All of This Is About You - 28th September 2017

Also, scientific experiments like Schrodinger's cat. The cat is in the box; there is no observer of it. Is there now a cat? This experiment is about this: What is the observing quality in this phenomenal realm? The power of perceiving operates on this power of attention. This is attention. Now how far can attention go? We can bring attention to the outer, seeming world. Give attention to the body sensations. You can bring attention to these inner, seeming perceptions like thoughts, memories, imagination. Attention can go. And then we can say ultimately: Keep your attention on your Being. Let's quit the sense of 'we do.' Even this we can say: Yes, I am keeping my attention on my presence. And some might say that it's natural for it to rest there; some might say it seems like a force. But it is still objective, ultimately.

Now when you say, 'What is prior to this Being? What is aware of even this Beingness?' can we truly say that it is attention? Although in words sometimes you might say it, but can we truly, truly say that it is attention which is going prior to you? Actually, it is like the cessation of the functioning of attention. It's like this spring is completely pulled back. The spring was stopping at all of these different levels, and then we say: Okay, what is prior to even existence? Then this self-discovery, awareness which is self-aware, that is not subject to attention. It is just that attention is the outward state for everything else. So it can feel like attention came here, but in the realm of pure Self, there is not even attention.

So Being uses attention to come to this discovery: 'I am that I am.' But as Being is coming to the recognition of its Mukti, even the play of attention stops there. So although we can say in satsang, 'Turn your attention completely inwards to that which is prior to your existence,' actually you will find that it is a pointing to divest your attention from everything else. And there, as you come into the non-phenomenal recognition, you will not find the play of even this quality called attention. It is part of the functioning of the Self in its dynamic aspect, which is Being. And Being works in coordination with attention to perceive, to taste this phenomenal existence of itself.

I know that some of these things are very subtle. They might, for the mind, be completely abstract. But as you're tasting all of this for yourself, yes, the discovery is made of the source of even Beingness. There Being comes from. My attention does not go beyond my Being, but as it is divested from everything else, I find that the revelation of this Absolute is empty of all qualities, even something which is such a transparent quality like attention. There is something good someone is saying here, quoting that perception is the floodlight and attention is the spotlight of awareness, where more focus is put on the object of perception. And when this is turned back on itself and all other objects no longer exist, I am Self alone exists. Just because we only be in this play, even attention is not like the Beingness. If you're not paying attention to the nothing, only the Self is there.

In fact, these experiments with attention are very beautiful. And as you start noticing the quality of attention, you will see that as sleep is coming—you see those times where a lot of attention could have been given to a book or to a movie or something like that—when sleep is coming, you find that you don't have that attention to give to it anymore. It seems like it is just withdrawing from the seeming outward world. Now I'm just going to rest with you. This objective reality is vanishing. You see that? That is that attention which is actually withdrawn. That is why it is not like you said; when this spotlight is there, it seems to always hang on something objective. When the spotlight seems to run out of battery, the world of objective appearances seems to vanish; it seems to dissolve.

The sound... this little girl today, maybe I'm speaking more softly or something like that. It's using the wrong mic. How's it now? A lot better. This is the one. Yeah, okay. The more technology you add, the more confusing it becomes, you know, which mic to select, which things. And she says, 'Father, I cannot concentrate on your words. I just want to talk away.' Actually, the point of these words is this talking moving. Something about this today, I just don't want to hear it. I know that feeling. I know that kind of... it can just be these words. Some days I say that when it is like that, just don't worry about decoding the words. Don't worry about understanding them. Just let them play like music.

My mind wants to grasp on words and the rest of me just wants to go. And it's bringing up like emotions too, like I want to cry, but it's just a central feeling. I don't have a name.

This might not sound like good news to you right now, but for me it is very good news, because it must come a point where this trying to understand it mentally tucks away. It becomes so tiring and frustrating because it is so beyond the mind. So a tantrum, irritation, is bound to come. This is a very, very beautiful point to get to. And although I can't recall recently it happening, but actually many times I have been shouted at in satsang: 'Just stop! Stop! This is not making any... I cannot get this in!' I've been told so. 'What? I am aware of awareness? Now what is it? What else? What's the point? What are we doing? What am I getting?' Right? So watch what this one is giving up control. These, when you no longer try to understand what the words mean, nearly enough we come to this wordless sense. So far it might have helped for the mind as if it is collaborating with you on this project, but ultimately you can come to this point and say, 'Really, what is all this that is going on? What is the point of all this? Am I really getting something in hearing all this?' All this can be the frustration of the mind.

And then I see that it's mind and I move away from that, I guess. At least this much distance.

Because already in your entire report, you said it is the mind which is saying this. Although there is some mixing happening between the concept of 'I' and the mind, it is not that you're completely saying, 'I am getting frustrated. I am saying what is the point.' Still some sense is there where you can see what the mind is doing. You know, it's going like this. And there is something prior to the mind, something more primal than the mind, which I can say something about which will irritate the mind even more. That is not frustrated. The one that is watching the mind, the one that witnesses the mind, is not irritated. It is not saying, 'Where is this going? What is the point of this? It's just words and words and more words.' That one remains untouched.

Yes, now the mind doesn't want to hear that. It's saying, 'Mommy, I'm throwing the tantrum, give your attention to me!' You do not want to hear anything about that which is prior to it. I have two children and the younger one is going to tantrum if I turn to the older brother and give him some attention. She will not like it at all. Like, 'It's my time now! I am throwing the tantrum! I deserve your full attention!' So it is the mind which is playing with this big brother, demanding your attention. It's like those people that car dealerships put in front of their businesses, they're blow-up people and they go like this and the wind comes up with wind. And that's what like sometimes I think... the person it comes off and then...

This is a nice one. I might steal this one from you and use it in such a way that the unsteady person is like that. One time this way, one time this way. One time finding the words of satsang to be so full of beauty and bliss, next time same chunk it seems like such torture. This unsteady ideas, concepts, is what the person, the non-existent person, is seemingly made up of. So I like very much if you think like that. You can come up like that and say, 'Today I'm just not hearing you.' This is like something doesn't...

I might steal this one from you and use it in such a way that it is the unsteady person is like that. One time this way, one time this way. One time finding the words of satsang to be so full of beauty and bliss; next time, same chunk, it seemed like such torture. This unsteady ideas, concepts, is what the person, the non-existent person, is seemingly made up of. So I like very much if you think like that. You can come up like that and say, 'Today I'm just not hearing you. This is like something doesn't want to hear it. It is saying enough now, you've been coming every day and it's the same stuff.' Is this going? That will be tender. But you do know that this too shall pass.

No question. Awareness is formless, then how is it that some beings have such a powerful presence? But one, beautiful eyes are so absorbing.

Now, awareness is the same one, and all of us are one as well as that formless Self. Now, in the design of the play of form, the design of the dynamic aspect of the Self, we find that those who are empty of... okay, so let me go slowly so this is clear. So, awareness, which is I, who is formless, the reality, the formless Self, qualityless, attributeless—this is I. Now, that which we call the dynamic aspect is I playing as I am, being. It is only in being then that we can even use the word presence. In deep sleep state, dreamless sleep, there is no such thing even as presence. I am is the primal presence, the primordial vibration, you see.

Now, in the design of this world, in the design of this plane, what you find is that those who are not attaching anything to I am—I am is not trailed with an attribute, 'I am something' (this is what usually we do)—unassociated presence of pure beingness. Now, when we come across such beings in this phenomenal world, we find that this unassociated presence is deeply attractive to those who are longing for the same thing. Those who are longing for the same truth, that presence is deeply attractive. For those who are not interested in it yet, for them it is nothing. So that is how it plays.

If there is a longing in our heart for the truth, then as we look into one's eyes, you see this un-found, being, unlimited presence. This is what happened when I saw my Master for the first time. And I saw, I saw the one who represents one being. And yet so many are there in Tiruvannamalai who were born there, who lived there all their life, and I will lose my mind finding that we come from Bangalore sometimes and get so reverential in front of Arunachala, and we're feeling so much presence in Arunachala, and they are just talking about looking at us, looking at the mountain, saying, 'What's going on with these people?'

So, because the heart is not yet longing for this, for them it can just be a mountain. But one can just be another person, another good person in many people's eyes. But once our longing in our heart changes from phenomenal things to the truth of the Self, then that which can point us to that, that which appears in a phenomenal place, it points us to that. That presence seems very attractive to us. Many times it happened, isn't it, that we have brought friends and family to satsang, and in the same satsang yourself, you say, 'Oh, it was so beautiful to be in Mooji's presence, Father's presence is so nice,' and you go talk to your friends or family that came with you in satsang, they say like, 'What happened? I didn't feel anything. Nice guy, nothing more than that.' So it depends on what the heart is longing for.

Thank you. Thank you, my dear teacher says that longing is also Grace. In fact, that is the bigger definition of Grace. Everything is Grace. Father, may I ask a question? Yes, it might have come about because to me, design is what is before everything, just the I, undifferentiated. Unless this design changed on rising?

I'm happy you are contemplating this topic because many times when we talk about why the world was created, and then the options that we come up with—and even I say in certain satsangs—there must have been an urge within the Self or a desire within the Self to experience ourselves experientially, phenomenally, with qualities, and that's why this creation is born. But the fact is that even these words in satsang do not stand up to inquiry, because what we discover for ourselves is that this Self is so far beyond the concept of knowledge or desire that we can use this answer just as an explanation to remove the question, but never feeling like it is true in any way.

Anytime we're using these thorns, it is to remove the thorns and throw it on the way. Now, why did this sense 'I am' come? Why did the creation of the world happen? There is no answer to that. It is completely unexplained. There are many good answers that we can give, and all have this feeling of urge or desire at the basis of them. So you can say that it wanted to experience itself as a phenomenal quality, that's why 'I am' came. Or we can say, 'Don't give me that.' We can say this love, presence, beingness, if I exist in this way, that's why the Self made this Self exist, or Self made this world. Or we can say that Self wants to go on this journey of evolution and consciousness is evolving. All these kind of answers are there, my dear.

So, of course, now you come in satsang for a few days, so you know my favorite answer is that the Self was bored. So this is a play, the Leela. Basically means what? Why would the Self or the Absolute want to create a Leela? See, just to entertain itself. I know that it might not sound as glorious as some of the other answers like wanting to taste love or wanting to gain itself, but at least you can say that, 'Yes, I'm all there is, I have no quality,' so there's a sense of, 'Yes, it's not some fun or something like that,' rather than saying, 'Oh, I felt an urge in my heart to, you know, exist' or something like that. None of these answers are true. Even the Leela answer is not true, but they are these answers which are used.

So, all of you are mature enough, I give you this bouquet of answers and you say, 'Okay.' I say whichever appeals to your heart the most, you can pick that one. But know that ultimately, finally, you will come to this answer, which is that none of this has ever really happened. All those answers are on the basis of all of this happening. And I know it can seem contradictory that I can say that none of this ever happened only within this itself, but this will come as a final knockout punch in some way, that none of this has ever really happened.

So the question about whether there was a primal urge within the Self to create this existent being within which this play is happening itself is invalid because... I think it is because... very valid point. She says Leela works fine with most things, but when really horrendous things happen, this doesn't make sense. Yes, I know. I think ever happened this far. Now, another answer for this unanswerable question that I have to use for this horrendous and glorious things both happening is that when everything, the source of everything, appears, then it must manifest everything. All qualities must be there.

That's why I use that example of when white light is broken up into all the colors, the entire spectrum is available. So it is everything which is manifesting, and everything is not judging various aspects of itself and saying, 'Okay, you, you don't manifest, only you manifest.' I don't process... we lost you for some time. Yes, I can hear you now. I see, I see. Something seems to be wrong with the internet.

I was just saying that I have an answer for even this unanswerable question, which is: why do these opposites seem to appear in this world? Why couldn't everyone we meet be a super nice person? In fact, why can't everyone be a sage? Why is this world full of all these opposite qualities? So, in this nature of this world, it is a world of duality. Why duality? Because it contains the entire spectrum. So when everything is manifesting itself, then it must show up as everything. We make a demand from the world that the world must consist only of nice people, but then that would be only a part manifestation of everything, isn't it?

So that which is all-inclusive, then appearing as being, appearing as the universe, must then have all qualities also here. That is why in this world we can never be that only one aspect of the spectrum of appearance. And in the play also it is said, you see, Krishna said that when one side of the spectrum takes over the balance, then I appear and I sort out the balance again. So this balance is forever maintained. So the spectrum is the spectrum. So it doesn't have to be there, Krishna has to appear as Krishna as an avatar to make the balance happen. The deeper meaning in that is that it is consciousness itself which is projecting this movie with the full spectrum of experiences.

But I completely understand when you say that the Leela seems... when it's a comedy, you're open to saying it's a Leela, but when it's a tragedy... and yet one of the most famous plays in the world is Romeo and Juliet. Why do people enjoy seeing it? Because they want to experience that sorrow, a tragedy, and say, 'Oh, no, such a sad thing.' Because we also get tired of the same taste. That contrast is what makes the tasting to come alive. Only sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet—there's no big deal. It needs a bit of salty, and sweet seems sweeter.

So from the perspective of the Leela, then you will see how is it that even humans seem to entertain themselves? How do you see this entire spectrum of entertainment of all sorts? When I was younger, my father moved to this Middle Eastern country called Bahrain. So we all went with him. And I'm hearing for the first time in Bahrain TV, I saw this wrestling, this synchronized, choreographed wrestling. And I used to love it as a kid, you see. And you want to... what kind of entertainment is that? Everybody's kids, we were hooked on it. And all my friends were hooked on it. 'Did you see how he can beat up Randy Savage?' You know, all these things we used to watch, all this stuff we used to like to watch.

So it is consciousness entertaining itself with all of these plays. Even those children were watching wrestling, this tasting itself in all of its manifestation here. I know sometimes it can sound like a rude, difficult pill to swallow, especially when we talk about things like violence. So that's why earlier, actually, there is no real explanation for the cause for creation of this world or why the world seems to function, because we expect some individual meaning from all of this, but there is none. Now, the good news is that we are not individuals, because this would be very bad news if we were individuals, that the world has no meaning. But once you see that you are beyond individuality, then you don't become nihilistic with this.

Mooji, somehow, somehow I realized—not sure with true self-inquiry or intellectually or experientially—that split moment that the witness and the one that identifies is also not two. It is just one and it's not me. It's simply it's just this moment. It's not me. It's just simply this moment. It unfolds as just this moment. Sometimes through the body, it unfolds as just this moment. Even the feelings, thoughts, etc., are not ours. We just are just the witnesses get caught up in them and creates a 'me' and 'my feelings'. Is that true?

Very, very beautiful realization. Now, yes, it is not you, but also it is not anybody else or not not you. So if I were to say, for example, that you did not have this split-second experience, you'd say, 'What? I did! I had the experience of no me there.' So actually, what you're discovering—and I want to point this out to you clearly, because this might also become a mind-trap using—so you have to listen really carefully here. You saw that there is no 'me'. You had this moment of this. You saw it was not subject to time. This you is beyond time's fools. There is no 'me' there individually, there is no boundary. And yet it is undeniable that you had this insight. No person did, no object did, but you did. And because we have gone for so long calling ourselves an object, calling ourselves a thing, that is why when you're...

To you clearly is because this might also become a mind-craft using, so you have to listen really carefully here. You saw that there is no 'me'. You had this moment of this 'you' that was not subject to time. This 'you' is beyond time. There is no 'me' there individually; there is no boundary. And yet, it is undeniable that you had this insight. No person did, no object did, but you did. And because we have gone for so long calling ourselves an object, calling ourselves a thing, that is why when you're coming to this Self, that is why it is called Self-realization. It is not called the recognition of another. Even greater than the recognition of consciousness is the recognition of the Self, which is ultimately the same thing, of course. So you are realizing your true nature, which is not objective. In this moment, you saw that. That is just this moment, just this moment now, this moment's rest. And your existence, there can be no movement unless you are. This 'you' is what the inquiry is for.

Otherwise, what will happen? It has happened to even those who have been very close to me in satsang, who had authentic moments of awakening, but they can get into this sort of trap which can feel like all there is is the phenomenal content of this moment. It is not time, because the phenomenal content of this moment is also coming and going. They fall from the definition of the sages: that which comes and goes is not real. What can we say about that which witnesses the content of this moment? So this that is appearing is just appearing as an appearance. As this 'me'—well, there is actually none—but that which is the witness of all things, that which witnesses the coming and going of appearances, it is not a thing. Then you say, 'But what I meant was that this me is also perhaps everything else around me.' Yes, yes. This little 'me' is you, 'me' is her, 'me' is it, 'me' is everything. Is it so? This 'me' is your recognition of your existence, your consciousness, which you are finding that actually no separation has happened unless you label something as separate, unless we put a concept to it. So your experience has never been that of separation. Everything has always been you. All of this is about you, just not you first.

So yes, 'you' means her, 'me' is it, 'me' is everything. Yes, yes, and much more than that, higher than even that. Everything is also you; in fact, that is the greater. But this already is such a beautiful discovery. Music to my ears, always you, always me. We are one in this way. They say, 'But then realization also comes and goes. The play of delusion and realization is also part of the play of appearances.' Oh, just like this, as the illusion has come, 'I am separate, I am just Ananta, I am Shweta.' This idea, delusion and recognition, always 'me'. And I have actually—I am that which is beyond all of this also. I am the witness of that, and everything is me. That recognition, realization, none of this is happening for the Self, only for the dynamic aspect of the Self, also in the play of appearances.

Now, what you will find in the play is that those who are coming to the recognition of this truth and then not picking up ideas of specialness about themselves seem to be, at least in that lifetime, seem to be quite steady in that evolution. Although momentarily things will come in life, it will shake even the sage. It will shake the sage into the belief in their personhood for a few moments. But more or less, overall, we can say that those who avoided the traps, who for some time allowed this recognition to settle, then their lives passed mostly without suffering. And yet, whether consciousness wants to play again as somebody completely deluded, that's completely fine. I have no... and I know some traditionalists might get upset with me when I say it like this, but it's also another fallacy there. We have a way of saying that those who are spiritual are at the final point in their journey, evolution, or something. I feel that this spiritual feel-good stuff... maybe we are starting out. Everybody else has the muscles to deal with the world as if they have to, but us, we couldn't even handle the world for a little bit, so we escape to, you know, the truth. So we're just starting out. It is very popular to say that those who are coming to the Self-recognition are on the hundredth step of the temple and everybody else is climbing behind them. You don't know any of these things. This is the prep class in the bottom. So let's not have any fancy ideas about us. We are just in the simple coming to this recognition now.

How our consciousness wants to play tomorrow... you can hear it in the life of Ananta. I cannot give you a guarantee. Tomorrow I might come to satsang and you might find me fully identified with every worldly phenomena. No guarantees like that. But I can only say that it is this in the last seven, eight years since I met my master, the shakiness of this person... like this blow-up was in bed, man. She was talking about that mountain experience.

Yes, if you said anything that comes and goes is not truth, but realization also comes and goes, yes. So how do we know it is true?

No, no. It is not that which is being recognized as the truth. The play of delusion and realization is not the recognition of that which is unchanging. That which is being recognized over there, it is the truth. That is the Self. One playing as the one deluded, egoistic, and then playing as if they have come to a recognition of themselves—that one is just part of, in the same realm of appearance, part of the Leela. There is no true appearance using that definition of reality. Appearance and reality are mutually exclusive. So someone is appearing to be realized, that is not the ultimate truth. But what they are pointing to, or what their recognition has been, is the truth—Truth with a capital T.

It was recently seen that there was some sort of subtle expectation or desire to be an enlightened being here. And then I've seen that my true nature is just so much greater than these labels. It's so beyond that.

Even, you know, believing yourself to be an enlightened being is an underselling. You see, we feel like, especially because many of us have been spiritual seekers for a long time or playing as spiritual seekers for a long time, it can feel like the end goal of that is to become an enlightened person. And then you can feel like, 'I had the recognition, now I must be an enlightened person.' But even that is underselling what you are. You are that whose dynamic aspect is consciousness itself. How can an aspect of consciousness, no matter how shiny that aspect of consciousness might be, be you? It would never be complete; it would never be the totality of you. What you're discovering in the discovery that 'I am nothing,' I discover that I am so much beyond all things. What I said: don't have a mental concept of this nothing. Then you compare to nothing, and then why a person is much better is the more thickness of just a little more flavor of person compared to you.

He says, 'What does your teacher say?' The teacher says: life, the universe, and everything. You know, Douglas Adams, my favorite author again growing up, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Today it's nice to get the background story of your life. So regular, yes. Even the present story of this life hopefully seems quite regular to you because you're looking at the camera already like a professional. Is it professional? Professional. I got to get used to it, although it's a bit strange because when I have to look at all of you, I have to turn towards the computer and then I have to look at you that way in your eyes, and then I have to look at the camera. So sometimes it will receive... okay. I feel good to stop here today. Thank you all so much for being in satsang today. Mooji Jai.