What You Truly Are, Just Is - 2nd April 2019

And I thank you very much for giving me the book because it's amazing. And yesterday I also saw a chapter was about being awake and about what you are. Somebody said, 'You are not,' and you said like, 'But I'm seeing you are awake.' And you said, 'But unless I feel what I am, I feel one with everyone, unless I feel like love for everyone, that you should look about to that time.'

Yes, we were saying yes, yes. That was... this is very good because we make these preconditions based on what we think it should be like, you see. Based on what we think it should be like. 'I should just feel one with everyone.' But this is also a tiny concept, because what is it saying? 'Oh, I see another body there, I should feel like it is me. I see another body there, I should feel like it is me.' But this is not the true Oneness, is it? It leaves out the space between two bodies, you see. Why don't you say, 'I am the space between the two bodies, I should feel one with that'?

Because our mind's understanding of this Oneness is also like this, like a sense of ownership. You see, 'I should own that body also like I own this' or something. It doesn't own anything, but it claims these things, you see. So we don't have to try and love everyone or try to be one with everyone. When you see what is, like you said, what is, then you see that it is already beyond duality. You see, it is beyond any 'two-ness', see. Already it is your truth. Actually, what you are, you can never understand. What you truly are, just is. It is not... it will never be an object of your understanding. If you are calling a deeper intuitive recognition an 'understanding', then yes. Is it that deeper intuitive recognition, the understanding? Yes. But your reality is so beyond what a concept can grasp, is it? And it is the ending of this struggle of trying to grasp reality through the lens of our mind which brings so much relief and so much openness, you see, so much just presence. Because we are tired now. We are tired of trying to get it this way, trying to understand it. 'How does it operate? Is it like this? Is it in front of this, behind that?' All of these things, but we cannot grasp, is it?

Now, when you stop trying to grasp it, it is apparent to you. It is apparent to you, your reality, your truth. So this truth is not going anywhere. It doesn't have to be caught. It doesn't have to be gotten somehow. It is just realized. It is just recognized. And this realization, this recognition, is not the getting of something new, but letting go of the misconceptions. Misunderstandings are thrown away or let go of for what is here just now. That simple. What is here just now? There are sensations, there are perceptions. You don't have to bother with these terms; let me use them for you. There are some sensations, there are some perceptions. And so everything phenomenal is in the realm of perception and sensation. Is that all there is to you? What else?

So we have this notion of Neti Neti which says 'not this, not this, not this.' But the ultimate objective of Neti Neti is not to be in negation or opposition to something, but to just enable us to look beyond what we usually look at, you see. We usually look at just these sensations, these perceptions, and we say, 'What else? What is beyond?' If you say 'not this, not this, not this'—not the sensations that we call the world, not the sensations that we call the body, not the sensations that we call emotions, not the sensations that we call thoughts, not even the primal vibration that we call presence of being—what is?

Think as hard as you might, think as hard as you can, but this will not be the product of your thinking. Imagine as much as you like, whatever greatest picture you can paint of reality, but reality will not conform to your imagination alone. But let go for one moment. It is unmissable. It is.

But there's also a sense of individuality in this. There is a sense of autonomy.

Let's look. How is it? How is it like that? How is it autonomous or individualized? Let's go to this intelligent principle and see if there's something personal about it. If you find it, tell me right now.

There's not a sense of personal, but some... there's some subtle sense of individuality, some autonomy. Like, like this one that can do something, can choose to do something, or has a free... this one separated.

Yes, this one, this being, this Consciousness is all there is, is it? Now, if there is will, it can only belong to this one, is it? If there is will, because there is nobody else. If there is will, it can only belong to this one. So no trouble with that also, see. That's why we say all is the will of the Consciousness or all is the will of the Satguru; it's the same thing. Now, whether we say God, whether we say Guru, whether we say Self, if you're referring to this principle, this beingness, then it's fine.

There's just something playing ownership of this group.

Yes, that is just the mind, which is just an aspect of this principle itself, which is in a way a strange device because it tries to convince this being that it is now individualized. And Bhagavan said very beautifully, he said this Atma, which is not individualized—when this 'I am' attaches itself to any notion, you see, like 'I am something,' then it plays as the individualized consciousness, Jivatma, you see. But in reality, no such Jivatma actually happens. It is just a notion, you see, which this Atma itself picks up. So our individualization, or the sense of individualization, depends on the idea that this being itself is picking up about itself. And that is why satsang is really a strange conversation that Consciousness is having with itself, saying, 'Don't do that, because if you do that, you're playing as if you are limited,' you see. Does it need a conversation to realize this? Not really, but it's all part of its play.

So to remain in the unborn only means don't give birth to this idea of separation or individualization. And even though if the ideas are being offered, you see, by the mind, then let them come and let them go. Because this is the whole snake thing, the rope and snake, Shankara's example, you see. It's just this: that is just a rope, but if you buy into an idea about it, it will seem like a snake, see. So if you buy into the idea also that actually individualization has happened and now I have to fix it, you made a reference to yourself again which is limited, see.

Now, one way to check this is to see that this principle that you speak of—what defines this boundary? Is it limited by time or space? Are time and space in its presence, or is it dependent on time and space? You can check this, see. This principle arises, this sense 'I am' arises, and with this, all of this play of space and time starts. But it itself is not limited by either of them. So as long as you are only playing as 'I am', that is absolutely fine, you see. You don't have to do that jump between going from 'I am' to just 'I'; that is not needed if it feels comfortable resting as that primordial vibration. It's completely fine.

Get a question from the chat: 'Dear Father, I enter a deep sleep-like state during meditation on "I am". There is an unusual sense of peace and bliss. However, if someone were to call my name, I can witness taking back the egoic identity again. This must mean that even this state is not freedom. Somebody says my name and I say yes, so now I must have lost it.'

So in the natural unfolding of being, all this can happen, you see. Now you say that 'I can witness taking back egoic identity again.' You see, now, only if you take any limitation seriously. If you see the response happening the same way as the calling happened... this is the way that I see it. I don't know how all of you interpret that, but I'm pretty certain that you see it the same way. You see that the name is being called; that is heard. The response is coming from this mouth, 'Yes'; that is heard. You did as much the calling as much as the responding, you see. Either you can say 'I did neither' or you can say 'I did both'. But to say that 'I only did the response part but not the calling part'—if you take that seriously, then that is to take the identity back. To claim ownership over only a set of your perceptions is to limit yourself. To claim ownership over only a set... either we claim over nothing or claim over everything, you see. But to divide and say 'only this is me and that is not me'—well, both are your perceptions and sensations that occur, appear within you, you see. This is to draw a boundary and limit yourself.

So if this is what you feel is happening, that the minute your name is called out, then you define yourself as this body-mind, you see, then it is identification. But if you are hearing the calling of the name, you're also hearing the response, but you're taking as much credit for both or none at all for both, then that is fine, is it? Now you say, 'This must mean that even this state is not freedom.' Now the problem is, this is the way in which freedom can become a very oppressive concept, is it? This is how we use the term freedom to beat ourselves up, see. 'This means I must not be free.' But the Master is coming every day and saying, 'But you are free right here and now.' The mind will keep convincing you, 'I'm not free yet,' you see. And this is the way it plays. It wants to be the dominant one saying that you are not free, there is a long way to go, all of these things. Now I'm going to say something...

Freedom. Now the problem is this is the way in which freedom can become a very oppressive concept. You see, this is how we use the term freedom to beat ourselves up. See, this means 'I must not be free.' But the Master is coming every day and saying, 'But you are free right here and now.' The mind will keep convincing you, 'I'm not free yet,' you see? And this is the way it plays. It wants to be the dominant one saying that you are not free, there is a long way to go, all of these things.

Now I'm going to say something because it's coming up, but I want to tell you that nothing means anything. So when you say, 'This must mean that this state is even... this state is not freedom,' you forget about meaning itself. This idea of meaning is a very oppressive human concept. This must mean this and that must mean that. Nobody has figured this out. We don't know what something is, we don't know why something is. And this is how I started satsang by saying that, see, that you will never understand this. And when you stop trying to grasp at it, understand it, you will see that it is apparent. What you are is apparent to you, but it is never an object of your understanding.

Now if you limit yourself and say that only that which I have understood mentally is my true knowing, you see, then it can seem a struggle for a long time. See, so don't give yourself a label of free or bound. In reality, these do not apply to you. The one who wants freedom will never get it because that one doesn't exist, you see.

Could you give me some guidance? Should attention get immersed in this sleep-like state or should this state be rejected as well? I do not seem to know.

How is this state rejected? Don't draw any conclusion about this state. Don't say it is good or bad. Something naturally enjoys staying with the presence. Since I am, stay with it. If attention is going somewhere else, it's going somewhere else. How does it touch you? How does it affect you? Sometimes just being, sometimes with all these perceptions, you see? It's all okay.

Now you can investigate whose report this is. Who is making this report and who is saying, 'Should I stay in this state or should I not stay in this state?' Is that the primal witnessing of all states coming and going, or is that the one which is posing as a spiritual seeker saying, 'I want something and then should I do this to get it or should I do that to get it?' Now that one will never get it because that one is never here anyway. It is just a figment of our imagination, you see? It's just a figment of our projections, just an idea of our notions.

So right now you are free from it and therefore you are free. Without seeing the state of your body-mind, I can confirm this to you right now. In this very moment, you are free. But the mind will have its 'buts.' Until we give credence to those 'buts,' we will keep having this conversation in various ways with various terms, and that is fine too. That's why we have satsang almost every day.

Earlier... okay, now I'm reading again. Earlier you had said the reality is independent of any state, but I have a strong urge to meditate on isness. This is good. Meditate on the isness, but also explore whether this... when you say 'I have a strong urge,' are you referring to now the isness itself? Like the isness has a strong urge to meditate on isness? Just look at this also a little bit playfully, naturally. Not like 'Who's this I who has the...' sometimes they make it too serious. Just naturally, who has the urge? Introduce that. Home, very welcome, my dear.

Father, is our experience without the labels real?

Huh? Is our experience without the labels real? Now, 'real' is a label, no? You see? Now 'experience' also is a label. 'Perception' also is a label. 'Sensation' also is a label. Now you say, 'Is our experience without the labels real?' It is beyond this duality of real and unreal because real and unreal are also labels. They were provisional tools that were used, like sometimes in Vedanta we can say 'neti neti,' distinguish or discriminate between that which is real and the unreal. Now these are provisional steps so that you can look for that which is unchanging.

Now even this what we say, pure perception and sensation, they are just provisional things we say because we are so used to living a life which is mixed with interpretation and labels all the time which are believed in, you see? We sometimes say, 'Okay, come to your pure perception which is your unlabeled existence,' you see? But there the label does not remain that 'this is pure perception now.' Okay.

One simple tip for all of you is that if you ever find yourself becoming very heavy, know that you embarked on the wrong road. You don't need to go there at all. You do like that, it becomes the solution to the non-existent problem of freedom. It is definitely not mental. For what? That who has solved the non-existent problem, that is free. This is called transcending, actually.

Is it possible sometimes just to understand that you are none of the perceived things, yeah, and not to go into who you are? Is it possible to understand... what do you mean by... is it enough just to see we are none of the perceived objects? What do you mean by understand? No, not to understand. Is it just enough to be free by grasping that you are none of the perceived objects?

Yes. If you see that you are not just what is perceived, then what you are is also apparent to you, whether your mind concludes that or not. In fact, what you are is always apparent to you. It's a very unpopular thing because once I asked everyone, 'What in satsang frustrates you the most?' when I say it. So many said, 'You keep saying the truth is apparent to you, you see, but nothing is apparent to me.' You see? 'It is not apparent to me' or something. But it's becoming less frustrating, at least I feel in this. I should do another poll one day.

Sometimes like a pointer can be 'remain in your notionless existence' or 'remain in the unborn.' That can seem more attractive and less frustrating because at least you have a sense of, 'Okay, I know what to do now. All I have to do is remain in the unborn.' But the pointer which is just like, 'But the truth is always apparent to you,' like, 'Then what am I doing here? What's the point? What am I supposed to do? He's not helping me,' you know, these kind of things.

But in the unborn and empty as you are now, it is not that the truth is missing. And when the mind says, 'Oh, is that it?' it has no idea what it is talking about. No idea, you see? Because it's not even like a tiny grain of sand in front of that which it is discovering, you see? 'Is that it?' You see, it is so beyond mental description and the mind's idea of 'Oh, this is what it should be.' Very beautiful something Jima sent to me yesterday. I can read that. Do you have it?

So teacher was asked, 'Why did Buddha not speak of God?' And the teacher answered, 'Because of religions, God has had many definitions and descriptions so that concepts about God would paradoxically actually be blocks to the awareness of the reality of God, and the seeker would end up seeking for a preconceived concept rather than surrendering it so that the reality could present itself.' So this is by David Hawkins.

So the mind's idea of what God must be like or reality or truth must be like, when that is not fulfilled, it comes up with stuff like this: 'Oh, is this it then?' But it has no idea what it is doubting. It is the source of your very existence where all of this play emerges from. The source of all intelligence, that unperceivable knowingness, that awareness which is empty of any attributes and qualities and yet is the birthing ground for all of this to emerge. That immaculate one which always knows itself, but it can never be known by any mind.

In your simple openness, in your simple emptiness, this is what is apparent to you as a primal witnessing of all things. And then this mind comes and says, 'Oh, is that it?' It wants what? Fireworks, experiences, fancy feelings? All ephemeral stuff. All that will come and go, you see? But the simplicity, the immaculate purity of this reality, it cannot fathom. And that is why the notion of 'nothing' sometimes can do it also disservice. It does a lot of service also because it is not a thing, you see? It doesn't have thingness about it. It does not have qualities and attributes to it in itself, and yet without it you could never be aware of any quality or attribute.

It is the substratum of all that it gives birth to, and all of that that is given birth relies on this Self, this reality, for its very existence. So that's why I prefer to say 'no-thing' rather than 'nothing.' 'Nothing' can seem like a negative nothing. 'It's nothing.' It is nothing, it's true like that also, but sometimes the mind can take this 'nothing' and make it very like negative. This 'no-thing' is always here and yet at the same time the most amazing discovery that we make about ourselves, the simplest and yet most beautiful.

So in the same way as we burden all our relationships with our concepts of what they should be like, in the same way we have burdened Self, God, presence, all of these also with ideas of what it should be like. It is not like anything you can imagine or think about. Is it cold, my dear? Bit cold? Okay, okay. Two minutes. Who is doing the sound of the birds? Who is doing the sound of this voice? Who's doing the hearing? Are there two there? Is there a one there? Is it a zero there? Okay, enough for today. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Guru Ki Jai. Pranam.