Who Can Measure the Space of My Being? - 28th June 2018

I was saying the other day, instead of trying to get rid of the mind, we try to hold on to it and tell me if you succeeded. The thought comes and it goes. So when the thought is there, then we call that mind. The thought is not there, we call that no-mind. Yeah, it's a very fleeting quality. So when it is there, you say 'this mind'. It's not there, there is no mind. So in fact, I rarely ever say that the mind does not exist. And even if I do say it, I mean that the one that it is seemingly seeming to represent, that one does not exist. So who is this voice representing? The seeming person. Let's not... you can say the term 'ego' because the term 'ego' also has many, many different meanings. If you speak to people on the streets, if you say 'you've seen your ego', very nice and very humble, yeah? So this can seem like, 'No, I'm not ego.' What did you say? 'But you're a person?' 'No, of course I'm a person.' Really?

So the way we use it, 'ego' in satsang, is that this idea, this sense of belief in a separate entity called a person. Now you notice that as these thoughts come, they are presenting this limited persona. They're claiming the existence of this limited persona, which can be investigated for ourselves. Like if the mind says, or these thoughts say, 'There is Santa Claus sitting at the end of this room.' If it says Santa Claus is sitting at the end of this room, we cannot just believe it because it is saying it. It says all kinds of things. So what is worthy is to look: Is there really Santa Claus sitting at the end of this room? And you look and you find that it is not that. So you can say, 'Okay, no, Santa Claus did not exist, at least in this case.'

So in the same way, when you're looking at what the mind is saying about me, and we look for this 'me', we find that this 'me' does not exist. The one that is limited does not exist. So when we are saying the non-existence of this ego, we are talking about that which the mind is claiming to represent. That who the mind is claiming to represent, that one does not exist. So it is mostly like that. Now if you use a higher definition of what exists and what does not exist, then if we go with Vedanta and the sages, only the real exists. Only the real exists. So how to find the real? That which does not come and go is real. So said that which does not come and go is real. So if you apply that parameter, then what exists? So then by that definition, no phenomena ultimately exists.

What can we say about that witness? Is it that which witnesses the coming and going of phenomena? That is what we usually call awareness. So even the coming and going of the sense of existence, my being, Atma, is witnessed by that which is the absolute, correct? The Father of the Self. So this is how terminology can get confusing sometimes, and we use language to be able to point to certain elements of our experience, but that doesn't mean that inherently it exists in that way. So the mind, it appears as an energetic construct which we call thoughts and similar energies like imagination. In that way, it seems to appear and disappear just like all other appearances do. So I hope that clarifies a little bit.

Now, why do we always become the mind? This is the next question. Why is it that all these appearances come, but you're missing all that is mine? That is mine. Leave it alone. Don't believe what it is saying. Because there is nothing else in this world of appearance, even in the waking state, which is conveying a limitation. There is nothing else inherently which is pointing to a limited 'me'. Everything else is completely operating in oneness, fullness. Even these are terms, but you know what I mean. But there is one voice which is convincing you that you are this limited entity. This line that there is this Santa Claus in the room. Have you seen the Santa Claus? And it is not just that it is convincing you there is a Santa Claus in the room, but right, it's not harmless. You see, with this limitation also comes suffering. Because then if I am limited, then I can have a grievance against you. Then I can have a desire for something. Then I can have this worship that I have to do or not do.

So what is suffering but all of these things? Grievances, pride, okay, all of these terms. That's another bigger term we make to define the whole box of them, which is called suffering. So it is not like a harmless belief that there might be something up there in the sky above. It's okay, sometimes these kind of beliefs can be there, but they don't really seem to have so much... but it is this belief of this individual existence which has become the premise for most of humanity. That's why it can seem like, you know, the Buddha said the world is suffering. It can seem like the world is suffering. So this is why we look at the mind and we say: Is there another device? Is there another device which is convincing you that you are limited?

Yesterday we looked at this in great detail where we said... he said, 'But the appearance of the body or the sensations of the body itself convinces me that I am a separate entity.' But we looked at that and we looked at the sensations of the body, the visual perception of the body, and we checked: Where are they being perceived? We saw that all of this is in the one space of my existence. There is no separation there. Just like this space. Where is this space perceived? Even this space is perceived. That this space which contains all of these objects in this space is perceived. So what is that space which perceives a space? Or where is the space felt in which this space is perceived? Now you cannot solve this, and even if you have the answer, you cannot rely on it. You cannot compute your way to this answer. This is a very intuitive insight. You can look within that, see intuitively all of this is here within the space of my existence. Then it will become clear.

But for one moment, that all of this appears in the light of your consciousness, on the screen of your consciousness, there is nothing apart from you. So let all of these terms just not be that very fanciful concepts that we picked up from the sages. Then these become true insight. Now as we have come into this insight, this voice will come and it will say, 'But who's gonna pay your bills? But what will you get as a result of this? But what about kids? What about your emails? What about something?' You see? So this voice will come and start again proposing to you that you are a limited entity, that you were born and you will die. So proposing all of these limited notions about yourself to you, this voice will come. That's why you can look beyond what is true, because this voice is designed to be this false narrative. The narrator which is conveying to you that you are a character in this movie, not the screen or the projector, not the witness, but a character in the movie.

But there is no actual real evidence of this. That's why you seem to always be picking on the mind. He's also saying that sometimes I used to get this complaint that the mind is also consciousness. Why are you always after the mind? Everything is consciousness, including the mind. And within the play of consciousness, all opposites are present. So for your intuition which is pointing you to your truth, there is an opposite pointer also which is... more and more we come to our natural existence, we find that we don't need to make any distinction even between awareness and consciousness, even between phenomenal and non-phenomenal, between any quality. Nothing causes a real separation.

So Papaji said nothing has ever happened. There's no real distinction. As you are coming to claim, you are the same one who was fully present in your deep sleep. You are the same one who was fully present in deep sleep. The appearance of your manifest aspect has not added to you. This is the play of yourself tasting yourself in a manifest way. So what can happen here in this way, in this phenomenal appearance? Can it hurt you in reality? Unless you consider yourself to be something first. And you cannot do that without again the mind. Without a mental boundary, it divides. It makes a distinction: 'I am here.' This entire sweep of sensation and appearance of phenomenon is where? In space. It is the space which comes in.

The appearance of your manifest aspect has not added to you. Resist the play of yourself tasting yourself in a manifest way. So what can happen here in this way? In this phenomenal appearance, it can hurt you in reality unless you consider yourself to be something first. And you cannot do that without, again, the microphone—without emotional boundary. It divides; it makes a distinction. I am here. This entire sweep of sensation and all clear phenomena is where? It's in space. It is the space which comes in the space. All this comes. Where is that space? Is this space born? This is a non-spatial space. We have to still use these words because it has a space for something to be born, and yet it is not that type of space which can be measured. This space, up to the mic and say, 'I planned great,' but this space might be... who can measure that? That is where the city is upset. Maya—another definition of Maya is that which can be measured. But you are beyond Maya, the immeasurable.

Like, you used to say, like in people, I see it's possible to get right at the edge of the ice cube. There's a point where it's neither, when it's ice and water. Get inside, is there some kind of like... yeah, that's where physical measurable space meets non-spatial space? Or you see that actually they're the same, but in the same way that... so you cannot put it in physical terms again?

Yeah, because it is so empty of these attributes that you cannot say, like, the point would mean then a point in space. It cannot be. It's just like, what is the relationship of the snake and the rope? At which point do they meet? A long time ago, something which strangely the rope itself has given itself the capacity to see, yeah, for it to seem like there is this me. So, a great point. Can you say that there is now the overlap between them? It's a seeming. We verify that this is what is being verified. One and the same set: that which is real seems to be that which is doable. You know, they okay, all of these happen, but I remain untouched by it. So if I remain unaffected by something, then it seems more and more dreamlike as it goes on. And then we come to the waking state. What do you say about the dream? Ah, it seemed like there was this world, it seemed like there was this house, it seemed like... what is seeming? Just like something which is not real, but it can seem to present itself as reality. So then this experience becomes more and more dreamlike because we see that you are not contained in it in any way. Then you might start using these terms, which you don't have to. You could say, you know, you might not say it's a seeming; you might have to say it's a play, or you might just say, 'I... it is I tasting myself.' So these explanations that you cannot see are so important in this field. Like, how do you describe a dream last night? You see, it seemed like I was in this play, this happened.

So if when we say like there's a space, the space we also say special space, and I don't... we can use... you can say potential?

Of course, we're in this potential, then sort of like a holding up of energy which is then available for it to be used. But this potential is so strange that the manifest also comes. So the seeming potential energy does get manifest, but that remains the same; there is no change. So if you use these physics terms like potential energy, so you know, something created... so then you would say, 'Okay, the potential got used up and it transformed into this sort of flow energy.' You know, we cannot say that because from the fullness, this comes, and yet upon this remains untouched. So it's unique, and we cannot really slaughter than you mean phenomenal sort of... we scream obviously this kind of conservation. If we don't hold on to any notions, then it's because you're saying that basic... so we know very well again the best and fastest and easiest way is to constant by what's not real. So gender, stranger girl, like what snake? So the easiest way to come to like that, to discover that it's alone, yes, because when you see I was never really there, the question of where does the snake begin... she's like... so if we stay with the ocean, listeners, at some point this distinction between exchange is great because the space, the space is the reality. In an ocean business, I also often say that if the truth is completely apparent to us, it's just that now all of this is completely apparent to you, you see? But what has happened is that the mind is not yet acclimatized. So we might not yet have the vocabulary or the conceptual presentation of what is happening. So it can just be like, like that... it is available. But if you could just speak from what you see, and they're speaking about the important part here. But even many in this mind that... so that between searching for or trying to get to the Absolute, it's completely apparent to you, this business. But the mind is not satisfied with this kind of end of the movie, you see? Seeking has been going on, the story is here. Like sometimes I used to see, if your autobiography was being written and you're coming to a beautiful point and one day nothing happened in the pens, you start writing, 'Okay,' too unsatisfied to you because you wonder... you know, at some level we hate those movies which just end abruptly. So you'd once again have it seen, beat the back, you know, all that stuff needs to happen for it to... so in a way we can call it the giving up of the mind in some level, and then going to relying on this other device which is due to volts, which is available to share from this kind of... is it audible what we're saying? This is totally the business, doesn't leave any and the quantification, yeah. It's 41 quantified here, and there is a tendency to glorify the Self which cannot be touched. This tendency to storify contentless last question is a variation of the mind. You can space specimen, you can just be. I've been to experience a step without any expression. Everything Sierra telescreen compresses everything, space benefits out of it, forms. But we see only the mind sees form and space because the ideas expression to sit, that's it. And that there was no name is devotion on it's so long, it's a sign, it's a son. So you could... I'm so happy sometimes receive I need a portrait doesn't have a book at the end, you know, this kind. The contact is a small energy phones here, so we perform it, we only... yeah, no, I mean yes, okay.

Example to some of the questions: Father, is contemplation part of mind or no-mind? So when we say contemplation in satsang, it could have a little bit different meaning from what we hear the term contemplation in other fields of study. In contemplation, when I'm saying contemplate into what you are, or contemplating into what is belief or what is attention, the number one rule for contemplation is to stay with our insight, not with our inferences. So in that way, I would say that contemplation that I am speaking of is not to do with the mind so much, but more to do with your direct inner experience, so intuitive insight.

So further, it is consciousness that is agreeing to the existence of whatever the energies are saying, that it is agreeing that it is what the thoughts say it is. Yes, only consciousness when she says itself agreeing to its own limitation and playing in that way, that is only one who could agree or not agree. That is why Guruji might say that satsang is we have for God by God. So it is consciousness itself that agrees to play with the CA meditation. Of course, as it is playing, it doesn't seem like a place. Nobody else is naturally here. There is not a God and me together here right now. In fact, it is never God and me. But when we buy into these notions, we agree to ask to what the mind is saying, then it can feel like, can seem like the reasoning which is separate from the rest, which is separate from God or consciousness, whatever term we use. That's why consideration to enquire 'Who am I?' That's true all of this. We find that the landing place for all our grievances or irritations, all our ideas, plans, arrogance—there is none, no such landing place. So if the taxes idea of the root, when we look, 'Am I?' they say this consciousness is here now. What is this consciousness? I actually want your being. What is it inherently? Want or not? It doesn't have anything to us know about.

So consciousness has the choice to play or not?

Yes, the only will there is is the will of consciousness. If there is such a thing as will, it belongs to the only existent being that is here, that is consciousness. That is why we can say everything is Guru's grace or everything grace of God, consciousness, whatever term we use. The reader of surrender is you are the doer and you are the experiencer. It implies that you are the only existent being; there is nobody else. Now say again.

Okay, so you said so consciousness has the choice to play on/off, and I was saying that if there is such a thing as will, it belongs to this being, this consciousness alone. So all is the will of consciousness.

So this will, we can say choice. If it is consciousness's will that it's going to play in a limited way, it's going to give percent to these thoughts, it will. If it is consciousness's play, the projector's so-called choice, what it is going to project on the screen, even this play of reminding itself of its own truth, it is the will of consciousness. The PB to get diluted and to come out of delusion has both the will of consciousness itself. And sometimes when we hear it, we can be like, 'Okay, then it has nothing to do with me. It is for consciousness to do. What does it have to do with me?' And again, we are making that... we could be making a distinction between consciousness and me. Whether it has been killing that freedom is so close, just beyond this wall of distracting thoughts that seem to kill my awareness and block my path and my field of vision. I see this is the largest piece of awareness, but I fell to expose it and offer it at your feet in the harm. Freedom is close, but even that is not close enough. What is closer than truth? What needs no parts, not a step, no journey? What is that? It doesn't need even a thought to be stirred, no feeling, even though peace, joy, love has to arise. Nothing has to happen. What is that? This presence which we're tasting now is ever free, but it has given itself the ability to wear these masks. So before we can decide how close or far it is, we must clarify our starting point. And if you find that at the starting point itself you're free, there's no journey left. But then even like no journey, you are now seeking it, become a concept. How many of you feel after even after coming to satsang, and it's fine, completely fine like that, then you have not tasted the presence which is spoken of? I can say being or consciousness allowed. Do you feel that you have? I just want to know, do some for some feedback that this sense is pattern, it's a bit dodgy, or actually no idea what would you see apparent?

Silence cannot be mine. Silence cannot be mine.

So it's not mine. Before you can reach that state, is that not already here? These states will come and go. All states will come and go. Everything became silent as you be walking and this something, but you will still then that which saw. So you saw that without the noise, the being is just there. Now the same being is here, same existence is here. But sometimes in the minds can seem to come back, but nothing really happened to that. But what can happen in these spiritual experiences is that after they happen, they quickly let them hold on to this all after they're gone and will feel like, 'Oh, that should not have gone, and that is freedom. Once I get to that permanently, then I will be free.' But it is not there. It is showing you that all these states can change, but do you remain what you are? So freedom is not the holding on to of a particular state. Freedom is the allowing of all states to come and go. Now as everything fell away, you were there, and as things come back, you were still there. Is that you really affected by the coming and going of this? It is only a confusion which are affected. That was it, the actual... should I have that only with like that? So free.

Permanently, then I will be free. But it is not there. It is showing you that all these states can change, but do you remain what you are? So, freedom is not the holding on to of a particular state; freedom is the allowing of all states to come. Now, as everything fell away, you were there. And as things come back, you were still there. Is that 'you' really affected by the coming and going of this? It is only a confusion which is affected. That was it. The actual should have that only with like that. So, freedom means to allow all these states to come and go, because the trouble with—I cannot say trouble—the trouble with spiritual experience is that the mind can latch on to it. They see that that must be, then you are free. It is not that. Everything can be, but you are free. And sometimes when we have this notion that it must be there, it may be a pleasure, a deeper experience was waiting to come, but we are saying, you know, 'I want only this.' So, freedom is a big allowing. And as you open, you'll see all these beautiful insights will come, but we will not get attached even to a planet that magnificent but so brief.

Because the mind crashes in white noise. I don't even know what the thoughts are. Or Chetan has this ability which might be helpful, which is to view itself as pure space. So tell me if you can't relate to this. You see yourself as this spacious existence which is subtler than even this space. Now you have to tell me: what can crash into this? Another one says, so there really isn't any escape to this pretend suffering if consciousness is playing as pretend suffering? So there really isn't any escape to pretend suffering if consciousness is playing as pretend suffering?

Yes, in a way. But the thing is that the minute it is seen that it is consciousness itself, that it's a conundrum where consciousness created the pretense of suffering. A lot of, most of humanity, we can see as suffering. Within consciousness, it also brings itself to a point where it starts to shine its light on this clear sufferer. That is what is happening in satsang. Once you see that it is consciousness itself, then you cannot find the sufferer. Without the sufferer, the suffering doesn't have any legs to stand on. So, there isn't any escape to this pretense of suffering if consciousness is playing as pretend suffering? Yes, continue. It isn't anymore. And as long as it is, it is experientially felt from the perspective of presence knowing its presence at every single moment. As a pretense, it's meaningless, it's pointless. Let me get this far. And as long as it feels... so there really isn't any escape to this pretend suffering? So if consciousness is playing out as the sufferer, yes, until there is, until it isn't anymore, yes. And as long as it is, it's experientially felt from the perspective of the presence, from the perspective of the presence knowing it is a presence at every single moment, as if pretense is meaningless. Yes, is it? But in that moment, there is the suffering on. In that moment, whether it is seen that it is the pretense and the pretense is meaningless, this is the beautiful pointlessness or meaninglessness which is the antidote of suffering in a way. Because if you found that at the center of this there was a person who lived for meaninglessness, then that would be even more suffering. But this is not what we find. You find that at the center of this, which is presence, and we do not find the one who is the individual came into this life whose life would be meaningless. So this presence, that's why in fact we can call it a play. So if you choose the suffering-full meaninglessness, then you would never be able to call it a play. It's only that you find that here there is this being here; it remains untouched in the appearance of all of these things, including the appearance of mind. And the pretense has been meaningless for just going to open now is meaningless. I was saying the other day, a child does not go to the monkey bars to build muscles, you see? It is a meaningless, pointless play, and yet it is a play.

It's kind of worse than being completely oblivious to the presence. It is worse only you feel if you try to hold on to more presence and what that presence should mean for me. Within that, it can feel like you're being completely stretched out. Although I meant to say pretense, not presence, okay. But it reads more true with the so-called mistakes. Although I'd say pretense, perspective of the pretense moving into the pretense.

Yeah, see, if that's what we just answered, which was that the meaninglessness of the pretense can seem very oppressive if you still have that pretense of individual there. If you still have a perspective of somebody, then it can seem very, very oppressive. That's what this whole philosophical nihilism is about, actually. But once you see that I do not find this entity, all I taste is my presence, which remains untouched by no matter what might be the events in life or even the interpretations of these, then it becomes a playful, playful look. Wonder—how to use some words to describe this? But the wonder is more primal than that. The wonder of this current moment right now, even the content of it. Like beings, we have a strange computer with so many others also, the waves, all various time zones, all gathering together to find some communion to taste this presence which is being spoken of. It's a wonderful moment if you take out all the pretense of 'Oh, am I getting it? I'm not getting it? What's the point of all of this?' And communion in the way, but it is even more—even if you take out all these interpretations, it is even more beautiful, more playful. So before we can agree to the pointlessness, we must first find what the point could have been. What should it... okay, let's say: what should have been the point of existence before we can agree to the term that it is pointless? Can we say, okay, what according to what should have been the point? Even that is not clear. And whatever idea is being held over the years that 'this is it, this is what it should be, this is what it will act,' all those have fallen away.

I've talked out along the way. I said I'm untouchable either by the notion of touchable.

You are untouchable, yes. So I say the truth that I'm speaking of does not have the—is not a participant in this play of opposites of true and false. You can hear this? It is quite enough. Because otherwise everything we say in satsang can also be put in our conceptual framework which is full of opposites. What we are speaking of—the Self, the truth, Absolute—it is not a participant in opposites. This does not have false. This Self does not have—is not a participant in that play of being or not being, of existence or nonexistence. Everything that can have an opposite is not inherently, currently presented the truth. But it does seem to manifest all these qualities. That's why I addressed you have to call it a play. You see, we must not even take the term 'play' too seriously. We'll just play with the term 'play.' Otherwise, we can make it very mental even about this play. 'How is it a play? All I see is suffering.' Then it can become...

Father, I only say all this because after so long here with you and Guruji, it still wants to play as pretense and it is experienced as, you see, this nihilism or however you spell it. It's very touching, baby. The thoughts are like this and it is only being here and trusting you more that I find some reason to stay in this place. Because otherwise there is a feeling to quite willingly take this.

Now, what does the nihilism say? You can leave this place by killing yourself or suicide, something. What I might say: you leave this place as a person and play as God, which has always been your true position. I name it because nobody—no mind—will tell you that the ending of this body will be the close of this play. So as bad as this play might seem at the current time, who knows? You don't want to get from the frying pan to the fire. So we snap out of this, clearly not in the way that this nihilistic mind is telling you, but in this end. So be here with me now. And this trust that you speak of is very good because you know then that I am not just making up these fancy words. This is what for states together is tasted. It is possible to snap out of this identity. And if I do that now, now, now, being with you now, you'll see that there's nothing to write about. It will feel like this. The other day someone who had not been in touch with me for a long time, they got in touch and they said, 'Father, just explain it to me very simply because I'm tired of this life. I don't know what to do. I have no peace.' So just like a little child, you try to be lazy. And that is certain that when we look within, what do you find? Who is here? And in that moment, something became clear. They said, 'This is the Divine Presence which has always been here.' Simply then, snapping your finger. What is it that takes no time? And I know you have known all of this, you've heard all this from me before, but the thing is every moment is auspicious to deepen again. If you keep just keep saying, 'But yeah, I know all of these, he said it before,' this kind of then we again can activate this kind of pretense more and more. But just like now, what sort of... if in your original nature, which is available to you every moment, all of this, whatever you might have believed for the last ten thousand lives, is not there when you are tasting the Divine Presence which, as you know, is as well as the Divine itself.

No, Father, I trust you.

Yes, that's what I said. Because you trust me, it's so beautiful, because you will not really fall for these nihilistic mind traps, although I know they can be very alluring from time to time. It won't give up over and over. It is, see, but it doesn't have to kill them. You give up on it now. Give up on it, whatever it's saying now. Give up on... you don't give up, give up. I can sometimes use the limited attention that we have to my advantage also. Usually the mind is always, you know, 'Come listen to me, come listen to me.' So bad if they know, how come you listen to... how come you give up on... you listen to me. You cannot listen to both because attention is...

Yes, Father. It appears that pain takes me closer to truth and pleasure takes me further away. How to deal with desire for pleasure without taking a position of renunciation?

Now, whatever I were to say might sound very difficult, but actually it is the simplest. Don't take any position with regard to anything. Even drop these conclusions: 'Pain takes me closer to truth, pleasure takes me further away.' Nobody actually knows these things. And who are we talking about anyway? So see if it is possible for a few minutes or a few seconds to live a label-less existence. Simple. Not knowing of anything. Beautiful. I don't... so don't try to solve these problems. Just step back, because the mind will give you lots of problems which have no solutions. Being there trying to solve these problems for thousands and thousands of years. But when you step back, you will see: what problem? Who does it belong to? It's like that's why all these books like Yoga Vasistha sometimes are very good, because Vasistha will say, you know, that seventh son of the woman who had no children, that seventh son, he had a dream in which he was a king and in that kingdom he had these problems. It sounds like a very strange story, but this is our life. The non-existent one has lots of problems to deal with. How to solve them? You know, what one problem I have also seen with many who come to satsang is that people don't know what to do if they had no problem. It is like the pieces of my life is gone, I have to have something to solve. We have it, it's like these all words, the main identity of this one. So it is feel like if I'm not going to solve them, but the point is, yeah, so then how do we solve the border for? Yeah, this kind of everything then becomes the Balearic of the siege. It's not like that. That's why it's so beautiful to have living masters which will do that if you continue. Nothing has to stop in the way you give, will do pyramids. And it's completely possible to this is finally beforehand. I just want to say finally there is only one seeking.

The main identity of this one feels like if I'm not going to solve them, but the point is, yeah, so then how do we solve the border for... yeah, this kind of everything then becomes the play of the Self. It's not like that. That's why it's so beautiful to have living masters which will do that. If you continue, nothing has to stop in the way you give. We'll do pyramids and it's completely possible to... this is finally...

Beforehand, I just want to say finally, there is only one seeking problem and that's a new problem. There is that our presence has been mistaken to be the presence of an individual. You say 'I exist' but it can seem like you're speaking of the existence of some person or some individual. But that ego just doesn't exist when you truly taste of presence. And where do you find a person? Look is what I will actually ask, my dear, and see presence. Or you feel it, it seems apparent. Completely unclear as you look. So, presence now. Do you find somebody who has like separate slides apply? You know, we say 'I am really present in the present.' This form, who's present? Senses? Before you can say 'I am sitting there,' there is 'I am.' Who's 'I am'? Is there a person sitting there waiting to get to call? All these are just ideas. What do you find? Did you find Santa Claus? No.

This is the problem of the Master. I want to give freedom to somebody. I never find that one to give freedom to. Everyone I meet is free. Who should I give it to? Show me the one who is bound. Okay, within that one, the Guru would say, let that one present itself in the witness box. God Himself has designed this illusion. That's why it seems so elusive. Yes, some small-time game designer. God created His temples to play with.

The Master, I feel like that. I read a Father in the same way as one day I realized my parents fighting. The things I read to wanting them to stop, it will just seem that they can also... it is as it is. Yes, it sometimes you the same empathy to go to play as it plays out here. But the suffering of it is if another mixed emotion, but some compassion or some anger or something better arises. Unmixing this economics with the notion of it and how it should be, that is very much lacking part of this dream.

But usually I use the term suffering for that mixed with resistance, with a notion of what it should be, what it should not be. That is what suffering really means. So you say, so it feels like this acceptance but also this experience of suffering. And I know you might be reading that I am going to say this, so then we have to begin and say: so whose acceptance or suffering is this? So who's accepting the world as it is or the play as it is? And if you go back to the beginning of our talk and see, it is consciousness itself. So now what power is there that makes consciousness suffer? Only its own power of limitation or own power of belief, a notion of separation.

Sometimes it's also good to look at some very primary notions like up and down, left and right, time and space. And if I can say to some of you who actually view, those who've been with me for quite long, just try to live for a few moments without even these notions, without these distinctions. Don't know what up is or down means. Put away what falls with mind for some time with no forcing to find great beauty in you. Allow your presence to breathe without this emotional baggage all the time. I know that some of these seem so fundamental, so primary to our existence. What can we really say without the notion of time and space? But they are notions. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Guru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai.