Ashtavakra Gita Ch. 18, Vs. 51-72 Commentary and Contemplation - 8th September 2017

Whether honoring the spiritual scholar or God or holy shrine, whether seeing a desirable woman, a king, or beloved friend, the heart of the sage is unmoved. We discuss this often enough. Neither desire nor aversion truly get a hold. All the appearances can come and go, but the idea 'me', 'you', 'my name'... the man picked up to his servants, sons, wives, daughters, grandchildren, all his relatives ridicule and despise him, the yogi is undismayed.

So, everyone around you—and all of us at some point have had these kind of experiences—they have even told... suddenly reminded of one time I was at work and someone I met and we happen to be speaking about someone, and they didn't realize that I am into this kind of search for self-information, the Self, the quest for self-realization at that time. And he says to me very straight-faced, 'As for those who get caught in this spiritual birth, their life is finished.' We've all heard like this. 'Look at this birth, their life is finished.' All of us have heard these kind of things, and we just want to be in this contemplation of the inquiry. Many times we hear this, not just from the mind that is here, but also from others. Seemingly, those around us think, 'What's wrong with you? Why don't you live your life? Leave all this for old age, then you can do any of this. Finish off the important things.' This kind of thing we've all heard.

So, when sons, wives, daughters, grandchildren, all his relatives ridicule and despise him, the yogi is undismayed. To please he is not, pleasure nor pain, he does not suffer. This wonderful state is understood only by those like him. The key, really simple idea of: there can be pain, but suffering becomes an alien concept. When you don't understand this in the beginning, when you also don't understand they really like this desert, the pleasure of that can be there, but the potential for that to become feverish, so that if it is not there, for that will lead to some suffering—that goes away. So, pain and pleasure can arise in their own natural way, but none of these become something that would have the potential to cause feverishness or suffering to play. The sage is firmly enjoying even the content of the present moment, which is all an aspect of his own, her own. Nothing needs to be renounced in this world except the limited idea of who you are. This wonderful state is understood only by those like him.

The belief in duty creates a relative world. Belief in duty creates a relative world for its performance. The wise one knows himself to be formless, timeless, all-pervasive, immaculate, and thus transcends duty and world. The belief in duty creates a relative world for its performance. The wise one knows himself to be formless, timeless, all-pervasive, immaculate, and this transcends duty and the world. Unless there is duality, unless there is the sense of separation, we cannot pick up the idea of doership. As this duality is dissolving—and again, this is for all these: formless, timeless, all-pervasive, immaculate—once you find yourself to be this one, then you will find that very much who is an individual doer of anything. Subject-object relationship within this world starts to dissolve. Therefore, there is nobody now to do anything and nothing to be done.

This is not the talking of doership and picking up of the non-dual. You want the idea that 'I must not do anything because I am not the doer.' It is the dropping of the concept itself. Everything is just happening, including everything moving from this body, this power, these hands. Either you were not nor doer. What's the simpler way to fit this? If I say you're not a scientist, you pick up an identity around not being a scientist. Somebody mentions, 'I am saying no, no, I am not a scientist.' Nobody said you were. Using it just like that. Let me tell, let me hear, you're not the doer. We pick up a non-doer identity. 'And why didn't you put out the garbage?' 'No, I'm not the doer.' And the garbage has to be put out, it will be put out. 'Why don't you inquire?' 'I don't follow.' The sage is pointing, 'I'm not the doer,' and if it has to happen, it will happen. This non-doer identity also gets held on to. Very, very common in Advaita. Either of these positions and the satsang is heard. I know who you are, and something might follow it, but you are not picking up the idea of either doing it or not doing. You see, it's a subtle point. That's why I have been repeating it over and over.

Even doing nothing, the dull one is anxious and distracted. Even amidst great action, the wise one remains still. Even doing nothing, that aspect of consciousness which is pretending as if it is the limited one—see, it is following the dull one—even doing nothing, the dull one is anxious and distracted. Even amidst great action, the wise one remains still. Even in practical life, the wise one remains happy. We didn't say that you have to drop practical knowledge. He said even in practical life there is a gentle undercurrent of contentment, of happiness, because it is this doership and attachment to the outcome of doership which causes all this struggle. So, even in practical life, the wise one remains happy. Happy to sit, happy to sleep, happy to move about, happy to speak, happy to eat, because he knows Self. The wise one is not disrupted by practical life. He is deep and still like a vast lake. He is not like ordinary people. All his sorrows have vanished. You know where the seed is coming from, so don't feel that he is being derisive towards ordinary people or something.

For the deluded one, even rest is an activity. For the wise, even action bears the fruit of stillness. Exactly what we spoke about. The deluded one, they are doing even the rest, or they have the sense of doership even when there is resting. For the wise, even when there is action, if there is fruit of stillness. The deluded one... the deluded one is often adverse to the things of his life. To one with no thought for body, attachment and aversion have no meaning. So, you can see, the deluded one is often adverse to the things of his life. To one with no thought for the body, attachment and aversion have no meaning. So, we go on because we've looked at this many times.

The deluded mind is caught up in thinking and not thinking. The deluded mind is caught up in thinking and not thinking. For the mind of the wise one may think what thoughts come, he is not aware of it. This needs a little bit of clarification. Not that he is not aware of it; basically, he is not concerned by it. The deluded mind is caught up in thinking and not thinking. We take the position exactly what we are saying, that if we hear thinking is the problem, then we can take the position 'I must not think.' We're trying to obstruct thought. It is to allow them to come and go. You cannot become the thinker unless you identify with the thought, unless you give to it. Then, the mind of the wise one may think what thoughts come, which only means thoughts are allowed to come and go. This appearance of thoughts is continuing to happen. He is not aware of this—so, not that he is not aware of it. We cannot claim that anything exists unless there is awareness of it. But he is not concerned by it. And also that these thoughts would seem to be so big, so powerful, so noisy. How many of you when you first came to satsang said to me, 'Oh Father, Ananta, my mind is so loud'? It's okay. It's so noisy.

One may think what thoughts come, which only means thoughts are allowed to come and go. This appearance of thoughts is continuing to happen. He is not aware of this—so, not that he is not aware of it; we cannot claim that anything exists unless there is awareness of it. Well, he is not concerned by it. And also, that these thoughts would seem to be so big, so powerful, so noisy. How many of you, when you first came to satsang, said to me, 'Oh Father, my mind is so loud'? It's okay. It's so noisy. It's not that the size of the mind has changed. The point is, I mean, the thought is our attention and our belief. You seemed to make them so formidable in the past, and how are you finding it? It's just what they do.

What did we say earlier? We used to say some of these examples. I find it fun sometimes. I used to say that that which seemed to be this big wrestler able to shove you around, this mind then becomes like a nagging partner. It's like, 'There he goes again.' A nagging partner: 'Do this, do that, don't do this, don't do that. Why are you like this? Can you change like that?' A nagging partner, but not the same power. This wrestler beating you up then becomes like this mosquito. You know that one mosquito in the night? Trying to sleep, it comes and buzzes every few minutes. Even the mosquito-ness of the mind starts to fade away. And mostly, whatever it might be saying, whatever ideas of its own authority it might be trying to sell you, mostly it is allowed to come and go.

So this is how, as we divest our identity, as we die away starting from the mind, you see, the mind itself seems to become much more powerless in a way. But don't be too quick to proclaim these things. I've had many who in satsang with me have been quick to come to this idea that 'I'm over the mind now. The mind is now my friend. I want to love it. I want to be nice to it.' And very quickly, it bites back. Don't be so quick. The trickster is also consciousness, you know. But don't be so quick to pick up a friendly attitude towards it. There will come a time where we look at it also as beautiful childhood, with no resentment towards it; that is all completely fine. But don't be so quick to get into that position, nor proclaim that kind of mastery over the mind.

The sage sees nothing being done, even when performed by his hands. So beautiful. Pointing to the simplest, the sage sees nothing being done, even when performed by his hands. Like the child, he is pure and acts without reason. 'Without reason' should not be confused with acting in an unintelligent way. Supreme intelligence is writing this life, all our lives. So he didn't pick up ideas: 'I must do that, I have to do this.' Some are simple, like I said. What's most important is every richness, all suffering, no dependence on the outcome in the play of life. To the sage, some planning can happen. Some next week, he will go; she can plan what is the next retreat. Of course, as if he is planning to make satsang. On the life of the sage, movement, activity, even apparent planning can seem like it is there, which it is here. But the feeling 'I am not the doer,' you see, that is the most important. I am not the individual doer.

Even cleanliness witnessed. Blessed indeed is he who knows Self. Though seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, he never desires nor changes. Blessed indeed is he who knows Self. Though I do, because all of these are phenomenal sights, are phenomenons. Sound is phenomenal. Taste is phenomenal. Smell is phenomenal. All of these are phenomenal. Why is he the doer? The same reason. This explains why I miss anything, because although all of this is there, how does one find that aspect of consciousness that is recognized as its source? How does one come to that? Just through this simplicity of seeing what is beyond phenomenal. Some may think if he means to act, but it is still phenomenal. We don't settle for that for a moment. Find that which is beyond the play of phenomena.

One who is void and changeless—where is the world and its imaginings? Where is the end? Where is the possibility of it? One who is void and changeless, where is the world and its imaginings? Where is the end? What is the possibility of them? So this one that is beyond time and space, beyond all qualities, where is the world for you, the Self? Where is that appearance that we call the world? Where is the set of sensations that we call the body? What is your true position? Are you bound or enclosed by any of these? Where is birth and death? Where is beginning or end? Where is time for the unchanging one? What does time mean?

Glorious indeed is he who, free of desire, embodies bliss itself. He has become absorbed in himself. In short, the great soul who has realized truth is free of desire, enjoyment, and liberation. In all of space and time, he is attached to nothing. We covered all of this many times. And anyone in the future who happens to come to this YouTube video or read this transcript, please start from the beginning. Start there. There is something that I feel would, if that requires it, can create some confusion if you haven't joined us from the beginning. So if you're watching this verse on YouTube ten years later, or whenever you're watching this, please start from the very beginning. I'm sure that the Father has made it easy for you to find it. You can start from the beginning of this; it will become much, much more clear. Especially terms like 'enjoy,' 'don't enjoy,' 'free of desire'—all these have been explained many times as we have gone along.

What remains for one who is consciousness itself? What remains for one who is consciousness itself, who sees the non-existence of a phenomenal world created by a mere thought of a name? What remains? One who is consciousness itself, who sees the non-existence of a phenomenal world created by the mere thought. So when this 'I am' appears, then 'I am' plays as 'I am something,' 'I am Ananta.' Then the play of this phenomenal world and 'I am the rest of this world' comes into play. In the absolute non-phenomenal awareness, it's a rising of being. This being, as it arises, is empty of all conditions, names, and forms. And when it picks up a name, picks up an identity, then the play of the world seems to become real, just becomes meaningful. Till then, it just means the play.

Peace is natural for one who knows for certain nothing exists, who sees appearances are illusion, to whom the inexpressible is apparent. Peace is natural for one who knows for certain nothing exists, who sees appearances as illusion, to whom the inexpressible is apparent. Now again, that's why I said to learn from the beginning is good, because how is reality defined by the sage? Reality is defined as that which is direct experience and also that which is unchanging. So in relation to that, everything that is changing is illusion. It's only in relation to the truth that the appearance of the world is an illusion. If we consider ourselves to be an object within this appearance, then it's better that we don't say the world is an illusion. Only from the perspective of the truth can we speak these words. Only from the perspective of this truth can you say something like, 'Nothing really exists. Nothing has ever really happened.' At which point can we go this far? If we come into even saying that even existence is ultimately not true.

All right, it's said very beautifully in these words. Pristine. The only truth that we can speak even in satsang is that 'I am.' And ultimately, even that is not true. So at some level, at some point, we consider ourselves to be limited and separate. 'I am' is a beautiful pointer; it is pointing to the truth. But there comes an opening which is even beyond this. We see that which is aware of 'I am.' To that, even the 'I am' is a coming and going, and therefore does not meet the criteria for reality, which is that it must be unchanging. Within this 'I am,' the deity of the waking state, this consciousness itself, the light of which and this magnificent creation ultimately is a coming and going.

That is when, like Guruji, you can say, 'Before I am, all was my heart.' But closer to the end of his life, he started becoming very strong with this kind of pointing where he said, 'All of this trouble is because of the I am infection.' I am infection. That which is in this worldly play, the Guru who is the divine presence itself, with all of this beauty, 'I am,' who can say, 'Forget about consciousness'? These words will sound completely strange because even forgetting or remembering is a play of consciousness. But it becomes the point where you can even see, 'I am unconcerned even with being.' It's no rush. You don't have to become an athlete, a superstar. So there is no rush for any of this. You need to see this. You will find many who try to become one with the superstar; nobody listens to them. Don't rush into any of that proclamation. Don't rush to say, 'I have gone beyond,' or 'I do something like this.' Have some reverence toward these beautiful, pristine pointings. Then you'll see it all unfold in your presence. Your presence will convey this.

So presence will... you can hear that you are beyond this and don't have to speak about it. Many times, the mind can get ahold of these kind of words: 'I am gone before I am,' 'I am is just an infection for me.' With it, then the spiritual ego can take a hold onto these words. And you notice that juice funny within yourself very well—how it has been taken, whether it has been taken in specialness, whether it is being used as wanting to be seen as something special, wanting to get some applause in some way, some recognition, some affirmation. So if these things are arising, you don't go into a denial of them. Follow this fellow, find the 'I' there it leads to, and see if there's anything real about it. Or is it make-believe? A blue cap which is pretending to be special by coming to the understanding of things. Are these words truly happening within your own presence? Know that if it is a rush to proclaim something, it is from the mind and associated being is not another time.

Nothing for peace is natural for one who knows for certain nothing exists. So don't be in a rush to say this. See it for yourself. Be open to this insight for yourself, and your presence will convey this. He who sees appearances are illusion, to whom the inexpressible is apparent. To whom the inexpressible is apparent. What is the inexpressible? The same unseen, non-phenomenal Self. What can we say about the Self? Nothing about the Self itself. With this play, as if we are pointing to it, but we can't even point to it really. We can just divest as consciousness. We are arresting our attention from other phenomenal things, letting it go of the two; divest this phenomena. The insight into the non-phenomenal Self, the insight becomes clearer and clearer.

Why do I say we cannot even point to it? Who is to point to it? To point to it would mean that the Self is in a particular direction, phenomenal in that way. Before you can take a step, it means this: that not even a pointing is needed. But the false has to be divested from belief in the false. And so this openness is here. Rules of conduct, detachment with renunciation, asceticism—what are these to one who sees the unreality of things with the light of awareness? So this play of what to do, how to behave, what to renounce... whether they believe there's a householder, or to live in a cave, to rush to live in a holy place, or whether you can stay at home—all of this falls away when you come to the recognition of what you are. Because it could have many varieties. You can be a householder seeker, you can be a sadhu seeker; it doesn't really matter. If what is to be found is already there, then the outer expression doesn't matter. Then you see the Self is the Self. It is irrespective of cave or not. You are the Self irrespective of work or not. You are the Self whether you have money or not. You are the Self irrespective of relationship or not. You are the Self. Many times, wanting to renounce the world is also postponing that, 'Oh, I will be free only when this and this and this happens.' Nothing needs to happen. This moment of insight: what is it that I am truly? How can they...

If that which is to be found is already there, then the outer expression doesn't matter. Then you see the Self is the Self. It is irrespective of cave or not; you are the Self. Irrespective of work or not; you are the Self. Irrespective of money or not; you are the Self. Irrespective of relationship or not; you are the Self. Many times wanting to renounce the world is also postponing that. 'Oh, I will be free only when this and this and this happens.' Nothing needs to happen. This moment of insight: what is it that I am? Truly, how can there be joy or sorrow, bondage or liberation for one who perceives non-existence and lights the infinite? How can there be joy or sorrow, bondage or liberation for one who perceives non-existence and lights the infinite? What a beautiful verse.

That which perceives non-existence—and do you perceive non-existence? Truly, by the way, it's you. By the way, when do you perceive non-existence? Every day, by the way, you see there is something called sleep. I went to sleep. You are there. And then as Papaji used to ask: what wakes up? Existence itself wakes up, and with existence, the world wakes up. What is that which witnesses existence and non-existence? This No-thing, this Absolute, this awareness, the supreme intelligence which is the light but without the quality of light, which provides the light for the light of the universe but itself is empty of any quality. Again, don't try to understand these words; stay with your insight about them.

Beautiful passage from Talks with Ramana Maharshi that somebody posted on Facebook the other day. It was the one that said: 'With which light do you see this object?' Somebody says, 'I see this object by the light of the sun.' 'With what light do you see the light of the sun?' Somebody said, 'I see it through the light of my sight, through my eyes.' 'With which light do you see the light of your sight?' All this will come to this: 'With which light do you see the light of sight?' Now, in this, the definition of mind was a better one, so they say, 'Through the light of the mind.' 'But with which light do you see this light of the mind?' 'The light of my being, with the light of my presence.' 'With what light do you see the light of your being? What is aware of your presence?' And do you see that all definitions of light end there? Can you truly ask, 'With what light do you see the light of that which lights up light?' We cannot.

The mind will say, 'Oh, this is possible to have an infinite regress.' But if you are following along with your insight, you will see that in this Absolute, in the Self, it stops. There is no regress because, empty of phenomena, there is nothing further to go back into. With what light do you witness the light of your presence? Does this light have any quality? Is it bright or dim? Is it dark? One who perceives non-existence and lights the infinite, how can there be joy or sorrow, bondage or liberation? One who perceives non-existence and lights the... and let's stop at this one.

That is why I say it is through the centuries that it's said all of this waking state, sleep, the dream state, transcendental—really, all of these fields are just comings and goings for you, the eternal witnessing of them. If you are beyond the waking state, you are beyond the waking state. Can you find yourself in an object within the waking state? All these are very important to use. The theme of satsang today has been this: if you are that which witnesses the coming and going of the entire waking universe, and it resolves to be left—nothing to be left—and then another universe appears as the dream, millions of these universes can appear and disappear. If you are the constant witnessing, can you find yourself inside one of these realms? If you were, then when that goes, then you would go. But you don't.

This waking state will go, to be replaced by sleep. In the sleep state, it's superimposed with the next, that which we call dream now. But when it appears, it seems just like this waking state. Another family, another set of people, another life it seems as it can appear. That also comes and goes. So many infinite experiences can be had in all of these fields. Is your truth to be found inside one of them? It cannot be. It must only be that these at best are aspects of you, but you are not an aspect of them because they are the coming and going; you are the unchanging witness.