श्रीरामSatsang with Ananta
Awareness & Attention

What Are You Taking Yourself to Be Now?' Is the Fundamental Question

True seeking requires wanting Truth more than mind's desires, and simply noticing distractions without self-judgment is sufficient - self-criticism only amplifies the ego.

Seeker

Something wants to ask something more now. I don’t know if its necessary…maybe it is…

Ananta

Don’t worry about it because in the same way, I see that we are policing ourselves (not that you are doing it) but many Hmes we can end up policing ourselves too much and saying ‘Okay this is I am just being mental right now, he just told me not to believe.’

Seeker

Yeah, it was such a beauHful moment, I didn’t want to ruin it [Smiles] but I will sHll ask…

Ananta

What I wanted to say about that, just like every other percepHon the movement of this mouth and the words that arise from it, is also another appearance in this play of percepHons and its completely independent of thinking. SomeHmes it happens that there is a thought, and then the mouth moves in the same way, someHmes it happens there is a thought and the mouth moves in a different way, someHmes there is no thought, and the mouth sHll moves. Like this conversaHon at least from here is sHll happening without any conceptual interference in the middle. I hear this mouth moving, in the same way your mouth will move, whether you believe it or not [Smiles], you don’t have to believe it.

Seeker

Perfect, okay. So, it was about (I don’t know if its related) about logical thinking, doing math for instance. That’s not what we call thinking, is it (here in Satsang)?

Ananta

There is a very nice contemplaHon about logic as well. So, what happened in the western systems of logic is that because of Socrates and his disciples and maybe even before that (Sophists and people like that) what happened is that logic became very linear. In that definiHon of logic something is either true or untrue. It cannot be both. But in eastern civilizaHons, like in India like very popularly in the Buddhists especially many Hmes they would say ‘It’s both true and untrue, or neither true nor false’. Now, because most of us must be condiHoned (because of our educaHon) and the construct in which we live, to find this kind of thing absurd, it can seem very strange. How can something be both true and false? How can something be neither true nor false? It sounds out of the bounds of logic. But there were systems of logic where all four variables were present. Then Masters could answer saying ‘both’ or ‘neither’. And then what would happen is if Buddha, for example was presented with quesHons someHmes, saying, ‘What happens to the body of one who is already enlightened?’ and he would say ‘the fieh’. The fieh is neither true nor untrue, neither both true and untrue and neither both. And there our intellect cannot visit. Because for the intellect what I am saying right now is completely crazy business, it’s completely absurd. But there is a deeper knowledge inside you for which this is not so strange. It recognizes that the instrument called the intellect, cannot capture everything in itself and the funny thing is that anything really of value it cannot capture. So, love, peace, joy, Truth, Self, devoHon, (all of these things) trust, all these it cannot really understand. It tries to make everything rule based ‘Oh, you must love me because I love you’ these kinds of systems which seem very logical, but they don’t get us anywhere in life. We just become liZle businessmen chasing experiences and wanHng reciprocaHon (and these kind of things) in the tradiHonal systems of logic. As you let go of the limited instrument you realize that there is a greater knowledge which is running this enHre universe. And I am just coming to numbers in just a moment. It is running this enHre universe with such great intelligence, which our mind cannot fathom. It can just try and decipher ‘Okay this happens aeer this, a seed is planted, and it starts to sprout and then what happens...’ it just makes linear interpretaHons of what happens and some very, very broad level generalizaHons. But the intelligence, which is for example just keeping this body together (apparently) and making it sit on a couch, even that much the highest physicists don’t know at this point. Why everything just doesn’t fall apart - we are not able to say. But there is a deeper intelligence which is making all this gravitaHon, electricity, magneHsm, evoluHon, growth; all of this happen, even idenHty, the play of idenHty is dependent on that intelligence. But we cannot fathom any of this, we can just make some hypothesis and say, ‘Okay concluded aeer verificaHon of percepHon’. But when it comes to something which is not observable, it is at a loss. So, when our scriptures for example say that find that which is not perceivable - for the scienHfic, experimental kind of logic that seems absurd because all of it is based on confirmaHon by observaHon. So, there is a mathemaHcal hypothesis which then is confirmed with experiments and that is impossible. So, you cannot confirm your true Self or your true nature as Awareness in that kind of tradiHonal way.

Seeker

Father, may I venture into something? We for instance we work in different disciplines, and we do like language or math, or science and we know in Satsang we learnt that none of them can actually hold the Truth, we recognize that more and more. However, there are schemes or systems within which they work, that we use to (say) resolve, I am using math I don’t know if it’s a bad example, it’s used just to resolve an equaHon or something. We know that it doesn’t necessarily have to do with Truth, but we do use that and when we do use that to apply to the soluHon of a problem or something, that process is not ‘thinking’ if we don’t give that our belief, it’s just… what is that it’s not thinking, what is it?

Ananta

As long as you are not making a story, it is not thinking; you don’t have to worry. If you are like what is two plus fieeen? Seventeen. It’s fine. But there is a beauHful…, if you are interested in the concept of numbers, I started reading this book a while ago but I never finished it but it seems quite intriguing which is a book called ‘Are numbers real’. If you get down to it let me know how you felt. I started reading, it was quite intriguing, but I never got down to finishing.

Seeker

[Laughs] Not much hope for me then.

Ananta

No, no not because it was difficult or something, it was just maybe something else came up or I don’t know why.

Ananta

I actually work with language, I used numbers because I thought it was more of a universal example, it just came. [Smiles] But thank you.

Ananta

Actually, a number can take us out of our heads. Because if I say to you imagine (maybe I took this example earlier) imagine two oranges, you can do it, two oranges. Then I say okay imagine five, you can imagine five. Now I say okay imagine twenty and it is starHng to become a bit approximate, you can’t really say. Then I say, imagine a hundred, you have lost it already; the mind cannot handle it, there are just oranges. Then if I say imagine a million oranges, it is just showing you visualizaHons, there it is no way you can actually confirm that what you are visualizing is a million. So, it just someHmes… like the concept of infinity actually, is not something fathomable by the mind. Or endless, Hmeless, all of these aZributes which are God’s true aZributes or the Self’s true aZributes are unfathomable by the mind. Isn’t it? So, that is why these pointers are so useful because how do we recognize that which does not come and go, how do we find that which is not in Hme? It is not possible using the mind and even with the visualizaHon of the mind it is not possible. So, you see what a limited instrument it is? It is only useful Hll two oranges, five its okay, by ten is becoming kind of shaky, by twenty it is lost, millions - forget about it. Then how will it fathom infinity? You cannot do it. We are trying to use and that is the bane of the spiritual seeker; that we try to use our mind to understand the God or the Self. And the instant we don’t try to do that; we don’t try to understand, it is apparent. So apparent, so available. There are very beauHful examples like this to show how the mind is limited, I am sure in language also there are many examples which we can use. Like last Hme (was it in the broadcast) where I was saying speak words but don’t make any sense.

Seeker

[Laughs] like ‘blah, blee blu’?

Ananta

But those are not words ‘blah, blee blu’ is my favorite of course but I am saying just speak words which mean something apparently but as a combinaHon they don’t make any sense.

Seeker

[Laughs] Yeah okay. Like just put words together. Like house desk sky water - something like this?

Ananta

Something like this.

Seeker

Okay.

Ananta

And those words are only as much nonsense as the words which we think make sense are. [Smiles] The cat ate the moon for breakfast and now its hungry again. [Laughs] In fact, the Zen Koans were all just words which were meant to push us out of our intellect and the Zen Masters were very strong so they would push us so that you have to resolve this, you have to solve this. And what would happen is that you would stop relying on the intellect and come to this Freedom, where you recognize that… forget the enHrety of life but even the Hniest aspects are not understandable with this limited instrument that we have, called the mind.

Key Teachings

  • You must want Truth, your Divinity, more than the mind's propositions and attachments - full commitment is required, not half-measures
  • Noticing your tendencies and distractions is enough - don't judge yourself or make it personal, as self-criticism only amplifies the ego
  • The meeting with the Master (your true Being) cannot happen while holding duality, desire, or attachments in one hand
desiremayasurrenderself-judgmentcommitmentegoopenness

From: 'What Are You Taking Yourself to Be Now?' Is the Fundamental Question - 26th November 2019