All Confusion Is the Mistaken Identity About the 'I' - 6th November 2017

That which you are right now is beyond all connections and disconnections. It is only when you consider yourself to be something limited—if you consider yourself to be something who is specific to the name Helen, something limited to this body—then you will feel like 'I am a limited entity and I need to connect it back to the source.' But now you are realizing that the true connecting back is actually a recognition that I can never be disconnected. Are you aware of the body or is the body aware of you? From your experience, are you aware of your thoughts or are these thoughts the greater? The other unchanging witness and this awareness is coming and going? What is your truest position, the one that does not come and go?

Without the idea that you are a limited entity, without the idea that you are something, what real disconnection is there? That is the simplicity of Advaita Vedanta. You don't consider you... and it is not just a logical position, it is an experiential truth that I don't consider you to be a separate entity at all, so that you don't consider yourself to be a separate entity. Because once this idea of separation is given belief, then it seems like to come to the realization of the Self it's a long journey. If the separation has never really happened, why must we bridge it up? And if we have bridged it up, we can see now that it is gone. But if we start from the perspective that 'I am something,' that there is an individual Jivatman, then it seems like a long, difficult process to bring this 'I am something' back home.

What is your truth right now? Is it true that you are something? This is for all of you. Is it true that 'I am something'? What is that something that you are attached to? 'I am...' what is the basis of that? Just another thought. It is just a notional concept; has no validity, no reality. Is it true that it is... he says it is true that it is not valid, but it is loud. The possibility that it could be valid is what makes it loud, you see. So if the thought comes and says that you are a green Martian, no matter how many times it comes and how large seeming it is, you will not find it so strong. But when the thought comes 'I am a person, I am an individual entity,' it is because we have nurtured it with a belief. It is because we have given it the possibility of being true for so long that when it comes, like the thought would say 'You have to be a good person,' something... because you have nurtured the possibility of being the person for so long that this thought can seem like it is loud.

Can you take an example of a loud thought? You will find that although there are the three or four common things which are loud for most of us, but for everyone in this satsang today, it will not be equally loud, you see. Why? If the thought itself was loud, then it should be equally loud for everyone. It is because what has been conditioned here, what is we hear in the past. Like I used to take this example: if I say to you that you are a terrible ice skater, this no chance will come into the Olympic system that's supposed to hurt me. It is not affecting me at all. But if I say to somebody, 'But you are a terrible person' or 'You are not a good partner' or 'You are not a good mother,' why? If I speak to an Olympian ice skater and say 'You're terrible,' there's no chance that will hurt them more. So it is not the content of the thought itself, but what the relationship with that thought has been that makes it louder or more intense.

But still, is the process okay? I know you feel like it is true, but in this moment, if I don't give you a second to think about it, it is dropped. But even before we come to the recognition, the condition is gone. The recognition is beautiful because when the condition comes from the mind, it is easily laughed at or instantly let go of. But I am saying that the effort is not even in the dropping of the condition, isn't it? What is naturally brought into this moment? Right, are you something? There are some intimate perceptions, it's a wisdom, a perception, yes. Some intimate perceptions are perceived, but are you something? I know it's the voice, we also perceived these perceptions. Everything, all these sensations are there. The world is there, which is nothing but a set of sensations. Visual perception, this body is there, nothing but a set of sensations. The mind is there, nothing but a set of sensations.

So if we even stop distinguishing between these sets of sensations, all there is, is there. A set of sensations is perceived. Where am I? What am I? You see what I'm saying? Everything is the perception, a sensation. Out of these we have made theoretical notions of the millions. Yes, I know it's not... that's how it is not loud. Take an example of when it is loud. When you are trying to push something away, then it can seem like it is very strong. A resistance is what seems to give it power. In your openness, I am telling you that thing is really not as strong as we consider it to be. Everything is perceived as a set of sensations. Now, what is too strong for the perceiver of them? How loud or how big does something have to be when it becomes too loud or too big for the perceiver?

You can imagine the image, a tiny image of an ant, but this image keeps growing. All this ant has been, this body, we could keep going. It's as big as this room, big, big, big. It's getting bigger, as big as this building, as big as the entire earth. Because this ant, which is so tiny, the visual of it, they made it grow so swiftly. Now, is it bigger than the perceiver? Isn't the perceiver just another image, isn't it? Can any object perceived become greater than that which perceives it? Any thought you can have, it feels like it is shouting and screaming, throwing a big tantrum. Because in your being in which it is appearing, it is only if you introduce yourself in this image now, and you introduce yourself as a person, a body, and then that ant is there, then it can become scary. But if you are not a thing, if you are not an object, what is too much for you?

But what power inherently does this mind have if the perceiver was not there? What mind would there be? Even when the mind comes, if the perceiver did not have the power of belief... yes, it is within the screen of this perceiver itself, of being, of consciousness itself, that everything that is perceived is there. Where is this voice being heard right now? But where? Outside this or inside? So if something is contained... if something is contained, if I am able to put seven beads in the glass, then is the glass bigger or the beads bigger? So the entire universe is perceived inside my being. And what would you say? Is the being bigger or the universe bigger? In fact, we say to her not to expect that you will find this big object because it is just that. That which contains everything, that which everything is made up of, must be the greater compared to the object which is just perceived.

Now, can this perceiver be perceived? And in that question, it was so far away from your individual identity. You're checking who is aware of even this perceiver, of this being, consciousness. Then all separation, all knowledge, all individuality is swept aside, isn't it? So for something to become big in relation to you, you must have a size and shape. Is it possible for something to be too big unless you can say that it is experiential? So if all that is phenomenal experience is within you, then what must be the greater? Don't worry about this force then, don't worry about the... because you will find inside that this being is this of the universe, but it might not conform to what your mind thinks the soul should be like.

Ancient command... is that from this attributeless, qualityless Self-awareness, all this world of qualities and attributes comes, and yet that fullness is not spent. From the fullness, fullness comes, and yet the fullness remains. Ancient Indian: that which is complete, full, that which is complete arises, and yet that completeness remains untouched. This is the beauty of the Self. Because if the Self was like some potential energy from which something was then manifesting, then the potential would be spent, isn't it? But this potential remains unspent. If there is any visualization happening, and if there is any visualization happening, then find out who is aware of that. Don't settle for any visualization when you hear the terms like 'souls' or 'screen,' but it is not even an empty which you can imagine. Tell me an empty which you can imagine.

This is the beauty of the Self, because if the Self was like some potential energy from which something was then manifesting, then the potential would be spent, isn't it? But this potential remains unspent. If there is any visualization happening, then find out who is aware of that. You see, don't settle for learning visualization when you hear the terms like 'source' or 'screen.' It is not even an empty which you can imagine. Tell me an empty which you can imagine. The empty means that is good; stay with that. Because many times when people hear 'empty,' they feel like a big, dark, empty space. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to, because that is giving more reality to the past and more projection into the future.

It is clear to you now. Now, take if anything can happen that can change this. But even if the biggest phenomena comes, can you change the reality of this that is empty of all attributes? But is it now? Are you relating yourself to be this body now? Are you limiting yourself to be this body? Why is it there? But it's not true, yes. Then you're not. But the words will come and say, 'But when I leave satsang or when I go home, then many times when the words come and I pick it up...' In that story, who are you? The one that came to satsang and the one that leaves satsang—is that not just another phenomenal appearance? What happened to that which is empty of qualities? Because this body came to satsang and this body will leave satsang. In that way, certainly, the magical is so. It can although it can feel like you came to satsang, what you are seeing here is beyond all physicality, yes.

And if that is the will of the Self, then one day you won't wake up from sleep. Easy. If there must be some play, something we can't even say words really, we can say just the will of the Self to play with this phenomenal world and that appearance. Unless you have a big individual 'you' in the picture, there is no trouble with the play or the appearance of all of this phenomenal creation. Are you that who has come to this satsang? And are you that who is going to go from this satsang? So if you are the awareness which is aware of all of these moving images on the screen, is that awareness expecting prominence? It is not saying anything, but you are. What is the real at this point where the mind is able to make a distinction between it and I? Still, even after we are recognizing so clearly, I have given this whole... which is who is aware of even this awareness? Put forward what it is. Whether it is loud or intimate, you don't worry about the quality of the words. What is the quality of you? And it does not affect you. When you must identify you as something limited, will it affect you?

Now, this is a common fallacy, and many times I get this question: 'It's all okay when I come to satsang, but why does it not last when I leave satsang?' But even in that story, who are you? Are you the one that came to satsang? Are you the one that will leave satsang? Beyond these simple beliefs, our identity can be picked up. Are you saying these words? Conversationally, of course, we can talk about it. I can say, 'Are you coming to satsang?' You say, 'Yes.' You don't have to say a very next day... conversationally you can say it, but do we really mean it in our heart when we say, 'I get caught up in my mind'? Is it true? One lie leads to a thousand other lies.

As a child, you hadn't experienced a lie. 'Mom, I didn't get my report card today.' But the teacher called me and said... 'But no, no, she gave it to everyone else.' Which is so second lie. 'But she said she gave your report card.' 'No, no, Mom, actually she gave it, but I left it.' My one lie... the effort I am advising you to make is to try and leave it. Leave the soul, yes. So instead of trying to abide in it, instead of trying to marinate, my advice for marination is: try to not be marinated. Try to not be aware. Now it is clear. So now trouble is... the trouble can be, 'But I am not that.' They are still speaking about awareness. If you now see there is some taboo, it can only come from that place that 'I cannot be that awareness, I must be something, some object.' Now you have said, let me exaggerate it a bit, of what he is. He is head. Doesn't matter. Millions of things can come and go. Millions of thoughts can come. Millions of lifetimes can come and go. That which is quality-less, attribute-less, the Self, remains untouched, unaffected.

But this is the part of you coming to this. Is it true that it's not as intimate as the wall? If you are the wall and some shapes are being drawn on the wall, is the wall the most intimate for itself, or is the shape more intimate than the wall? You are most intimate because you are that. There is no separation at all. More intimate than intimate, you are that. Whenever this experience is there, then it's easy with everything. If I didn't tell you, who should have? So the question is, why isn't this? The point is not to disregard the question anyway. We are throwing the question away. From your experience, can you really say there is any distinction between that which is empty of all qualities, that which we call the Absolute, this awareness, and that which appears qualitatively? Is there any difference even in that attitude? One is awareness, one is consciousness. Very good. Both are intimate. Oh, you mean give each other... now this 'I' to which both are intimate, which one? It's the same. It's the same. It's awareness itself and an aspect of everything.

This one very often, and maybe it's coming, but it's one of my favorite things to say: that all confusion is actually this mistaken identity about the 'I'. This is clarifying. You see that 'I' can have no confusion. And what is suffering? It is confusion about 'I'. Whether we call it a grievance, whether we call it resentment, whether we call it a lack of knowledge, whatever we call it, we are picking up a mistaken notion about 'I'. And when we pick up the mistaken notion of the 'I', then you automatically pick up the notion of 'other'—me and others. Then we can feel like, 'I can be resentful towards you, I can feel guilt about something I did to you.' Once you see that this 'I' exists as a notion, just a concept, a belief, do you even desire now? In that, she seems to suffer, to enjoy. You know that it is not real. You know it is watching some entity, interesting situations that happen and how they resolve themselves.

So this play is like that kind of intimate play, but all the ups and downs which are possible in that which you call entertainment when you watch. It would be here, but when you consider yourself to be just that, this life, this play can be as same as... no, it's much more intricate. That which you're watching on the screen is part of this bigger clip. And yet again I'm saying, it all will make sense only from the clarity about who you are now. For you say that, and this quality-less emptiness, this Absolute. Now all that happens phenomenally, what is the best way you will describe for that one or the Absolute? All that is seeming to appear, what word would you give to that? You see me to... yes. So you are that emptiness which is untouched by anything. Now all this is seeming to appear, it is being perceived. What would you label it as? Would you label it as Maya, Leela, unreal? Whatever you call it, it really doesn't matter. You can use your favorite term. You don't have to call it play; you can call it appearance. It appears and disappears. You don't appear and disappear.

So don't get so worried about the play part, with the Leela, because then when you say 'play,' then 'Oh, it should be more entertaining, but there's so much crime happening here, there's so much...' You see, 'What kind of a sadist is God?' All these kind of concepts come. Forget about the concept of play. You see who you are and what does the occurrence mean to you? What does the appearance mean to you? In reality, nothing. As I took... this is what you say. In reality, nothing. Immediately disappearing and disappearing. You see, it is the show. It is another way of calling it the show, of course. A narrator of the TV series... now the narrator will always claim that it's a big deal, what it is narrating. The subtitles will not say what you're watching is just a play. The subtitles will subtitle with seriousness. So the mind is nothing but a subtitle and narrator of this movie.

Quickly read through the chat messages. Harini says, 'But no thought, sensation, or perception has left sentience reality. I Am is life and I Am gives life to these.' Yes, she is answering your question about something to love. Krishna says, 'So beautiful, Father, thank you. The assumption that we are this body and mind implies that something could be bigger than us. That is our giant ant. However, as you point out constantly, it all appears in our own being. Then in that case, no object could be bigger than that being in which it is all experienced. One has to keep looking with love and faith to begin to see what you are pointing to. Please don't stop repeating it over and over again.' Yes, haven't so far, so I don't feel it'll happen so that I'll stop repeating. Abby says, 'Love you, Father. This energy exchange is so intense.' Jerome says, 'Beauty of innocent openness.' Serena says, 'Thank you.' You're welcome. Harini says, 'Father, can I ask a question?' Yes, in a minute. Alan says, 'I leave identification with the body at your feet. Thank you for your pointings bringing more clarity.' Let the one who is also surrendering the identification, surrendering the body, also be surrendered at the Satguru's feet. That is my blessing. For the 'I' is the seeming owner of this body. It's the same one who can play as the seeming owner of our relationships, the seeming owner of our freedom. This one also can be safely surrendered. Okay, you can come.

A lot of time what happened, it's not subsiding at all. Then it's a circle. We think somehow yesterday was going, but yes, one video and it first right just everything must be... this is what our latest thing is. This feels like very much the only thing existing is only this, this movement. And just be here because they think it is seeking or even requiring or finding it have its own sort of... my thinking is fake. It's something is looking for inside and it's because not there, because something's doing that subsiding in state. I heard in satsang it's like mind, a son of that, and it just... and now just be here only. Only be here. Whatever is here, this is the way. This way, even if I don't know it's true or not, even for something is inquiring, that also coming from the place of identity who was trying to be realized. And as long as that is, it is looking for it in its own dimension, sense of freedom. But it is accepting it as it is. I don't know how.

Yes, this is a very good point. So please, they have been saying and you've been watching some of the satsang also. I have seen that the words that have come from here, and this should help to clarify this very clearly: as we don't have any notion about ourselves, whether we call it just being, this empty, just open in complete acceptance—whatever the terminology we use is unimportant. Basically, the point is to come to this motionless existence. Guruji calls it unadulterated Being, unassociated consciousness. Now what is that? It gets associated just by a notion: 'I am something.' Now if upon hearing the pointing 'just be,' you can see that all 'somethings' are coming and going, nothing is getting attached, then simply you come to a simple surrender. This is only surrender, that 'I have nothing to do with this something which the mind is offering to me. It is all allowed to come and go.' So this is the simplicity of surrender for you. Because of your temperament, it might seem like this is the easier position. Now as you come to this unadulterated Being, uncontaminated consciousness, so whatever terminology you use, the truth about who you are is very apparent, you see. So it is not that the insight which is available in inquiry is not apparent already, and you're just being. So that self-recognition is the most apparent thing. No, no. Others might feel that this, you know, this 'just be' thing, 'I just can't do that just be' thing.

Surrender for you, because of your temperament, it might seem like this is the easier position. Now, as you come to this unadulterated being, uncontaminated consciousness—so whatever terminology you use—the truth about who you are is very apparent, you see. So it is not that the insight which is available in inquiry is not apparent already, and you're just being. So that self-recognition is the most apparent thing. No, no. Others might feel that this, you know, this 'just be' thing, 'I just can't do that, just being.' So they have a different temperament. They might not be able to surrender, although some things allow them to come and go. So if they feel like, 'Oh, this just being, I can't just be, that sounds like work to me,' some can also say that. So for them, because they're so different temperamentally and they are very quick to pick up on the idea of 'I am something' and they feel like 'I can't just let it go, I can't surrender it, I can't just be,' then there's another way which is: whatever something you are considering yourself to be, inquire whether that is true or not.

'I am not a good person. I am not finding the truth. I am not a worthy seeker.' All these ideas we have. So for those who are not able to just let them go, just be, then we say, 'Okay, you inquire into whether these are true.' And as we inquire into whether these are true, we find that these notions become powerless and we are just being. And again, as we are just being, the truth is completely apparent. What do you have to be careful about in the 'just being' is that don't think that there is somebody just being, because even that can become a position. Keep that notion of even 'just be.' You are it. You just... you're not doing the just being. It is not like, 'Okay, I'm going to leave the inquiry now, I'm just going to be,' because no matter what you do with that mask of 'I will be comfortable for a few days,' but after a few days, even that will start poking. Yeah, you just are. You don't have to do anything to just be. Being just is.

So what you're saying is that as I am just being, as being just is, I don't need to pick up any notion, including the notion of inquiry. Yes. If the first part of what you're saying is true, then the second part is also true. If no notion is that attractive for you that it seems sticky, then no need for any practice, including inquiry. If the thought of something doesn't... it's not existing. What existed in this color that is not only this bringing my attention here, not in any sort of typical way to bring attention back. This is it. Think it's doing her this right now. What is there in this moment? Some perception is happening. What is your position? And that's it. We didn't do anything new. We did not do anything also, because the not doing can also become a position. So we didn't do either. Did not do. I know it sounds very same, but I have not... I'm not trying to sound like that. I'm just saying this naturally. What is here is neither the result of doing nor a result of a non-doing. Just here, naturally here. It is our original state.

Now, whatever we... whatever 'something' we pick up with the idea that 'this will get us there' or 'this is better for me versus that,' you see, that is this 'something.' So we can safely leave that 'something' because that will make a 'something' out of you. It will make a person out of you. It will give you a position. So 'something' is now no longer doing inquiry so much; it is just being. You're not even that you're doing, neither nor not doing either. Whatever happens just happens. The content of this world, the content of this experience, this play, is just moving the way it is moving. It is only an idea that 'I am doing this' or 'I am not doing this.' Now we can speak so subtly, isn't it? So clearly about this. If in your most natural clothes, and I just said, 'But what are you now?' then all those questions, all those conditions, they vanish. Oh, I know that they will vanish because they are not true. They are not your original state. So you don't have to take one position over another. You don't have to take one as the truth, one as the false. Just everything is gone. This is your motionless existence.

For the minute you pick up the idea, 'Okay, but then Father, what should I do?' that is the position that you will pick up. But for that, either we like to go 'just be' or you say, 'Who is here to do something?' Actually, both are the same. Both these apparent approaches are the same. They have the same effect of dropping the 'something.' So then just being is no longer heavy, different from the inquiry itself, because as you just be, it is clear who you are, which is the inquiry. The recognition is so apparent. And as your recognition of the pattern... what are you? You are just being. All these distinctions will fade away, that 'I don't need a strategy to get anywhere, I don't need a plan to get anywhere,' because before I can even decide to get somewhere, I have that this is just me without doing the 'just be.' I hope more and more this point becomes clear for all of you, because otherwise, what I see is that if we have a goal, destination, a plan to get there, a path, 'What can I do?' see, then the starting point itself becomes false, which is to pick up the mask of the limited one.

What I am showing you is that in your conceptless existence right now, is there some way to create? Is there something you have to become? If there is some more right or wrong, can anything come and change your reality? And that is why that whole flowchart of spirituality is there, you see. Although spirituality is like one flowchart. How do you drop 'something' is the aim of that flowchart. How to drop the notion of 'something.' First, yes, forget it. Don't make it a thing. Okay, see this being as I am, or just be, surrender, let it be. Father's problem, or Ram Ji's problem. Same thing. We can be... let go of 'something' is let go of. And then you feel like, 'Oh, this seems like just some New Age type stuff. It is not real. How can I just let go? It will just seem like some New Age philosophy.' Okay, okay. So if you feel that you are something, can you check if it is true? Where is that something? Who am I? That is inquiry.

So surrender and inquiry are the two main things that we speak about in satsang. As results are, sometimes rarely someone will come and say, 'But okay, you can... no surrender also and inquiry, Father.' Really, they say, 'Okay, how is it if I tell you to just take your breath?' This is clearly at least during that time you're not playing with the idea 'I am something.' So mindfulness comes from the same thing. You're not picking the idea that 'I am something' by just bringing out and keeping our attention with our breaths. Someone says, 'Okay, I can't even do that.' So then the masters in their kindness said, 'Okay, let me give you a mantra. I will energize this mantra and give it to you because it has a resonance with your energy system as it is to be.' So let me, on the basis of your energy system, give you an energized mantra so that when it resonates, when the mantra reverberates within your being, it seems to clean up all these notions that 'I am something' and all this idea that 'I have something.'

Then someone will say, 'Okay, I can't bring attention to breath. I can't even do chanting. I do it for two minutes but my mind is too distracted. I go to check my mail.' Then to them you say, 'Okay, maybe you can use a... use a mala.' So every time you get distracted, go to the physical sensation of the mala, keep your attention on that one. So even that doesn't work and you say, 'Okay, can you sing some bhajan? At least fifteen minutes every day sing the bhajan.' At least in those fifteen minutes, you will not consider yourself to be something. It is invoking the presence of the Lord in your heart. Then, 'Oh, I am not devotional. I find this song right... so silly Indian music or something. I can't do that.' Okay, what about you? Are you okay with bending your body a little bit, with just keeping your attention and the body movements in a certain way? 'Okay, then I'll give you some yoga, Hatha Yoga to do.' You see, up to you.

So all of this, starting from this just simple surrender to actually is a very physical exercise, physical movement of the body, is all about dropping this notion that you are something. There is no right or wrong in this. What is right, what is wrong? There is nothing like that. It is just based on what is suitable for your temperament. But all are coming to the same point, that it's so simple to just be. All of this much ado about nothing to discover that which we always are. This is the play. You will ask me, 'Why? Why all this play? What can we call it?' All this trouble, all of this to find out who we are. And we really look right now, what are you? What must you do? Nothing more. Neither, either. Does it really matter? Not applicable. Once you come to this 'not applicable,' then all this will not... and that reminds me why we left. Some yoga started happening here the last week or so. I realized that this body is too much like this, so some... this thing is required. After maybe here, you need to start doing something.

When do you say? Oh, cleaning. Actually, we wanted to do it, but he was there. Then when once we had to the idea that once a week we won't have satsang on the Friday, but we'll go and play some basketball, something very quick.

Yesterday, none of you sent me a message and it reminded me of this ages-long, you know... I'm not going to say the name, but it reminded me of this ages-long debate which is: what is the best path to get to the truth? And even if there is a recognition of the truth, then what should be done? Maybe bhakti? Should we do karma? Should we try to make the world a better place, or should it just rest in our presence? It is enough for the world. Now saying that, 'Oh, but he can resolve these debates,' this has been going on for centuries. What is the nature of 'I am'? Whether it is completely unreal, whether it is as real as 'I', whether it is real but not as real as 'I'. You can see all these various positions have been taken. And then what must this 'I am something' do to get to this 'I'? All these opinions. This is the only problem. Therefore, the solutions have been so differently prescribed.

All you must do, if there is such a thing, is to find that which resonates to the heart. Stay with that. As long as it resonates in the heart, just to stay with that and not to pick up the idea that 'my path is the best one, another path...' Who do you pray to? All these kind of things. Because all of this is about this simple, simple being, empty of any notion about itself. As I'm pointing this to you so directly, we cannot even call this a path. There's nothing in the path. Nothing is being done here. That's why maybe Guruji says it is the pathless path. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Satguru Sri Mooji Baba Ki Jai.

So I saw Shivani here, who reminded me because I'm getting some complaints that all of us, we come from such long distances and if we want to have some nice bonding with our brothers and sisters, but when you call us then it's all silent. You don't like... possibly you can be in silent retreat. So my feeling is that of the six days that we have, we'll keep the first day... that much concessions. The first day you're free to talk, you're free to chat and bond and hug each other and love them as much as you like.