Whose Conclusion Is This? - 6th Dec 2018

It's okay to feel lost. Don't pick up the mind's conclusion about what is true. It's okay to feel lost, but you're more lost when you buy the mind's version of your reality. This little—if you heard just this much, it is enough today. It's alright to feel a little lost, but it is still less lost than believing the mind's version of what is real, what is your reality, including the now super-smart, super-special Advaita mind. Can we just open up?

There is really nothing that you can do. In fact, further than that—because even this is misunderstood and then you will try to do the not-doing—further than that, there is no such thing as doing. There is actually no such thing as doing. Our mind has made a concept out of some apparent movement or activity, if you call it, but there is no doing. And not-doing does not apply. And then when we see that there is no individual doer, then we give it to God and say, 'You.' You're not so unwilling to give up the concept of doership that we say, 'Okay, there must be a doer. I am not it, clearly, but You must be.' And then the new variation of suffering starts, which is, 'Why are You doing this to me? And will You do the good thing? Why do You do bad things to good people?' All the fancy stuff because we picked up a concept which is not natural.

Not only is there nobody doing anything, there is no actual thing called doing. Show me. If you matter to me and you have met this doing, how does it work? Is the wave doing it? Is there an object called ocean doing it through all this? Conceptually, you have never met the ocean except the waves. The waves are not the doer, and the conceptual ocean is this movement of film. Plain and clear, you will have to see that this does not apply at all. To see that it is all nonsense, shameful duality. Nobody has ever met this duality, yet we have to have something to talk about. Non-duality, Advaita. Have you met duality? Where is she? So looking back, time and again, that is it. That is duality. Only in our labels, only in our notions. We believe our mind, only a thought. None of you have ever experienced duality. This is what the Maharshi was trying to say when he said that you are not experiencing suffering, you are suffering your experiencing. And there is no suffering except duality. There are no lines inherently defining you and me and other. There's variety, but behind it, yes.

So if it was a whole thing, then the difference is only conceptual? If it is a whole, as you say it is a whole, then when we say 'different,' what are we talking about? We're talking about some bunch of perceptual difference seemingly. But even perceptually, we are not—this perception itself, like we do this often, we just look around and we say, is there duality inherently perceived? What makes this object 'other' and that object 'you'? Is that inherently present here? Is the distinction natural or is it learned?

So if you do the whole, as you see, then the so-called difference must only be conceptual. Otherwise, it's not a whole. It's then everything is different. Yes, yes. Don't be scared to not understand, because it's very fearful for most of humanity because of our education system. We built the society; there's a fear of feeling stupid, not understanding. I can tell you that I can't tell you what is going on. I have no idea what is going on. Okay? And then wait, but wait. What is natural and what was learned was the question. Now you see it was learned. And what is learned is gone. Then you don't have to pick up what else was learned, like to ask 'To whom? By whom was it learned?' That is also learned. Was that natural?

You said that when you pointed and said what is natural and what was learned, then is it okay if I look at that and then say, 'Okay, I saw that that was learned,' but then I am looking now at who is it learned by and then progressing in my investigation?

But I'm talking about something which is instant. It is non-progressive. Because even to ask 'Who was it learned by?' then it is something that you have learned. What I'm saying is not even instant, like if there was a word less than instant. If you keep that, you're learning again. Then we go on the same treadmill. And most of your minds now have very solid rules for 'Who am I?' Very solid rules: awareness, Self, unchanging. This duality is the easiest concept. Duality, everybody can take to it. That's why in religions, every religion is dualist except one right now. My reality in that statement, 'dualist,' comes very easily to everybody. So you don't agree on it? It comes easily in the sense because every notion is embodied by it. If I say 'drop it, drop it, drop it,' I mean you drop it. Oh, you will—you become the dropper. Unless I am empty, I am empty, I am empty. He says, 'Be empty.' Will you become now 'being empty' or trying to do appearance? What is this? It is just a question about: will you continue to judge yourself, interpret yourself? In this moment, you are the most enlightened that you will ever be. In this moment, you are the most enlightened that you will ever be. Is that good news or disappointing? Again, you take my look. Is that it? Oh, or yes, yes, this is it. This is the thing. So then the enlightened one playing as if it is the limited one in this, this, this, now, now, now, fresh, fresh, fresh. It is not the outcome of something. You are not sitting right now; you can't find your position, and yet you are sitting effortlessly. What does it mean? Somebody wants to scream, and that's okay too. Or does this intellect become super tired? Not one word we need. Yes, yes.

Listen to the broadcast as we're feeling like we live in some walls. Only fighter jets, ambulances, but they didn't get it. All right, somebody's saying, 'Shut up, shut up, got it.' No, it's funny sometimes to hear some old reports like, 'But you would say they're not for you. You are never going to get it.' Yeah, and then we get so upset being here, saying, 'I'm never going to get it.' But it shows how much we live in these paradigms: getting it, not getting it. How much that has become part of our identity now. He's dancing to the tunes of this duality and attending Advaita satsang. Still so sweet. My opposites become a season, but without addition, we feed you these masters and their skill about them. We knew how to poke at the right moments.

We live if ever silent observer, and but this intellectual duality keeps asking, 'Is the root cause?' Probably only silence will be too silent to answer that. The real life and questioning cause and effect, this whole thing, this leads to that. What does not kill you here? When the instance in this example came, an orange got caught in the belief that it's a grape. Now it came up with various—people give it various solutions. 'If you do this, you'll be an orange again. This will lead to your orange-ness coming back.' But what is it still, actually? It's just a thought. The grape is just a thought. It had no tangible reality in its heart. It is just that the orange is thinking that it's a grape. What method would you prescribe to this orange? You say, 'Look for the grape. See that there isn't one.' You have looked and you've seen that there isn't one. And look for everything that is prescribed to the orange nature. You look and you found that it's naturally here. Every time you look, you see that it's just naturally here. What else is needed?

The one who already knows, knows. The one that meets, the one that knows, already knows. This is it. The one who already knows, or the one that can never know. Whose conclusion is this, but that one can never know? Yeah, so how does it know this?

Let's go back to what you said. That which knows already knows, and that which doesn't know can never know. So even this, it cannot know this. The one who knows knows, and the one who cannot know can never know. Even this conclusion it cannot know. How has it missed it? Simple. The one who knows knows. The one who doesn't know will never know. So can this statement itself be known? The main rule is very simple. The one who knows knows, yes. The one who doesn't know can never know. And you yourself said that this is also a game from the mind itself, the one who cannot know. So therefore it cannot know even that statement. The wise will make a conclusion out of this and say—

The one who cannot know can never know even this conclusion. It cannot know how they're zipping past it. Simple: the one who knows, knows; the one who doesn't know, never knows. So can this statement itself be known? The main rule is very simple: the one who knows, knows, yes; the one who doesn't know can never know. And you yourself said that this is also a game from the mind itself, the one who cannot know. So therefore, it cannot know even that statement. The wise will make a conclusion out of this and say, 'Therefore, now this has to happen,' which is to check and see if it actually is. It's not, not really.

So to paraphrase, the one thing to do just is all that seems to be needed to drop our false knowledge, ignorance. All right, yes.

Maybe you got that. The emotions are like the frame. The notions are like the frame and the photo is the 'me'. Without this frame, it cannot be. They provide the infrastructure, the structure for this master notion. And these notions could be any, but in the middle of all of these notions, there will only be 'I am' notion. Otherwise, if there was a collection of spiritual notions that somebody could pick up and that would automatically be freedom, then somebody would have figured it out by now. Notion one on the top, this one, this one, this one, this one. But these attempts have been made for thousands of years in religion to provide a superset of notions, the complete set which will get you to freedom. It has been there again for thousands of years, and yet most of the time it is seen as that under the 'me' it keeps getting amplified.

Then you might pick up another notion saying, 'Then it's better to just keep quiet.' But sometimes it feels as if these notions are so embedded that they have to be plucked out, so some counter-notion has to come to neutralize them. All of what I'm saying is nonsense, you see. Just don't take it too seriously. In this game, it seems like it is like this, but none of it is like this. This apparent neutralization of these embedded notions is what? It was unhelpful not to see, you know. Either the gap between ultimate nonsense and ultimate truth is just a wall, like more beyond this framing of individuality, even beyond the framing of spirituality. And if you are still like that, it's okay, because then what you're hearing now is very... 'Hey, I know you. How long will you keep falling to the same trick?'

I'll give you an example of times we wouldn't believe. One time, Guruji and some other dear friends were with him. So what happened is that one of the friends, he saw like a hundred rupee note, or a fifty—let's presume it was a hundred rupee note on the ground. So he bent down to pick it up, and there were some people sitting on the wall on the side and they had tied a string to that. And they pulled when he bent down; they pulled it and then they were like, 'April Fool!' So like that. This is an example of that grasping and suffering. Every time we pick up the notion which has grasped at the notion of the limited 'me', we can't... we have never actually substantively found this 'me', and yet we are out of our just natural messing away. So that is what is suffering, you know, if you have to give it a definition. So like this, it just is an April Fool's Day trick which keeps coming like that.

The minute it's like this, 'I have gone once I got this, then my life is moving towards a better or something is happening,' but it all ends in this April Fool's Day trick. And yet when the next trick comes, 'Yeah, I am... I know I have fooled you in the past. You bought goods from me which were really useless and really bad. But this time, with a reformed mind, I'm only thinking about your good and I have top-class concepts.' She gets two fishes and not just for the matter, cut her open. 'Now I have this way with you. I started my career... first concept is when you're really convinced that you need this stuff, then yeah, and you are a worthy seeker because you're very honest. There's one small condition: if you hear it in some script, that would be better. Just ten years. What is ten years for one who has got maybe many lifetimes, infinite? Then ten years is nothing for you. That concept I'm giving you for free.'

'This might be the final thing. I mean, this might be the end to my struggle. Let me start learning Sanskrit, Pali, whatever.' I mean, my name is Bela, and maybe we don't misunderstand—I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with any of that. I'm just saying the idea that it has to be grasped in that way, that which is so naturally here, that is what you're looking at. As far as activities go, keep the mind... the mind keeps the mind behind the mind's strategy to keep itself away, with the thief trying to catch the thief. What's all this about? Is it about that which is naturally here? Why would that need a precondition? Do you have to contribute to it? Does it have to be linear like that, that you started a freedom journey and then by the end this was your master conclusion? Is that what all of this is? We are still stuck in that linearity of time and linearity of limitations. Freedom stuck.

So where are we now? Are we in the revolt of 1857? These are framings like that. Time framing is like that. Our mind goes into linearity and we think we are an object in that way to follow these linear sort of models. What if all of this framing were just made up? What if time itself was just made up? Space was just made up? World was just made up? Body was just made up? Mind was just made up? Consciousness was just made up? Awareness was just made up? Absolute was just made up? Empty of all of this, what is the pocket? Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Bhagavan Ki Jai. Gurudeva.