Ashtavakra Gita Ch. 9, Vs.1-5 Commentary and Contemplation - 16th August 2017

'Was there an age or time when men existed without opposites?' What this means is the person entity, the person identity, is dependent on these very opposites. Without it, can there be this identity? Every concept contains some judgment, contains the picking up of an idea, an opposition, a reference point. As I keep saying, was there an age or time when men existed without opposites? What is implied is that this identity relies on these positions which are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Leave the opposites behind, be content with what comes. Okay, not with that perfection which is also a relative of imperfection. Perfection or defect is not this. This is the perfection of open neutrality, which is what is right now. So the Sage has very nicely taken us out of attachment, and then as you are starting to get an aversion to the idea that 'I must be opposed to the world' or in opposition to something, then leave all the opposites behind to be empty of these opposites.

'The greatest heretics and yogis agree on very little.' Very good. 'The greatest heretics and yogis agree on very little. What is the same to him who could not be indifferent to knowledge and becomes...' What is he saying? We can be attached even to spiritual concepts. Kabir Ji said, 'Don't make tattoos out of my words.' As one feels, these are just thorns we're using to remove other thorns; at the end, even these are thrown away. And what is the clue to discover this? That even the greatest sages do not agree. They don't agree on the path to freedom and reality. To get there, especially the experience of the present, the recognition of the Self—this is what they seem to agree upon. So very little would be that. But how to get there? What is the path to follow? Are there steps or no steps? Practices or no practices? Therefore, there is no agreement on what we do in the ocean of Maya, this Self-recognition or not. Many, many disagreements can happen among those who are recognized easily. So don't allow these contradictions to confuse you. All of that whole pointing actually is not the ultimate truth. No pointing is the ultimate truth. That's why it's a pointing; it can only point to the Self. You cannot gain more truth, no path, nothing actually. Because what are you using? Pointing to that which you already are now.

Suppose you are on a road, you feel you're lost. You ask someone, 'Can you point me the way to myself?' I will say, 'Please take a left, take another left, take another left, go past this gate.' You're already yourself. I'm giving all different kinds of directions. So what are we all looking for? Ourselves. The Self itself is the bridge. You're not searching for something outside the Self into the Self. So the directions could be different. If you stay with this discovery and say, 'I'm seeking this,' who could not be indifferent to knowledge? We talked about detachment. This chapter is about what attaches us, and he knows that for the spiritual seeker, spiritual knowledge itself can become a big attachment. 'I am attached to my concepts because I must be right. I have invested so much time and energy on something, I must come to a valid conclusion.' It says that even the great sages do not agree. We can use it as a little value, except that which points to yourself. See what is here. See what is you seeing this. Who could not see in this system of it?

Because quickly we can see: 'Opposing forces, duty done and left undone.' So we talked about doership, the action and inaction. We are attached to these ideas. So he says contemplate this: 'When does it end and for whom?' There ever meant to be doership? Consider this, be ever desireless, let go of all things, and to the world turn an indifferent eye. So he's shaking us out of our attachment. What did we talk about? We talked about the two Ds. We talk about 3D, isn't it? So we talked about coming out of the three Ds, which is the doership and the desires. Both of these rely on this—relies on the 'V' of duality. There must be a sense of separation of duality for me to be a separate entity before I can desire something seemingly on the outside of me. There is a 'me' who wants to make something 'mine.' That is desire. When that something seems to have become 'mine,' that becomes an attachment—the play of 'me' and 'mine.' They spawn this 'V' of duality. Then if I have a desire, there must be somewhere to get something to give, then what to do? The 'D' of doership comes. So we think, 'When to do the same things, to do one thing, what to do and for whom?' So the important question here: 'For whom?' It all amounts to considering this. Be ever desireless, let go of all things, and to the world turn an indifferent eye.

'Rare and blessed is one whose desire to live, to enjoy, and to know has been extinguished by observing the ways of men.' So when we have this idea that 'I am living my life' and then 'I have some control over it, I want these particular experiences, I want to be able to click and choose the content of my life,' which is what we talked about yesterday. In a world in which we are switching experiences, 'I only want pleasure, I don't want pain.' This kind of belief gives me false ideas of control over what is going to show up on this movie screen. So 'I live to enjoy and to know.' We seem to be climbing a ladder of spiritual consciousness to know more and more and more. Ultimately, I would have the best, most powerful concepts, which is what I really want. But he's saying it's not about that. Even knowledge must be extinguished by observing the ways of men. So who has been able to get only those experiences in life as they wanted, but without the tale of finality? So observing the ways of men means to look at humanity and to see that all of this actually is not getting anyone anywhere. So let go of all of this again. Live under the name of the chapter: detachment.

So we've done nine chapters so far. How in a beautiful way all the issues, all the pointings are looked at, and then there is an invitation to drop it. And then again going back to one of the clues and deeply diving into it and seeing how the identity operates and how you can be free of it. So it's actually very tactical. Ashtavakra is famous or infamous, actually, for being too abstract and only for very, very thick intellectuals or very, very accomplished in some way. But actually, when looked at from this light, if you search for those clues, 'How do I discover the clues for myself?', you will find that it is of full effect.