Your Own Being Is Only Power There Is - 17th Jan 2019

Little reliefs. Don't have to do anything. It's like a relief at times.

See, but sometimes it can be heard as bad news also. What I'm saying then is that the idea of getting is false. And we can never use another representation and say, 'Okay, this is how it happened for them, what about me?' because then we are caught up in so many stories. So, is it possible to be empty of the idea of getting? Because a block only is related to the idea of getting, you see? Or trying to be a certain way, which is also getting. If there was nothing at all that needed to happen or had to come or had to go, then I don't know what you're saying, but this is there. A seeming knowing in the system because you made it a knowing, you see? The minute you know it, in a way it is lost, you see? So don't even try to know these words. They're doing something on their own. Let them, or they may not. Forget it. So, you don't have to worry about any of that. The minute you make a knowing out of anything, it can seem to obscure your vision. Seem to. It is not in that process, is it?

What would it mean when you say, 'Okay, I know what you're saying'? What would it mean? Memory. You have a phenomenal experience that you can tally with the concept of what you feel is being said to you, and therefore you give that assertion, 'Yes, valid,' and you keep it in your toolbox of concepts. That is knowing in the way it usually operates in the mental way, isn't it? So, suppose that truth had nothing to do with this process. Yes? Then neither trying to understand nor trying not to understand—nothing to do with that process either way. My Master told me that if you know it, it just messes it up and is never true anyway. Now try to suffer without knowing anything. Let everything come, you see? Even if it is like a tsunami of resistance, let it come. Don't know it as even resistance. Be full, full open. Don't grasp, you see? Don't grasp at it. Just remain. You don't have to do anything with these words also. Like the sound of the wind chime, they're being heard; it's enough.

It is because we have an idea of a solution, you see? That's why all these problems seem real. It is because we have an idea of freedom that the notion of bondage seems like it is true. And all the 'but' will be 'but me.' It might even sound very global, but actually all the 'but' is 'but me, but me.' Like a tantrum-throwing child saying, 'Take me also to the party, take me along.' That's all it is, you see? That's all it is. All this what we call resistance is nothing but a little child saying, 'I also want to go to the party.' I'm having a major resistance, is it? But are you having it without the notion of me? See? And this me is just like a little child saying, 'What about me? What about me? Take me also. This is so unfair.'

As you were saying that, I was trying to label this, that's causing also...

So don't have to do anything with these words. In a way, it is like Consciousness reminding itself of itself. It doesn't need any personal intervention.

A stream of thought that's attempting to box some of the experiences that body... that's what it... it tries to label your experience and in the... it feels like in the label there is some truth to be found, like a confirmation has to be made.

Yeah, that's it. See, this part to that part, that's just a car. It's okay. What is the difference between freedom and bondage? Know all the answers to invent some fresh question. But do you see it, that in actuality they're not things? It's not a thing. Freedom is not a thing. Bondage is not a thing. It doesn't exist. Then somehow you can switch it off for a few minutes. Getting caught up happens. That's when everything seems real. Journey seems real. Everything seems real. But when you look at it, there is even without looking, like even before swimming, catching up or something doesn't even need confirmation.

So here it still feels like catching up of these concepts. Whichever getting caught up, you know, getting caught up. The ones that catch now and don't know which will catch in the future. Somehow that needs to... needs to be resolved.

Something... this is the thing. It's all emotional, is it? No, this is a big... dig further and see. Something will yield. 'But this is my journey right now. This is my position,' is it? 'It's my position, it's my existential issue.' Makes it like that. Like this needs to be... it in itself doesn't have the power to make anything like anything. Your own being, your own presence, is the only power there is. So what are you saying as being? Maybe I just want to laugh. Being knows want, doesn't know like resolution or anything. Now the need to conclude, just keep noticing it. That's all. Just keep noticing it. Nothing means anything. But you feel like, you see, that is a bad thing or something. You feel like, 'I must come to meaning.' Then we put one big meaning to it, which is that everything is meaningless. But that's not what I said, see? It's because nothing means anything. Then where is the meaning 'everything is meaningless' coming from? Is it all Greek? It's okay. Like some foreign language, which is also fine.

But this fictitious bondage... this fictitious bondage, yes, makes me feel like an upstanding citizen, very responsible. Is your bondage that play? Or let myself be free? All that's in the chains and the shackles, cage. And so the bondage is fictitious. What about the 'me' that doesn't let me be free? Is that fictitious? Or silent me? The talking of me is telling all the rules. So talkative me is fictitious. So I heard all this: 'me' is fictitious, talkative me, silent me. If it is a true... if there is a true I, true me, then it doesn't need to... it in fact cannot be known through any notion of it, you see? So if you can label yourself this way or that way, then both ways are not you really. Is the notion of being an upstanding citizen you're not willing to throw away, is it? Any other? You can keep one if you like. Is this the only one?

Well, all the thinking which comes with that, you know, fitting into society and expectations. How many sub-thoughts you need to be an upstanding citizen? Tell the truth... books, books and books, books. So many, so many.

What thinking behaviors? Yeah, upstanding citizen: tell the truth, don't litter the country... three, four sub-rules. What is it? Pay your taxes. Pay your taxes, don't hurt anyone. Ah, but four, five something... hurt anyone's feelings. So feelings... fictitious feelings. Feeling thing is tough because you could say blah blah blah and feelings seem to get hurt. You could just blah blah blah blue, but feelings are hurt. So you keep... no, then you can't because the audience is big. You have relationships, you have various. So you can't keep saying, 'Okay, now this one is there, let me say that, and now this one is here, let me say this,' you see? So in a way, if you're talking about that upstanding citizen thing, then just as long as your intent is not to hurt anyone's feelings, then you're fine, you see? Because then how what emerges is used, or what part it plays in the seeming satsang of others, has nothing to do with you.

We are still speaking in a very worldly, phenomenal way because we are using that context of upstanding citizen. So as long as you are not feeling to hurt anyone's feelings, it's really not such a big deal. The freedom of the Self may hurt people's feelings. Well, then, like many who come to satsang say, 'It is my suffering that got us here,' is it? So unless they suffer a bit, maybe they don't come to satsang. I know it can sound a bit cruel or something, but if you're going to have to micromanage every word and every expression in that way, you see, then how is it your freedom anyway? You see, the freedom of the Self may hurt others' feelings. But if that freedom means you have to watch every word and expression that you make, it doesn't look very free. See, where is the allowing in that?

So the allowing also contains whatever emerges from here to emerge, and whatever... be open to whatever responses or feelings come, you see? Is the trouble that they feel that way, you see? Or you don't want to bear the brunt of them feeling that way? That can be explored a bit. In the sense that, is it that they feel a certain way, you see? Or is it that because they feel a certain way, then they behave like this with me? So if that 'me' still comes alive in that play... good, good me, good and bad is very made up. So nobody can actually do it. It's a big burden to carry, you see, trying to be good. So freedom is just trying... not trying any of this. Not trying to be anything at all.

Like, Mooji has these beautiful examples. I'm going to paraphrase a bit. So, is a tree trying to be good? Is a bird trying to be good? A squirrel trying to be good? They just are what they are. Somebody said that tree is being very good today. What, really? Like this? So we've put these notions onto our existence and sort of locked ourselves up in this. And it can seem like there's no escape because then, 'If I'm free, then everybody gets upset with me,' you see? Then, you see, don't even try to be free, you see? Because if 'free' has also become a position, then that is not free. If you can be free or can be bound, then you're still in those opposites, you see? So don't try to be this way or that way. Just welcome whatever every moment brings. Just welcome whatever every moment brings. Somebody... you're not saying 'welcome,' not like that, or just you're open, inwardly open that this can happen. It's okay. Not meant with the mantra of 'why me?' or 'what's in it for me?' Without the 'me' mantra, that is openness. And it is not that we are concerned about what anyone... if you are free in your definition of free earlier, and you're walking on the road and there is one random stranger who looks at you this way, you see, it's not such a big deal. It's usually about what we call our close relationships and what they think and what they say. So now if you're getting rid of the tyranny of this seeming mind here, if it...

Without the 'me' mantra—the mantra of 'why me' or 'what's in it for me'—there is openness. It is not that we are concerned about what anyone thinks. If you are free in your definition of free earlier, and you're walking on the road and there is one random stranger who looks at you this way, you see, it's not such a big deal. It's usually about what we call our close relationships and what they think and what they say. So now, if you're getting rid of the tyranny of this seeming mind here, if it plays in other mouths, so to speak, then are we going to get into that new tyranny of being oppressed by that? It can't be this way. I'm not saying we have to be either lion or sheep, actually. I'm just saying that forget about either of these, and this body will be taken care of. You don't worry.

Strong ego which wants to be good, yes.

So, but as strong as it may be, it does not survive the now, you see? So we have to put the blocks back together again. So, it is gone now till you start thinking about it. Even if you start thinking about whether it's gone or not, then it seems to revitalize even. Is it still there? In a way, we have to get out of the web of all labels, all words. Don't know what good means, what bad means, because we've learned what it meant. It was not part of our innocence; we were taught.

You're saying that we have to get rid of all those labels, but we as what? Because you're saying that there is no 'me,' there is no 'we.' So how is it done?

Yeah, it is just remain in your notionless existence. You as Consciousness, you see, remaining in existence. That's the only way—not the only way, but the quickest way—to remain in the unborn. It is done now. The notion of done and not done also gone now. Now, like now. Not the product of your thinking about right now. The mind does not represent reality itself. Allow me to say—you don't worry about it—it is an aspect of reality itself, but it's not a true representative of reality, you see? So its representations are not real, and reality actually cannot be represented by the mind. So if you go to the mind and say, 'Okay mind, what do you think about that? He's saying this now, that mind cannot represent reality. What do you think?' 'Yeah, of course, I've heard this many times in satsang before,' like that. And then we buy it. Yes, yes, you see? It's still claiming to represent reality. So don't go to any of this mental conceptualization for an answer.

Do anything, then he's like, 'I may ask the question.' Then I started noticing this comes out in satsang these days, then you see, and then if that is an invitation for you to go to the mind and say, 'Okay, so then like that,' that's not how it is.

Don't go to that voice for any representation of reality. If you want to go to it and you say, 'Okay, I have not suffered for a few moments, let me get some suffering back,' and that's a game you want to play, that's what it is. That's what Consciousness is doing. You know, have you met these people who love spicy food? You see, like Pani Puri or something, and then they just, 'Water, water! Sugar, sugar! Good, good!' You know this? Like, but why did you eat that spicy food? It's not the first time; you've been doing it over and over. Just fun. So this is like when we say it is the joy of Consciousness, it is also like that, you see. 'I really don't want to suffer.' Okay, you're free. Okay, done. 'But maybe I do a little bit.' Okay, what you got for me? What he said like that, or she said to you like that. 'No, something... I don't want to suffer.' Okay, you're done, free. Okay, yeah. It's all this game. Is it? That's all this game is. And it's not personal, you see? This game is not personal. The person, the so-called person, is a product of the game. It's like a byproduct which doesn't really happen, but it seems to happen. It's like in Monopoly, you buy Park Place or Boardwalk. There is no actual Boardwalk, but you feel like you are the owner of it. No? Feel like, 'I have this property.' You see, it's not like that. In the same way, the idea of being a person is just a product of this game, you see? A person does not play it. This Consciousness—if we have to use a term—Consciousness that plays with this limitation and then dropping the limitation, you see? Why you cannot release it? But if you want an answer for its play, so really the question boils down to: Who is here? Can that be described in any concept? And if it itself cannot be described in any concept, then how can its afflictions, problems, versions, its stories be described in concepts? It's like saying the storybook started, 'Once there was a... I don't know who.' Yeah, 'Once there was I-don't-know-who,' you see? 'But he/she had this particular problem in their relationship.' You see, what does it even mean? Because this fundamental, we have just presumed, we filled in that box with 'me.' 'Once there was a me,' you see? Then once that is there, then that one can have problems: relationship, money, body, freedom—all these problems. If you don't fill in that box... this is what Bhagavan was trying to say. This is a contemporary version of what he was trying to say. He says till 'I am' it is okay, but then that 'I am' becomes something, you see? 'I am something' is what we call 'me,' you see? So once you fill in that blank of 'I am' this 'me,' you see, then is the root of all trouble. But who is the center of the story? So when I ask you 'who' there, you see, then if you don't know, then why you fill in that blank with 'me'?

Impressions formed for a very long time.

Yeah, but who? Impressions from the Consciousness?

Yeah, but there's no Consciousness. I'm not happy with your answer.

Who is not? You see why I said that? Because I know I affirmed Consciousness. I was affirming for the last ten minutes. When this is what happens in satsang, we can make it a term, and then that term can become like the home for the 'me,' you see? 'It's just happening to me as Consciousness.' Okay, forget, there's no Consciousness now. Easy. So this is a good example how even satsang terminology can actually just get in our way, because we feel then immediately, 'I know who it is happening to; it is Consciousness,' you see? Forget, there's no Consciousness. And why are you not happy with the answer? Because something latched onto the term. I know that you were saying jokingly also, half-jokingly, but because that term 'Consciousness' got attached to you, you see? And then, 'Forget, there's no Consciousness.' 'But that's the basis of my understanding now!' You see? 'Consciousness is the basis of my understanding now,' and he's saying forget about it, you see? Now, what I'm saying more than even these terms like Consciousness or awareness is that our reality cannot be grasped in any concept, including these. So when a question is asked, the response has to come from a more alive place than what we know, you see? It has to come from a more alive place than just what we just learned, even if it seems so fresh because 'I just understood this,' you see? It can feel like that, but even more alive than that, more immediate, you see.

When you say you got attached to me, yeah, you as Consciousness, of course there's no Consciousness.

No. Consciousness... this is how terms become potent, you see? I wish that for every time I would say something, I would use a fresh term, you see? Like if I said 'Consciousness' once, if I didn't ever say it again, that would be better. Because otherwise you'll build a home for the 'me' in that term 'Consciousness.' This is what happens in spirituality. So who is it happening to? 'Consciousness,' you see? But not like that. It has to be like, who's it happening to?

As you describe it, it seems like when you say Consciousness, right, or any word, you draw on some experience for you to make it real, for that word to seemingly have a realness to it.

Yes, what experience or sets of experiences that you've tagged along with that label. That's why these labels are so potent, because they don't come just like, 'Oh, Consciousness.' Because everything that we think we know about Consciousness is loaded into that term. Like he gave me a USB drive, so a term is like that. There's so much loaded into that term already, you see? So you saying 'Consciousness,' you say 'Consciousness,' you say 'Consciousness.' Now you're asked to describe, you see? Everybody will describe different things because that's how you loaded the term, you see? And then we argue about, 'No, my term is the best one,' or 'How could you use that term in that way?' As if the term itself, like a set of sounds, can inherently have some meaning, you see? Blah, blah, blah, blah, you see? In another language if that means something and you say it's all gibberish, gibberish, you see?

I never get this part. It's like, no, no, I mean that like when you say that just the sound doesn't have any intrinsic meaning within it, right? So no intrinsic concept is loaded within it.

Yeah, just in the sound like 'blah blah,' there's nothing. I mean, if I never heard it, I would never know it.

So where are you pointing us to? That's what I don't get. Like basically, I mean, it's quite obvious if I don't know a language or whatever, or if I had never met anybody, if I was the only human being in this world, there would be no meaning of 'I.' I'm going to have to invent something for myself just to remind myself maybe of... I'm just imagining now.

Yeah, so good, good question. So meaning is what? A set of other terms, you see? Each of those set of other terms, they are not based on some experience, Father? Yeah, but those labels never actually... we looked at this so often, that if you were to describe the experience of this room, you see, could you actually do it? At best you try to; it's like a pictorial representation at best if you use like ten thousand words or something like that, you see? So it doesn't really describe anything. Is-ness never describes even the manifest aspect of what is, you see? So that just leads to other terms, then those lead to other terms, those lead to other terms. So if you were to be rid of all of these terms, you see, Bhagavan said that the root of all of this trouble is the one term which is 'I,' the 'I-thought,' you see? We have given that meaning. So if you take all meaning or reference out of that one, then all of this other stuff is naturally gone. That's a very good shortcut, cheat code. Don't have to deal with individual meanings of all of these terms: 'I am this,' 'I am that,' 'In my world it is like this.' All this is the meaning that you have given, right? So what is the fundamental term? The fundamental term is 'I,' whatever language you might use, whatever you're using for 'I.' So this 'I,' we have given it a conceptual meaning, whereas reality cannot be captured in any conceptual meaning that you give to it. Whether you say awareness, Brahman, Absolute, or you say person, ego, you see, mind—both do not actually represent reality, you see? So now, don't refer to 'I' as anything. Don't give it any meaning or reference.

Spanish words, they are not worried about meaning exactly.

Simply there's no meaning. 'Me' is created in meaning. 'Me' is created in the meaning. Now what you have to be open to hearing also—because I repeat it often but sometimes the mind gets, you know, very loud at this point, you see—is that the opposite meaning is not true also. So don't get boxed into the idea of meaninglessness, you see, or the idea of 'nothing has meaning,' because that is also to give it meaning, you see? It's just that it does not apply, you see? He had made one time, he used to talk about 'not applicable.' What did you mean? You had made some pictorial representation or something. So just like that, it's not applicable. Meaning itself, the term is meaningless, you see? So therefore meaning and meaninglessness don't mean anything, you see? Get out of that box, you see? Otherwise you'll get into... stay with these boxes of, 'Oh, only awareness has meaning, person has no meaning.' This kind of... we are not replacing one set of meaning with a new set of meaning. We are not replacing the notion 'I am a person' with a new notion 'I am Brahman' or 'I am God,' you see? Because we don't...

Or something, so just like that, it's not applicable. Meaning itself, the term is meaningless, is it? So therefore, meaning and meaninglessness don't mean anything, you see. Get out of that box, you see. Otherwise, you'll get into—stay with these boxes of, 'Oh, only awareness has meaning, you see; person has no meaning.' We are not replacing one set of meaning with a new set of meaning. They are not replacing the notion 'I am a person' with a new notion 'I am Brahman' or 'I am God,' you see, because we don't want to have one kind of ego then replace it with spiritual ego. Something that's really frying pan into fire. So it is just to remain empty from all of this. All judgment, interpretation of empty, of getting, losing, finding, seeking, holding, wanting—empty of all of this. In a simple way, we can say that it's the end of wordplay. We've just been playing with words thinking that that is our reality, but now, as Guruji says, we are coming to a wordless spirituality. So then it will not trouble you if I say you are Consciousness and then say but there is no Consciousness. You don't feel like that because you are out of that box, you see. You're not boxing yourself based on these assertions and negations, these opposites, you see. Otherwise, this game of 'Oh, I am person' or 'Am I awareness' will keep going on because we made them opposites in that box. Just keep all terms aside and whatever you are is apparent. He's apparent. I'm a bit sheepish in saying that because, Father, what is a—what are you without this box, you see?

Now you'll notice that the mind will also become very smart at playing that game, you see. And, 'Oh, but within and without are still—it's in that box.' But you're not really looking. Still, you're still in that wordplay then. So all words are in that box; that is clear. If that gives the mind some smartness certificate, every mind can have it. It's completely, fully smart, okay? You see? So that full certification is yours now. Now that you've seen that even this question is in the box, what is it that you are without the box? Because you then settle for then again these like smart conclusions: 'Oh, but even that within/without is in the box.' Only like that. But even that is in the box. What about you? Can you be represented in the box? In this classroom, the worst your answer is, the better it is. And if you have like just no answer, best. You see? But it can't be that outwardly you have no answer but inwardly we are like, 'Yeah, there is an answer. Yeah, like I am what I am.' Like whatever the box says. Like if I'm really outside the box, then I am what I am. I am what I am. What it means, I am what I am, whatever I am. It's just that whether—like the question is, what are you? Whatever I am.

So, um, but if you are able to see it's not an answer, you see. It is like, what are you? Whatever. A little like that, you see. But um, what is it actually describing or explaining? I guess like it has no explanations and that's why like it is coming up with this kind of answer.

Yeah, exactly. Good. So that's good. You see that? So this answer also gone. But then like we were saying that if the basis is the 'I' thought or is the central character in the story, you see, it's like once there was I don't know who, you see, then there's not much that can be added onto the story. But if it's still adding that on, that 'I don't know who' was having this problem, you see, then this kind of thing—then it's good to check. So who is this? Before we can say anything about that one, it's good to check. So who is it? So if the mind is saying that that is whoever it is, for example, you see, but this is real, you see. Look at that. They'll try to always do that. It'll always try to move you to another question like why, when, what. Move you away from the whole question. Like you know that that is whatever it is. What did you say? 'Whatever I am, I am whatever I am.' Now let's talk on top of that, you see. For the mind, it wants to deal in that way, you see. But here we just like this: what is that 'whatever I am'? What is that? You see? Just like, what is that? Because if you're building this whole house on top of that foundation—'this happened to me, then that happened to me, when will it happen to me, why doesn't, why will'—you know, all this is on top of that 'me.' Then it's good to explore that and see what is at the center of the story. Who's the central protagonist of this tale?

What's the point of asking that? If you talk to the so-called lay people, what is Satsang about? First I used to try and explain that it's about self, coming to the recognition of—'What do you get after that?' you see. And if they're being nice, they're saying, 'Oh, will you find peace in that?' And to try and explain to them that no, truth is worth it for the sake of truth itself. Impossible. It's like a very, very strange conversation. No, no, no, I'm not doing it for something, because it's worth it to just check. Is the basis of all everything—on top of the story is based on that—so would it not be worthwhile to check that? But this, which seems the most straightforward, for the world seems like the most crazy. You spend your time just looking at who you are. So who are you?

And then many times the mind also makes a version of that which this kind of question comes. Like one friend, she came the other day also. She's like, 'But isn't that so selfish? You're just thinking about yourself,' you see. Because they feel like they have a sense of who that self is. So you're thinking about yourself in this way. 'But what about those poor children who need to be helped? And you know, the world which is undergoing so much suffering?' And so then if you ask them, 'So how to rid one of their suffering?' It's a good intention. So you want to rid the world of their suffering instead of thinking about yourself, which is their version of what you're doing. So how to rid the world of their suffering? Is it by giving the material things? Is it by giving them nice thoughts and concepts? Do those things last as the end of suffering for anyone in the world? And are we free first from our suffering that we can present this end of suffering to others? That's what Masters say: first you become suffering-free, then only you can help.

But I can understand that perspective because not looking at this from this perspective, it can seem strange. What are these guys doing? They sit, you know, ten of them, ten or fifteen of them every day, they're sitting and just talking about 'Who am I?' which is so self-centered, you see. 'Why don't you go help the world?' You know, like this kind of thing. It's very understandable from a certain perspective, you see. But then you see when you start looking and saying, 'Okay, how to rid another of their suffering?' If I give ten thousand rupees to one poor person, do I really know it's going to be the end of their suffering? Or maybe it may add to their suffering, you see. They might buy some drugs or they might not even that, but they might then some other concept about life might get created for them which can bring them more suffering. We don't even know the outcomes of these things.

So even when we are doing charity, so-called charity in the world, you must always do it from a place of humility, not from this place of 'Oh, I am helping you' or you know, because we don't really know any of that. We just have to bow our head down and say, 'May Guruji's Grace take care of whatever this is,' you see. If we put these presumptions into 'this is how I'm helping the world' or 'this is how I'm changing this thing,' you see, this kind of thing. But if the complaint is that 'What are you doing to help the world be rid of its suffering?' I have to also say that in this case, the end of suffering came as a result of, you know, dropping the delusion of the false 'me,' is it? So that is what is playing out. That is what is playing out to help everyone see that this 'me' is a made-up idea. I can think of no better way to help the world, even not that I'm doing it with that intent or something like that. Yeah, it's not like that.

So not picking up the lies about who you are is all that is needed. I'm not even saying dropping; I'm saying not picking up the lies about who you are. And then all terms that describe who you are are lies, whether they're pointing to something spatial or temporal or even so-called eternal, is it? Everything that is terminology cannot describe you in reality. This much is the end of the 'I' thought. Don't pick up any lies about who you are, and all terms about who you are are lies. All descriptions, all interpretations, all judgments are lies. Even this one that they are lies is lies, you see what I'm saying? In the sense that I'm not just playing with words there, but proposing and then getting rid of the proposition also, is it? Because if again I'll propose the term Emptiness, is it? Because if you are to come to this Emptiness, it cannot be like 'everything is a lie.' That is not Emptiness. So like a negation of everything else using a provisional truth, and then the negation of the provisional truth itself so that your hands are left empty. That's what you read yesterday also. Yeah, exactly. That's what all the sages are doing, you see. That's what they call like saying don't believe any lies about yourself. Everything, all terms are lies, and then there are no such thing as lies. It's sequential in a way.

If you feel you can assert the truth, know that it is not the truth. If you feel like you can deny the truth, know that it is not the truth. That includes all of this which is being said in Satsang because it will always be a concept. Exactly, because you cannot assert, you see. Pointings are the truth provisionally; that's what I was saying. Provisionally, you see. So you say all of this is unreal because it comes and goes; then it takes away our investment in the reality of this manifest. Then you say Brahman is the world. What does it mean? So there is no world, there is only Brahman, for example. And then you say Brahman is the world. So it doesn't let you hang on to anything conceptually. Because if you try to put it in a conceptual box, many actually can claim that 'I have understood this.' It is not for that. If you understood this, then the Satsang has to come up with something else. You feel like these are riddles that I have to crack. 'Now I've understood,' you see. And I say come up with some fresh stuff.

This box you might feel like is just a mental box, a small aspect, is it? But then you'll see that everything that we think about this world is contained in that. Time is contained in your box. Space is contained in your box, you see. Freedom, bondage, life, death, you see—everything is contained in this box. None of these are a thing. Okay, for next time we have a note: it would be nice if everyone could speak a little louder or come closer to the mic or something. If you complain that 'I'm not understanding anything,' like sometimes many of you complain like that, that 'I'm not understanding anything,' that is actually music to my ears, you see. But then you get very upset if I say that. So in fact, I want to say what you think you understand also, throw it away, you see. What you think you understand also, throw it away, because that is not helping anything. So now let me not say after. Thank you all so much for being in Satsang today. Satguru Mooji Baba Ki Jai. Guruji.