that 'I am somebody who has to leave now, leave it.' So we have to somehow come to this same: that there is nobody here. Just in your naturalness in this moment, there is nobody here. To see that there is nobody here is the simplest surrender. And to see that there is nobody here is already now. If you still feel like you are somebody and yet you leave it—'Everything is my Master's problem'—then that will give space to actually come to the surrender. Believing 'I'm an individual entity but my life is my Father's problem,' you will see that when all this... even if the presumption is when you're starting out, the presumption is that 'I am Harry,' but I see that everything in my life is Guru's problem, then even if the presumption is there, 'I am Harry,' it cannot survive. Because the 'I am Harry' presumption lives on problems and things to do. As you hand over all of that, there is no 'you.' It becomes more apparent in the space of surrender. And the same way as you come into the recognition using inquiry and seeing that 'I am not this Harry, I can find no...'

If the presumption is, when you're starting out, the presumption is the 'I', but I see that everything in my life is Guru's problem, then even if the presumption is there, 'I am hurry,' it cannot survive because the 'I am' presumption lives on problems and things to do. As you give, hand over all of that, there is no 'you'. It becomes more apparent in the space of surrender. In the same way, as you come into the recognition using inquiry and seeing that 'I am not this,' I can find when you find move to surrender everything which we consider to be 'me' probably because I can't even find the problem. It was created; let that one take care of you. So both are wings of the same bird. When you inquire, surrender becomes simpler. You surrender, now the sense is coming, then you will start to experience body sensation, that which we call the waking state. But to say that, to put that label that 'this is me,' that is why separation comes. Before you start labeling and bodying everything, the sensation, when you create the boundary using thought saying 'this is what separates me, this is the me part,' this word I was using... Shiva knows that I do. We accept every sensation as me. What decides that this is the boundary? It is just the mind saying that these body sensations are actually defining your boundary. But every time, and we have investigated this together also, and you found that the same space in which body sensations, all of the sensations, are also happening in that space, and all of this is within my being, isn't it? So what makes us define that boundary? I think this is me and somehow not in this world. Perfect, is it? 'Oh, I am beyond the body and till my aura,' so another way of defining the boundary. But actually there is no logic. In logic, mind will convince you that this is the logical validity because everybody around you is thinking and saying that. But I had this sensation that you're experiencing, and from a sensation that you're experiencing in your foot, right, which you call the effect, it's in the same space. Where is this voice being heard? Outside you? All the experiences are in the same way that that in a dream... the entire dream is within me and all this can happen. But in this super waking state, we say, 'No, which is too clean now, and this body.' So that is what being mystical... are you really just this body? What convinces you of that? Just the intimacy of the sensation? Just the centrality of the visual perspective? Because I seem to be peering out through this, so these holding the joystick, controlling this one like that? Just an idea that we ask, who is sitting in the citadel? The light is concerned about this one. Which one? Which is that one? This is that musically linked act who says, 'I want my next bowl of milk.' Okay, we've been playing as a cat leading this from constantly. This one has an infinite appetite. Say, 'Okay, play this much,' and say, 'No, little more.' Did you move? Then you'll really be happy until you'll be set. So this, the value of this... it is why I really, I don't buy into that theory of giving everyone what you desire so that one day you will desire what I want to give you. I don't buy into that because I've seen that this desire treadmill never says that it's full. Keep on living, keep on running, next one, next one. Because what does the ego want? If you would really interrogate the ego, you will find out that the ego wants to be God in a personal way. Everything that it feels God has, it is not satisfied. It wants to own the world in a personal way. You also have control, every personal... it just lies and says, 'Okay, if you give me this one, it is going to be enough for me,' because it wants you to take that next step. Okay, remember all of this is metaphorical. We're just explaining parts of the game. Don't take this as the gospel truth. So this is explaining how the mind functions and you see that it says, 'Okay, this watch, this watch, okay, this, this, that's why this does not work, taking your desire so that now you can desire this.' Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Moojiji. Okay, we look at this question next time. Please remind me to answer this next time, please.