Without Any Story, Who Are You Now?
Without your story, there is no limited 'I' - the small self is a construct that dissolves when we investigate who the narrative is for.
Namaste, Father. I’ve been wanting to connect with you in this way. I don’t know really if I’ll be able to express myself. On the one hand, I’ve been observing the grasping—in a past conversation you said, “Open beyond the notion of open”—and I was contemplating this position of trying to grasp the Truth. On the other hand, I feel that something is deepening a bit, seeing that everything is coming to an ‘I’, like even time to see this, to stay with this; everything is coming to an apparent ‘I’.
Everything? Just expand on ‘everything’.
Every seeming problem, like if I feel sad or angry or whatever. The inquiry is coming like this: But this is coming to an ‘I’, to me, to someone. More than trying to, in that moment, grasp what is true or trying to grasp a solution like applying a technique, just to observe: Where is that one that this is coming from?
Yes, yes. So, let’s look at that, and let’s see if I understood what you’re saying. You’re not saying that the play of life is appearing to the ‘I’; all the appearances is just Consciousness playing with itself, but the seeming interventions or problems or pride or guilt or arrogance, they belong to an individualized ‘I’. So, we can say that life is just life playing with itself, or Consciousness is just Consciousness playing with itself, except when it takes on the subtitles or the interpretations of what is happening—in that aspect of the play, it is Consciousness which takes itself to be a limited individual, the small ‘I’, only in that aspect. Otherwise, this world is there for Consciousness to enjoy as Consciousness itself, for you to enjoy as Consciousness itself. But when you look at it through the lens of limited concepts, through the lens of ignorance, then you take yourself—so, when we’re looking through that lens, what is happening is first we’re taking the observer to be a limited entity, which is never true, and then we’re trying to find out what is appearing in our world of perception that can help this limited entity, “what’s in it for me?”, which I call the maha- mantra (big chant) of the ego. So, that is the only aspect of this play which seems to have the protagonist as the small ‘I’. As you’re empty of that lens, all is appearing to Consciousness for Consciousness.
Yes.
Was that your question? Did I understand it…?
Yes, exactly. It feels like that the limited position is always the ‘I’ that can be inside a narrative, it’s always the ‘I’ is combined with something and comes like a story that can’t be bought by Consciousness.
Yes. When we take the narrative to be true, then we must be taking the personal ‘I’ to be true. Like Guruji [Sri Mooji] often says, “Who are you without your story?”
Yes. Maybe what I was trying to express was that in that moment when something feels like it’s a seeming problem, it appears as a narrative that seems to be true, but when the enquiry comes, the apparent one for whom that narrative is, it’s not here.
Exactly, exactly. There is no hero or heroine of the movie without the movie, without the story. There is no central character without the story. It is the story which makes the central character, and the idea of the central character which gives life to more and more of the story. Without any story, who are you now?
Yes. Anything that can be said maybe it would be like putting this inside something, no?
Yes, it does, mostly. Especially when we try to make sense. [Laughs] Very good. Thank you.
Key Teachings
- The personal 'I' only exists as a construct of the narrative - without the story, there is no limited self
- Consciousness plays with itself; the appearance of a limited individual happens only when we look through the lens of limited concepts
- When investigating 'who is this for?' the apparent problem-doer dissolves, revealing Consciousness enjoying itself