Ashtavakra Gita Ch. 6 - Can the Perceiver Be Perceived? - 14th August 2017

Yes. What do you see right now? What do you see?

I think I saw that it's just a...

So what you see now? You see the words?

Yes.

Now that which sees the words, where is that one? That which sees the words, yes, where is it? Okay, what is undeniable is that the seeing is happening. Who knows that? Is it a mental knowing? So if you forgot about the concept of seeing, seeing would still happen. So it does not depend on any intellectual or conceptual knowledge. So it is prior to what you know mentally or not. You know that this sight, this seeing, is happening now. That which knows that is the one that we are looking for.

When you go in search of that one, like I say, follow the smell of this one, follow the trail of this one. Where do you get in following the trail? So you see this body in front of you. You're seeing it. Can you say 'I am seeing it' or can you see somebody else's 'I am seeing it'? Can this 'I' be seen? And if this 'I' cannot be seen, then how do you know you are? Only the words are confusing. Already you know that some perceiving is happening. You see, it is here that I must be the perceiver. Now the question is: can this perceiver also be perceived? Is this also becoming too complex? Let's keep physical sight aside. Just wait for the next thought or some image like imagination normally to arise. Close eyes and then look at the one who sees that, the witness of these thoughts.

Now you know this already, but you are not able to put a finger on this 'I'. They go to think that 'I know it is I, but I can't find it.' What knows of your existence? That's why all the clues come helpful. So I say: can you stop being? You're famous for saying that. Can you stop existing right now? So that we see is that I cannot stop being. Existence is here. Which one is that one? Why this now? This knowing, does it depend on any phenomenal perception? You don't see this 'I' in any form or shape, isn't it? You don't see it, yet it is that continuity there. Because the sound like a position here or there does not apply to it. So that which is aware of our existence, you say 'I am aware of my existence.' So this 'I', is there a distance or a difference between them? See here. Take your time.

So like on this question, that which is aware of existence, you say it is 'I'. And then if it is that which is awareness itself, would you see that? Does this 'I' have any distinction or difference or distance between this 'I' and the knowingness itself or the awareness itself? So you see it without seeing it. We don't see it like sight; we don't perceive it like a vision. It is that which is the eternal witnessing of all that is perceived. Now this is 'I'. If this is not 'I', then who is Ram? What would you say about Ram? Another name for the witnessing itself is Ram. Now can this witnessing be affected by anything that happens in Ram's life? Suppose she doesn't agree with what her manager says, then does it bother the witnessing? Does it bother the Atma? No. There must be a lot of presumed identity which is able to pretend as if it is concerned about what happens in life. What is this presumed identity? Check right now.

So some clear agency, but 'I am just this awareness, this primal witnessing.' Then where does this other one come from? What tells us that it is there? Is it even there? Whatever you feel like the other one is, if you did not have to report from the mind, you see that still there? Would you feel like it is there? Even if some sense is there, what is an identity would not have much power. What is here now when nothing is? There's a peace. And what is the most intimate thing? What is that little primal object, in a way, what do you find here? This is just effortlessly present. Also existence. So you are aware of even this immaculate perception which is your own existence. Now both these things are effortless. Everything else after this, everything else we presume ourselves to be after this, seems to take effort.

So then the minute we take on the perspective that 'I am an individual entity' or 'a seeker who is looking for the truth,' as soon as we pick up the lie, we are working hard to drop the lie. 'I want to kill the ego.' This is exactly what Ashtavakra is saying: 'No need to renounce, accept, or destroy.' Because many in spirituality are working to destroy the ego or renounce the ego or even accept it. It can be accepted, but it becomes true to what we assume. But is there anything to do with this? If you find that this one itself is the effort, then effortlessly you don't need to destroy anything or renounce anything. So effortlessly you are this, and you are aware of being this. What trouble can come now in the first part? Anything which is still not clear? You might be good? Very good.

So now what can tell you if the task was the opposite—that you have to now create trouble for yourselves or create some suffering? What do you have to do in this moment? Are you suffering? So now you had to suppose that was the project. How would you do it? What tools are available so that if you want to suffer, you can create? Thoughts. Yes, it is so. What do you create to suffer? What would you create? Thoughts. These to the present thoughts are there, but just by the coming and going of a thought, can you suffer? And what must happen? What must happen with the thoughts so that you can suffer? I think you... now the thought itself will come and say 'identification happens on its own, it's not so easy to drop.' What to do with this? Also routing, let it go. No, not what you do to let it go. It's a sticky one.

Those thoughts which are sticky, I can see that they have become part of our conditioning, a part of our identity, and so it seems like a very magnetic, very strong... you seem to latch on to them. So these thoughts, we can put them into our inquiry. And who is saying or who is feeling that it is not so easy to let go? Does the witness say so? So it is not the witness. Is it God Himself saying, 'Oh no, I am bound by this thought now, I can't just go'? Can't be consciousness. And we can put that into our inquiry. Anything. But for whom is it difficult? See that this is so. You see, it does not apply to anyone, but it applies to everyone. So those which are sticky beliefs, sticky thoughts, those we can put into the inquiry.

The difficulty now to let go of depends on who you are representing. We looked at this question the other day also. Is there... he asked, 'Do we have a choice?' So if you are representing the bucket of flesh and blood, personal identity, of course not. But if you are representing what you're finding, what your recognition is, then you are representing this consciousness. This consciousness, all of this play belongs to it. That continues, the will all belongs to you if that is what we are representing. But ultimately, if you are representing the Absolute, that with which afterwards ourselves or even consciousness comes and goes, that one is not concerned about choice. All natural.

So depending on who that questioning is representing, the answer will change. And in looking at it this way yourself, the question gets answered. So the whole question of whether we have choice or volition actually depends on what is our vantage point. When the vantage point is individual, then better than saying individual has no choice—because it can continue to have other things like desire or attachment, aversion, a lot of gear is there—better to check and see whether there is actually such an individual at all. Once you see that there is no blue cap in this zone, then does that looker have choice? The question itself becomes meaningless from that perspective.

So then what do you find? You find that this existence, if you have consciousness, 'I am,' 'I exist,' beingness, or whatever terminology you use, and it is in the world, all this wave of light and sound, all of it, all this so-called Leela is then light to the... this light, does it come into existence from the light of this consciousness? So therefore we can say all of it is God's choice or God's will. Okay, nothing but a blade of grass moves that way; it is the will of God. So who is that 'you' are? So from that perspective, yes, all of this is your play. You also do. Then none of us might come to this point where you see that even existence actually did not confirm the reality of what I am. I witness even that. And all this entire phenomenal play of attributes, you see they like this in the whole question of volition and all that because it will be relevant.

We will see duality or the very important to understand this is a lot of Advaita around non-dual conclusions, but still propagating the case 'you are a limited entity, you are this body-mind, but you have no choice.' I think in some places they think that you are like a chair with a bit of a mind, you would tumble, some force is moving along, you are this chair. Yes. So if our identity of being a chair is so strong, then some release can come because the chair is trying to move, was trying to do things. Sometimes it moves, you think you did it. It moved; it was just a movement of consciousness. Sometimes when we presume that we are a chair, we are trying to move, not moving. Sometimes it moves. So this individual doer is all the way. Then you hear that what you're doing, everything, you are not the doer. But in that saying that you are not the doer, again, what is the 'you' which is being pointed to? That which is limited body-mind entity? So can look beyond that now. Especially those who've been in Satsang for some time, move beyond those tools and look beyond. After the identity is gone, what is it? Is it clear? Am I just a limited entity like a chair or a table which higher forces move around, or what?

Yes, so this individual doership leaves all the way. Then you hear that in what you're doing, everything, you are not the doer. But in that saying that you are not the doer, again, what is the 'you' which is being pointed to? That which is the limited body-mind entity? So, can we look beyond that now? Especially those who've been in satsang for some time, move beyond those tools and look beyond. After the awareness, what is it? Am I just a limited entity like a chair or a table which higher forces are moving around, or what is my truth? Ashtavakra speaks about that. These universes come and move within myself. If these are just speaking fancy words to feel good stuff, or are you pointing to the truth? And if it is the truth, it must be here now. This is the point.

Father, lately the experience here is that a distance is created between the 'I' which is existing and the one that exists.

Okay, this can be looked at in two ways. If you mean that there is a distance post-existence—there is 'I' who exists after the appearance of existence—then this 'I' is a mythical entity. There is no one like that which exists apart from existence, if it is the post-one. So, the usual affliction in humanity, isn't it? We feel like within existence there exists this tiny body-mind creature which I am. So, that is the mythical, the big sense of separation or duality which the mind is propagating. So, that is one. You might also be talking about the other. The other way to look at this question is: which is the 'I' which exists? Which is the 'I' which operates as 'I am'? And then this 'I am' also comes and goes, and only 'I' remain. What is the 'I' which witnesses the coming and going of 'I am'? So, which one are you thinking? Maybe you can unmute.

Yes, actually I did not... I was slightly hesitant to come up because you said not to add to it. So, what the experience here is: 'I am.' There is absolutely no doubt about it that I am. And it is not the 'I am' which appears as the 'I am.' It is the 'I' without giving any thought to consciousness, awareness, or anything. Without going into all this terminology or breaking consciousness, just leave aside everything here now. Without giving any thought whether in the waking state as of now, at this permanent 'I'—and I mean it is one and the same thing—but what is happening actually is that this 'I,' it is only 'I' which exists, is also fading away. It is also fading away. And what is covering it up is that actually I am the existence itself. I don't need to exist. I don't need to exist. I don't know how to explain this. I am the one from which the 'I' exists. I don't know, Father, how to explain this. It is not a mental thing. It is not a mental thing. It is the substratum of the 'I am,' of the one who exists. When there is existence of an 'I' at anything, it becomes alive as the 'I' who exists. And it is not only a little; everywhere, everywhere, everywhere in a distance, it is the smell of the existence. It arises. I mean, existence has no... like, this is the existence, isn't it? It doesn't need to exist. I mean, there is no need to say 'I exist' and 'existence myself.' Yes, everything. There is no need to say 'I exist' or 'I am existence.' The same thing is here also. But actually, I'm trying to figure out what is happening here. Actually, 'I' is more on this if you... now you became mute.

Okay, let me sit for a minute on this. I feel like we're saying similar things. 'I exist' and even this 'I' has no need to exist. Yes, it is effortless existence. There is no need. Although sometimes we use words like 'within the most primal I rose this urge to experience itself,' as if it is something... these are concepts that we find ourselves using. When we find that terms like 'urge' and 'need' actually do not apply, we are just trying to use concepts to describe that which is the indescribable. Whatever the reason might be, there is the appearance of this sense of existence. And when there is the sense of existence, then there comes the world. So, it is the same 'I.' Now, because 'I' has been seemingly misused for so long as something individual, as something limited, when we are coming to this discovery, many times it feels like, 'But I see it is not I. I see it is not I.' That is the thing. Because the 'I,' the position of the 'I,' is coming to the yellow position. Okay, but I see... if you see there is no 'I' here, I see it somewhere. Actually, some argue with me like this: 'Where there is no I, Father or Ananta, I know there is no I, there is nobody here.' So, who made this discovery or recognition? 'I' is used in this context as something limited. So, when we are coming to this broader discovery about the Self, which is beyond even existence, something cannot fathom it. Yes, but this is so much beyond 'I.' Without 'I,' would even this recognition be possible? Who are the Self? The Absolute. Not you in any limited role. Yes, so you find this 'I' which is beyond even the sense of existence, which is what Ashtavakra has been pointing to from the beginning. It doesn't need to exist as 'I.' We keep saying: unconcerned by existence and its play. With 'I,' which is not any 'I' which the mind can fathom—unfathomable, indescribable, unlabelable 'I.' So, we say 'I am.' Look at the sense 'I am.' We are not saying that a person is back. If a person was back, then you would have received a thousand-dollar reward, isn't it? Twice. So, finding a person... distance is created between 'I' which is referring... I think you muted. Oh, what happened? So long? No, I'm saying that you froze, so I got disconnected and again selected in. So, I will have to see the recording.

So, what you said... the only thing is, actually, I'm trying to point out is that I am separate from the witness. I have no need to witness. I know myself. That is enough for me. I mean, who is this witness? So, this is there actually, a very subtle point which I want to discuss with you. Okay, so I am not the solitary witness. I mean, I am separate from the solitary witness.

Yes, yes, yes. Notice this tendency is there, so to find that there is something beyond everything that you hear. So, first you have to describe to me—this is exactly what I was talking about in my answer—so first you have to describe to me: what do you mean by the witness? For the witness comes when the existence comes. Very good, very good. Because you said it, witness comes and existence comes. Who knows this? Who sees this?

I see it.

So, this seeing is which one? This is a flicker from the witness?

Yeah.

So now, good. Now you are getting somewhere, you see. Now you will understand what I mean. And almost every day I talk about this: not being that which is perception. What sees even perception? So, perception and perceiving is what happens when existence comes. So, when Guruji says, 'Can the perceiver be perceived?' we see... you say, 'I see that even the witness comes when existence comes,' you see. So, we use the term perception for that now. What is... who sees that? You say, 'I see it.' So, this seeing is that which is the solitary witness. Is there anything beyond this? This little point, actually, you know, which I raised even in Rishikesh also. So, in the retreat, I'll have to bring my sword out again for you.

No, no, no. I will just explain what is happening now. Let us see. Yeah, I am now into you, how it is now. I am talking to you, okay, and witnessing myself talking to you and understanding this. Okay, now this is the witness. But I am also that ever-witness which we call as the solitary witness, who is aware.

Yes. So, the first part is that which we call the functioning of perception. This whole interaction is aided by this power of attention. So, in our terminology, using perception is aided by attention. The awareness is not aided by attention; it is independent of it. Now, please listen carefully to what I'm saying. Everything which is perceived with the aid of attention, this primal power of attention that we call perception—that we see even the functioning of perception, that we see the existence and all its functioning including perception—that is what we are calling the primal witnessing or the awareness, the solitary witness. Does it look like this?

Yes, yes, yes. Very much experience here. Oh, now what is experienced here is, when I stay within Self, then everything fades away. Everything fades away. This witness, etc., everything fades away. Then, ah, how to explain this? I would have to go in it.

It's good. Yeah, if everything fades away, you see, you are not making up this report that 'everything fades away.' Therefore, it must be your direct insight that everything fades away. And to have this direct insight, there must be awareness, you see. Please understand this simply, otherwise the mind will make such a big thing out of it. And you might even find some outside satsang who've come to this point and are also confused that they just function as objects now. Everything fades away. What is aware of that everything fades away? Either it is just a premise or just a fancy statement that everything fades away, or it is your direct insight. If it is your direct insight, then you must have been aware of it.

Yes, of course I'm aware of it.

This awareness is witnessing with a capital W. Whether you see existence arising or everything fades away, it is in front of that constant, unchanging awareness which is neither fading nor arising. Yes, it remains totally unaffected. Oh, now this is... is it? How far is it from you?

I am it.

Okay. Now, now say: what is the trouble? There is absolutely no trouble. It is just... it is just... I mean, actually, you know, oh really, no trouble. Sorry, no trouble. Not even a paradigm, because the opposites of a paradigm are witnessed by that which is beyond this movement of paradigm or perspective, isn't it?

Yes. When I'm here and now... no, no, no, no, no. Then whatever you say, it's 100 percent correct. Okay, here and now it is I who exist and I am this solitary witness of everything. Okay, you only did it, nothing. But when I close my eyes and I lose my here and now, okay, then this awareness as such, this awareness is a different... different... isn't it? It's awareness of distance. It is not awareness of mine being the solitary witness.

So, when your eyes are open and the whole world is visible and all this interaction is happening, then there is a different awareness, which when eyes are closed, this is a different awareness? Is that what you think?

No, it is an aspect. It is an aspect like this. It is the same thing. When I am like this, then only I know myself. Okay, but in this, the mind does not move. Okay, the mind doesn't move. It is a kind of a... it is pure stillness. It is not a stillness in the moment. When I am like this, then even within the most turbulent phenomena, I'd be constant. But like this, I am beyond the constraints and I'm beyond these turbulences.

When you're like this, you know only the Self first. And when you're like this, you know somebody else. That type itself... just because there is perception happening, just because there is an event happening within consciousness, within existence, is there a difference in awareness, or is it just the play, like you say, with the aspect? What do you mean? This aspect in consciousness is playing. So, it feels like there is something alternative to this. Is that what you mean? Yes, that I completely agree. But I cannot agree that awareness itself... there is some change in the Absolute, that which witnesses even in consciousness. You are very correct. When you go from the consciousness up, or when you see from the top down, it appears like, you know... Father, for today, I think probably I would not like to waste time of so many others. Maybe I will come in Rishikesh. This discussion is specifically for Ashtavakra Gita. A lot of people actually are there also for their time zones and their tentacles. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I feel it's very useful to sometimes look at these aspects because they are subtle things, you see, as you're going beyond all phenomenal representations.

Where you see from the top down, it appears like, you know, for the four days, I think probably I would not like to waste time of, you know, so many others. Maybe I will comment. In this case, the disposition is specifically for a cervical agita. A lot of people actually are there also for their time zones and their tentacles. Okay, thank you, thank you. I feel it's very useful to sometimes look at these aspects because they are subtle things, you see. And as you're going beyond all phenomenal representations, we will notice that in our dictionary, in our mental dictionary, you might have made certain words, certain concepts about awareness, so witnessing, and those are being stretched out to the being stretched on. So we can... I do... that's why I say it can sound like a ways into things, but it's very important. Either we have not had the direct insight of something, or we keep at the direct insight in the way that I use the term direct insight and you're speaking from there.

So suppose we were to say, if somebody was to say—not about Anil specifically—but if somebody was to say, 'There is no awareness that I am beyond even this primal witness.' Now I would ask you: Are you just inferring this? Is this inference, or is this your own insight? And usually you will be, 'No, no, I am not inferring this. I am not just coming up with a concept about this. I know this for a fact from my own experience.' Now, is it possible to have insight without awareness? Is it even possible? So to say that awareness also comes and goes must be a labeling of awareness which is something phenomenal, therefore can come and go. But there must be a witness of that coming and going. Witness X, Y, Z.

Beginning to notice that with the tendency to label perception or the awareness of perceiving is awareness. So therefore, as often as possible, I use the word perceptions for that which is this—this kind of phenomenal feeling, sight, hearing, taste, all this perception. But there is the unchanging awareness, being independent of the objects of perception. Now I know that it's very common sometimes I hear, sometimes I think in some of you speak, or sometimes I see on Facebook or somewhere, that it's also become popular to say, 'Well, yes, but that awareness which is the functioning of phenomena...' So if it is just a functioning of phenomena, it is referring to the power of perception, which is this outer perception or the inner perception. Seemingly outer, between outer objects of sight, touch, smell, taste, all of that, or inner objects of imagination, memory, thought, pain, pleasure, or all the sensations. All these are force fields, you see. This is the perception.

So that which is dependent on attention, or that which is aware of this, that which is aware even of attention or inattention, that which is aware of existence or inexistence, that which is aware of all the states, even states which are beyond being—how can that which is a functioning of being be aware of that which is beyond being? So then, either all the sages for thousands and thousands of years have been mistaken—this absolute, this awareness, this Self is beyond being—they have been mistaken if they've actually got confused by something which is just a functioning of being itself and called that beyond being, or there must be something there which we are misunderstanding, which we are not seeing in completion. So this question is very beautiful, Vinita. Can the perceiver be perceived?

Father, I have a really burning question regarding this. Yesterday, when we talk about this perception, you know, I did something where Mooji saying that if something is lost, are you not there? And then something is found, are you not there? So when we talk about this perception, even inner perception, isn't there this knowingness? I mean, there is a knowingness in this perception, otherwise where is the perception? What would I call perception? And this knowing that, like when we just say as a solitary witness, there is no additional identity of being a person or anything like that, there's just this pure knowingness. Pure knowingness, like see the deep sleep too. But isn't the same knowingness permeating everything? I mean, all my identities, even when they come and go?

Yes, I'll tell you later. There's a difficulty. There's just Knowing, capital K. This awareness itself. Everything comes from that. Everything is made up of that. Therefore, everything is that only. There is no escaping knowing. There is no escaping it.

Even when we see that also is a... this perception actually where I felt that like when the beingness or when the person came, like the identity came, that it had some, you know, like it had a different way of knowing. But then when I saw that there is no different, there's this awareness is the only thing which actually... only till now is nothing other than it which can do anything, you know? You know what I mean?

Not sure. It was in the beginning of the session. I know you will agree with... maybe you can have a look at the recording of the first session. We looked at with knowing itself what it can mean. If it was a doing, is it a conceptual knowing? Is it a rotational knowing? Muscle knowing? What? Where is it that all these seemingly types of knowing have come from? What does it mean to actually know? And why is it that Janaka is asking for knowledge, knowledge with a capital K? Because normally everything that could be known intellectually or perceptually or sensationally, he would have known already. To know, but he who would have known all that intellectually or conceptually...

Okay, I learnt it. But at the root of it, there has to be awareness, right? Without that awareness, how would there even be an identity to come to begin with?

Exactly. That's exactly it. Yeah. Is it possible? Can you say anything unless there is a knowingness? Can we experience anything without the knowingness? This knowingness is my shorthand word for when we would not mental knowing. What it means is that which is that at its most even all of this, and yet all we made up of that alone. Only the Self is. So when this discovery is made that this identity which I play with in my waking state goes away in my sleep state, it's this absolute knowingness which is making this discovery. It is... I mean, you know what I mean? I mean, who is making it and making it? I know it.

Yeah, okay. Let's look at this very clearly. Let's look at it this way. Now, as we find this, the question is: Who is finding this? Did knowingness forget itself? Or did knowingness, or who within its non-phenomenal functioning as the Absolute, leave this game operating and remembering? We know what's possible. Awareness did not forget itself. Awareness did not delude itself. This knowingness in its non-phenomenal aspect never played this game because if non-phenomenal, you see, no game is possible. No quality, no attribute, including forgetfulness or that admission is possible. Various release.

So if it is not possible there, then who is making this discovery? Because on the other side we say a person never existed. Impossible for awareness because it is not phenomenal. Impossible for persons because no person ever existed. Then who moved in what is believed the game of delusion, identity, and then dropping delusion and identity and coming to the truth? It is this dynamic aspect itself called consciousness. All of this is God's field. You are playing as if it is Jivatma, and God came as if it is God, and God playing as if it is... or coming to the recognition as it is even beyond both. All of this and recognition is the play of consciousness. Therefore, all of this is to bring us to our... and must have created being, not another being which is the capital B.

Okay, let me not... you see, again we'll get confused. Not an associated awareness. Awareness is all unassociated because it's its functioning, its conscious aspect, dynamic access consciousness which takes on identity using beliefs and then drops identity by recognizing its own source. For a long time, it keeps looking at its children, its own creation, and tries to look for itself in them. 'I think I made a pause,' and it tries to find objects in the world. It tries to find everything feels phenomenal. 'Is it? I might be made above that. Can I find my source?' Then ultimately comes meaning that 'I cannot find my source,' and then I can really come to the true side of my source and I look at that which is aware even of existence, aware of even if it is.

So who's making this discovery? Consciousness itself. What is it discovering? Something that it itself is made up of. Its own source looking at it as a single line, turning attention and looking at the hand. This is looking at its own clay outwardly performing. Don't worry, your mind bringing us to this recognition as the outfits of consciousness who are playing in this waves on the first interval acquisition of its own source. We come to this absolute unchanging Sat-Chit-Ananda by the scale of body, mind, and touch. Those states, all these force fields, they come and go. Isn't a moment with source? What is the source? The source never forgot itself and untouched, unchanged. And so there is really nothing to do, change. It is the recognition of making through all of its apparent aspects. Look at the parametric me to that one astray dynamic respectful consciousness playing as a multitude of apparent aspects.

I think Father doesn't have any question further. Further here, when I find my source as the awareness, which by default, by design, is impossible to be touched or in ethical capability to identify with anything else—by default, by design, it is not possible. So when I am that which remains totally untouched by consciousness or by being itself, though it is a discovery of my own being, but when I had gone beyond my being and when I say I am not the being, I am the source of my own being, I see my own being arising out of me. Okay, in this state I see that I am not my being. That is the problem. Then I cannot say I exist.

What? Okay, good. We took a giant leap. You say, 'I see that this source...' So now who are representing that which sees the source? Is that which sees its own source consciousness? 'I see that this source is beyond being.' Then you say, 'I am the source.' So now we are representing awareness, the absolute Self. So then you say, 'I am beyond even this being. I never forgot my Self, and not remembering my Self, I have always only seen my Self.' We again. And then you say something like, 'Oh, but then don't... something happens when there is a problem.' Now who you are representing? Consciousness. But it is not a falling down of the Absolute; it is the rising of the consciousness to the Absolute.

Now, Father, I will say even very, very simple one-sentence generation. Who is he? I don't in the same day... no, no, all this is being shown to me. If I had the capability, why I was not able to see all this? Because I have been with Mooji. Now who you are representing? I am representing a seeker. You, the consciousness itself.

Execute. Okay, this is my base point. I... okay, at this point I go to see the living room because which by slipping further my base point is the consciousness. This is where I started thirty years back. I wanted to know who I am. We can't worry, they will not. Okay, okay. So in a very, very... in a very simple, in a very person, you are representing Anil, and my only instruction point... you know very well what it is. Okay, no, this is not a big ask by an experience years ago. No, no, no. Okay, forget that. Forget that as of now.

As of now, I'm both. Well, as a consciousness I see my source as the awareness. Then I clearly see that I have always been the awareness, and as a consciousness actually I have never been touched. I have never been touched. But at this moment here in the waking state, at whatever time here and now, our discussions are happening as a monologue. This cannot be forgotten. This cannot be forgotten. My written is all very confusing. You will have trouble.

Everything is clear. What explanation is confusing? Yes, why? Who's asking? Consciousness.

As consciousness, I see my source as the awareness. Then I clearly see that I have always been the awareness. And as consciousness, actually, I have never been touched. I have never been touched. But at this moment here in the waking state, at whatever time here and now our discussions are happening as a monologue, this cannot be forgotten. This cannot be forgotten.

It is all very confusing. You will have trouble. Everything is clear. What explanation is confusing? Yes, why? Who is our King? Why you trouble your Dinesh? Because the contention is—the contention is you try to bring me to the awareness of here and now. Yes, I am aware of myself here and now of my being. But this is like you are saying, though it is all-pervading, so at this moment it is pervading here now. But it is not the only here and now to which I am limited. I have not limited anything to here and now. It is only my existence, actually zero, which is present here and now. I am not limited by any here and now. Where is this here and now when I sleep?

Okay, can I tell you one thing? Yes, yes, yes. If you try to hold the ocean in this coconut, what is going to happen? It will not be able to bear it. It will explode. What you're trying to do is you are trying to contain your seeing in your mind. Let go of this. This is trying to explain, that is trying to conceptualize, trying to come to the perfect expression of this. I have not made any such demands on you.

This is precisely, Father, what I wanted to hear from you. Okay, whatever the same. Because whatever is existing is existing here and now. If I know the truth here and now, there is no need for me to go any further. Is that okay?

Exactly. Okay, okay. Thank you. My hug, my coconut water. If there is to-do about anything at all, know that an identity might be getting mixed in. Know that the struggle comes from the mind. The recognition, the seeing, is effortless here and now. Like you see, effortlessly you are existing, and effortlessly you are aware of this existence. You are not working or you are not coming to the discovery of the recognition or the inquiry in the way of coming to the right answer. It's not scientific in that way, where we have to solve this equation and come to the master's answer, you see.

It was just a simple thing which is beyond perception and inside, which is beyond the senses and inside, which is beyond attention. Don't try to translate it in any phenomenal way because it will only lead to this kind of suffering, anxiety, trouble, misunderstanding, confusion. All this trouble I am trying to save you from. All of that. I say the Satguru saves us a lot of trouble. We keep trying to enhance the recognition of the truth. Keep quiet. You feel like it is not yet clear? Keep quiet. We very quickly jump to interpret this which is beyond interpretation.

When the golden sentence comes and uses your body as a voice for this, know that you are in the zone. Then just relax, rest. And when you do the inquiry, it is not for the mind. 'Am I the body?' But I recommend presentations and with my face perception, what we prefer. Simple thing. We'll give it to the mind again. More texture, focus, head gear. The mind is complex. Let it go. Can we come to that simple thing? The mind is complex. Let it go.

We look at this a little bit before we go. I don't mind, actually, today's session. Sometimes we can do the Ashtavakra Gita until it comes to the heart and we will have some strong burning questions that come. They can come up on us. Then we can—the initial feeling was to have a two-week session on the rest of the Ashtavakra Gita, but now I feel like we can just—this is that fun. You can just use one or two verses from the Ashtavakra Gita. You can keep it open. Sometimes some chanting, sometimes whatever feels to happen.

I am a shoreless ocean. The universe makes waves. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy. I am the mother of pearl. The universe is the illusion of silver. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy. I am in all beings. All beings are in me. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy. I am in all beings. All beings are in me. This I know. No need to renounce, accept, or destroy.

The 'accept' part is also very beautiful because I think my mind was struggling to feel like everyone is—then I convert within satsang and it is Advaita after all. Thankful not to. So you can feel like for a time it is us. So when this one is being moved, this one is gained a certain way. If we're forcing ourselves on—satsang is also sacred. So me, it's not meant to look like if you discover yourself to be that and all play is happening and you can see all of it is you. Does it have to be in this outward way? Well, something happened that leaving this time it is good. But don't, because this 'I must be one with everyone' in this way, because even in that, one concept about yourself is still limited. So one that is trying to be one with everyone else already feels like it is different from everyone else. And in the trying to be one with everyone else, it is reinforcing that concept of individual limitation.

See, virtually all those belong to which one's word first to find out who—not who is here. Given so many clues where I find our answer here in the Ashtavakra Gita. Given very simple forms, great, beautiful, into the golden summit. Anything that's all over the innocence of a child. After that, over that, I am. And you get them now. I use the pointing to you to close the gifts that all the great faiths have given, which is there is a beautiful one. Can the body go into sleep? Somehow we can looking for today's or people's mind can say, so what is the advantage of this discovery? Can I just understand something conceptually and then my question move away? Then what is the advantage as we let this mind sleep? The recognition of itself which made this tasting of this divine presence so palpable. The taste of being, the taste of God, the taste of consciousness. I Am that I Am did not come as a result of some conceptual answer.

Today is the birthday of Krishna. Krishna the Makhan Chor. So we would like to sing a Krishna bhajan because not looking really happy with me today at that view. You remember the Krishna on the camp and abundant element? We have the lullaby, lullaby for Krishna, which can be placing it away. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Govinda. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Gopala. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Lumina. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Govinda.

I forgot the words. Mother, he was a—Makhan Chor. Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Govinda. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere Govinda. Krishna, Krishna, tum mere... really sizes on this one camera. So Mississippi heuchera 411 when you do. It's gotta be that business cookies people 11 when you see mommy go. I gotta get hot. We begin. Golic ideologies mommy animal you see better do not usually how these people getting Odyssey. Yeah Jesus. Cookie to someone all over again. Come on letter in again. Come on and on bhajan. Come on energy. Come on the well Belushi with you Yugi. I'm on TV. I forgot you guys. He is a good be beautiful. It was thank you. Manga game who don't—I under here from Hawaii number one day long—turn brown sugar cookie beautiful. I took Krishna over here and if I like this man when is Krishna Pakistan singleton laying some fish you want the pitch what free fishin for the other which one you're looking for which cousin you can help this time.

Until de su de que la never given to you think you not sure how anyone nella means into tricking me. Krishna Nina dissonant the name is in the in the lawn. Connie collocation are early person peaceful. Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Krishna. Who do you think could in from Jenny Hadi can be Heidi Chevy I can be done Asha Janik hi to cookie. High energy hi Jason hi he is sure there's enough we did unisons Allah. Yashoda Ma that we deserve yes your honor. Yashoda Ma we either heavens gonna you love music you will not be needed as long as you love me. Is not regulation is not many hardly get high you may get will be no Jericho face. Yashoda Ma beginning in Villa. Yashoda Ma come there. Yashoda Ma again. There is nothing still. That's all within this and or duration is most efficient and we met.

Oh hi America woohoo but why not money necessary all I know in London murders on on and I can religious artist Rihanna on jet fuel injection on defend busy with EE ahh-ahh this is agent uh arnica mana quite a while on a musician. Okay okay yeah I'll be ready okay business model the good ones good with in full swing and listen to you. Yah yah yah yah yah. Yah yah yah yah give even. Hey Madhava to the colony good emerging. But in Plaza ba ba ba ba the only cookie come to me whoo-hoo the hardening foggy honey Pollyanna and Leticia van Barneveld a buxom ecology fool hallelujah to honor our deal on the table to America Tico you know any part any. To come on a garrison and pub you want I'll do many ornate everything and public how many baby shall be be Jesus your love which every be pieces if you rock I do some kitchen Krishna Mahna Mahna are you to keep on diggin mother line would be hanging or negating ambulance appearing manga shoulder pieces philosophy to some great alum phenomena McKenna C Mon C Mon take a module on kooky Okajima Tokyo potentially do some given Monte I take a happy one peanut Jesus you lucky bum. Djenka susana is even a jiu-jitsu Donna I decided issue jagged Oh God. Margin is sooo beautiful it is classic. Marcus—very visible layers dr. Whelan so if I do a living dead and gonna be seeded issue and looking to take footage it's up to here I have this. Thank you so much for satsang today. Ramacharitmanas. Kiki K the sake yay Higuchi Ananda cheeky.