Ashtavakra Gita Chapter 13 Commentary and Contemplation - 23rd August 2017

What he is basically saying is that you don't need to be anything more than what you are already. You don't need to move an inch. Before you decide to start, you are That. Before you decide to look, you are That. Before you start your practice, you are That. During the practice, you are That. And after the practice, you are still That. If something is missing right now, if you feel like some experience must complete myself, then know that this is just a trick from the mind. Only the Self is, and it is forever complete beyond the concept of completion. What did the sage hear earlier? 'Your only bondage is not seeing this.' I like to even go a step further and say the only bondage is the pretense that this is not true already, the belief that you have to become something to become the Self.

Sometimes I jokingly ask all of you: if you're looking for the Self, are you sure that you lost it? He says, 'Oh, ten lifetimes I have just meditated because I want self-realization.' So the eleventh lifetime before this, did you lose something? And now you were looking to find the Self? Where do you go to find the Self? Has anyone said that 'I was just here and there it was sitting on the carpet, the Self. I was drinking the coconut and in the coconut water, there it was, the Self'? What has the discovery always been? 'I always was That. What was I looking for? I have only been this.' As the great Indian saint Kabir Ji said: 'Paani mein meen pyaasi, mohe sun sun aave hansi,' which means 'The fish is thirsty in the water; hearing this, I laugh.' But this looking for the Self is even beyond this fish thirsting for water. It is the water thirsting for water.

If for one moment we drop our allegiance to what the mind is saying, can you see what you are right now? Who feels they're missing? Who can say, 'I look and I did not buy a concept from the mind, and just in my looking, I don't find it'? Those can come up. If you don't find yourself, then you come up. In your looking, I only feel like that. Firstly, when you look, you don't find yourself? Don't fear. Don't feel afraid of peer pressure. So am I then, because I don't see any hands, am I then to presume that in this moment when you look, you see that it's only the Self? This is just the same. Maybe some of you are shy, so I'll give you some clues. Some of you might be actually thinking that, 'Oh, actually I don't find the Self, but you know, I am one in twenty-five or something like that, so let me not take on the shame of being the only one not finding the Self.' In fact, there are many clues now. How many clues? 15, 11, and all the same sound. All these clues are pointing to them.

So first, don't expect to find something which is an object, okay? So what you have to say is, 'Yes, I see the Self.' So that's exactly what we are going to talk about, because 'I see the Self' can sound like it is an objective seeing. That means I see an object and then I can confirm, 'Yes, I see the Self.' But this seeing, what is it? It is the only non-phenomenal experience. And what is the only non-phenomenal experience you have? Can you tell me about something you experience which is not phenomenal?

Sleep.

Sleep. Very good. Experience sleep. There is no phenomena there. You are there though. So you experience sleep, then you see the whole phenomena is gone. Even 'I' am not there to experience sleep. Nobody. Nobody but yourself. Beautiful clue. Even when all phenomena are gone, you witnessed that all phenomena are gone. You are aware of the absence of phenomena. This is you. You are aware of the presence of phenomena. So this seeing is different from the phenomenal seeing. This knowing is different from phenomenal knowing. And yet, even if these words sound complex, I just ask you: if you are aware, are you aware now? So if you're aware now, I can tell you that most likely, unless the mind is conjuring up an image of awareness, you are experiencing your non-phenomenal seeing on the basis of which then, in the play of consciousness, you are reporting this. Can there be a clue more direct than this?

And some of you will have trouble with this too because you will try to understand it. You try to contain it in a conceptual framework, which is not going to happen. Where does this awareness come from? Does this also have a birth? Does this have a source? Does this come and go? Does it have a quality? Does it have a shape? Does it have a size? Could it be that this qualityless, unborn one is what my true Self is? How many of us are open to this possibility? At least open to at least this being a possibility: that you are not a thing. You're beyond all things, beyond all qualities and attributes. Then it is going to be very simple. But if your idea of enlightenment is that you will become another man or woman and remain a thing—a very enlightened thing, a thing with a halo—then we will have trouble. Could it be possible that I am not a noun? I'm not even actually a word, but I'm more of a verb than a noun. I'm more of a seeing than a thing. Could it be this? Could it be you are not a thing at all?

So when you say you are not the person, this is what it means. Can we taste our non-personness for just a sliver? Your idea of what you are is stuck. I know. Who witnesses that? So if your idea of what you are is stuck on the body, find out who witnesses the sensations of the body. And don't apply a mental answer; go with your insight. If your idea of what you are is stuck with the mind, then find out who witnesses these thoughts. If your idea of what you are is stuck with a particular emotion, find out what witnesses even that. Then it'll be like Ashtavakra. You could see so simply that 'I am the shoreless ocean in which the arcs of this universe, they come and go, but I remain untouched, unaffected.' As long as you consider yourself to be an object within this universe, can you truly call yourself the ocean?

So all these things are so useful. What is going to last forever? What does not come and go? Sages said that reality must be that which is our own inside and it does not come and go. And if it does not come and go, where must it be now? Reality, where must it be? That which does not come and go, is it possible that it is not here now? If it never comes and goes, is it possible that you have to run towards it in order to grab it, go for it? Or is it the basis for even the appearance of the one who wants to grab something? What is the basis for you? Where do you come from? Where do you go? Can you go and show me? Wherever you go, you will find only the Self. Nobody can run from these truths. How will you escape yourself? Only in ideas.

That's why I usually advise the opposite. Instead of trying to find the Self, you try to lose the Self. And instead of trying to find your being, try to stop being. Just don't be. Okay, at least don't be aware that you are. Just don't be aware that you are. Then we'll look for the Self together. Well, let's lose it first. No? Then we look. Who was able to do it? Stop being. Stay with that. He says it's so simple and all these efforts seem so foolish. Exactly what the sage is saying. He's saying: 'The body is strained by practices, the tongue tires of scripture, the mind numbs with meditation. Detached from all this, I live as I am.' The fish in the water thirsting for water. The water itself looking.

Don't be okay, at least don't be aware that you are this. Won't be aware that you... then we look for the same together. We'll let's lose it first, no? Then we look who was able to do it. Stop them. Stay with that. He says it's so simple and all these efforts seem so foolish. Exactly what the sages say. He's saying the body is trained by practices, the tongue tires of Scripture, the mind numbs with meditation. Detached from all this, I live as I. The fish in the water thirsting for water; the water itself looking for itself trying to quench its thirst.

Often—not often, recently—I started saying that if a grape came to you, if a grape came to you and it was convinced that it is an orange, you tell me what you would say to that orange or grape. And your words will sound exactly like the words in satsang. It's all just one big misunderstanding. Just see what you already are. The orange is saying, 'Oh master, Father, please, I want to be a grape again.' But you are that! 'No, no, you're just being nice, or just in your presence I am the grape, but actually I must be orange only because mind is saying I'm orange.' But can't you just look? You're green as a grape. 'Oh, maybe that's just happening right now because I'm in satsang. How do I get rid of my orange thoughts?' Don't believe them because they are not true. 'But they come all the time, I want them to stop!'

That's a trick. That's a trick to convince who you are. An orange never anything but the grape. This is like the conversations we have in satsang every day. This orange, can you find it? Can you find the person? Nobody has found it. Nobody has found it. Can you lose the witness? Nobody can lose it. See? So nobody can find the orange, nobody can lose the grape, nobody can find the ego, and nobody has ever lost the Self. This is why this is the divine mystery, you see. So this is also divine display of individuality; it is also a divine play because really consciousness could have played this trick upon itself. At the supreme level in which all these universes come as they are, they come and they go, and it considers itself to be this virtual body-mind organism.

Every day I try to figure out ways to tell you that you are the grape, and I also tell you that the only thing that is convincing you that you are an orange is your next thought. And then I say it just... all you have to do is don't believe this one. But you say, 'What? But I have to believe it!' Do you really have to? You don't have to anything because you are God, you are consciousness. If you start from the perspective that you are the orange, then the orange thought will be attractive to you. If you start from the perspective even that you are an orange trying to become a grape, then thoughts about how the orange should become a grape will be attractive to you. And we take a little metaphor too far. It's actually like this: you are That and That alone.

Look at the first verse. See: 'The tranquil state of knowing Self alone is rare even among those who own the land. I therefore neither renounce nor accept, realizing that nothing is done. I do what comes and I'm happy.' Realizing that nothing is done, I do what comes, I'm happy. And this can seem like it is a contradiction, but it really isn't. But all that is happening, they are just movements within consciousness. Nothing has happened to consciousness. Nothing is actually done, and yet this movement can continue or stall. Sometimes I jokingly say, isn't it then the Zen master says, 'Oh, before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water; after enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water.' I'd like to add two words to that: 'or not.' Nothing has to be anything. It can continue to be as it was, chopping wood, fetching water, or it can be completely different from that. It makes no difference to the Self.

So many different examples you can think like this, but none of them come close to the simplicity of your self-recognition. If your friend comes to you and says, 'Please help me, I've lost my head,' but clearly he has the head. In fact, the mouth is attached to the head and you're speaking from there. 'No, no, it's not true. I don't see it. I see just a little bit of a nose right now.' You don't see your head, you just see a little bit of a nose if it's big like mine. 'So I'm convinced that I don't have one.' What would you do? Say, 'Look really, what is here first?' If they really have a head or not is another... In fact, there was a great teacher, forgetting his name right now, maybe one or two hundred years ago, he had this spiritual contemplation exercise which is a great contemplation. It was called 'On Having No Head.' Just notice that you don't have a head right now. Douglas Harding knows it, or something like that.

She says you're making me hungry for grapes.

It is long as he is not hungry for oranges. The trouble is, you know what trouble is? Not that the orange is looking for the grape Self. Trouble is that the orange is looking to become a better orange. You're looking to become the enlightened ego, enlightened person. And if you're waiting for signs that confirm the truth of your freedom, and on the reverse, on the converse, if you have to proclaim your freedom, even that is not freedom because it is beyond this doing and not doing. It's completely possible to survive forever, actually. Let me survive for the next ten minutes without believing the notion about yourselves. Is it possible for the next ten minutes to not believe any notion about ourselves? Not as a meditation, because the sage said the mind numbed is meditation. So we're not meditating, simply looking. How many feel it is possible? Okay, that one notion we'll allow is that request. Let's see how many feel it is not possible to remain for a few minutes without picking up a notion, a position, a reference point, an identity about ourselves? Type it out over there because I can't see all the hands at one time.

And notice that as you remain empty of any notion about yourself, our existence continues. Existence is independent of whether you have a notion or not. Whether you have a concept or identity, or if you forgot that you are a wife, you will continue to exist. Yes? So which notion do I have to hold on to to exist? Now you have to see for yourself whether these notions are bringing you joy or are they bringing you suffering. Is joy not independently arising on its own? We misunderstood this, what this existence is. Maybe, maybe that is the biggest misunderstanding. We have misunderstood this existence to be something limited, something personal. This existence is the presence of God.

Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither disassociate nor associate with any of that and I'm happy. Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither disassociate nor associate with any of that and I'm happy. So beautiful, you see. And you can see that thousands of years ago also, same thing. Thousands of years ago when this scripture was written, even in today's world, many are preaching this concept that you are not the doer because we have believed for so long that I am the doer. And you can have this reverse concept: you are not the doer. But even in this pointing, the 'you' is what? The body? Or body-mind, if you want to be generous. Neither the dual nor the non-dual, you are not an object. Whatever you believe with regard to your doership, what is important is: what is it that you are identifying the 'you' with?

If you are being taught that yes, you are an object, but actually even as an object you are a powerless object, please understand that it is not the truth. Same thing the sage said thousands of years ago: 'The yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither disassociate nor associate with any of that and I'm happy.' Now some might say to me, and some have actually said like this, that 'Father, between the two, if I had to pick the concept that I am the doer versus the concept that I am the non-doer, isn't it better that I pick the concept?' And I say, if you've been in satsang with me for some time, then no, I will not let you rest in this limited idea about yourself. How can I, when I have discovered that you are I Am, and you are this consciousness, this unlimited being? And ultimately I Am and you are because we are one, that which is aware even of this. How can I let you rest if you pick up the concept like, 'I'm the phone, actually I'm the phone that believed I was doing something, I was dialing the numbers. I was a phone that believes that I was dialing the numbers myself and having these conversations with people on the phone. Then I realized no, no, it is a greater power that was dialing the numbers, I was not doing anything.' Can I leave you believing that you are a phone?

And then you say, 'Can I at least pick up, stay with this concept that I am not the doer?' If you are new, if you are just starting out in satsang, then I know the relief that can come by believing this. The guilt that can be washed away, the pride that can be wiped off in recognizing that no individual entity, I who still believed myself to be an individual entity, ever did anything. Some space, some relief can come from that. But if you still consider yourself to be the individual form, then you will always question God and say, 'God, why are you doing this? How come I always get disengaged?' Okay, I'm stretching the metaphor too far. You might always, you might still say, 'But why are you giving me these bad experiences? I'm not even the doer and I recognize this, so why are you still bringing misery into my life? Surrender is supposed to bring for me all these beautiful things. Where is the love? Where is the peace? Where is the joy?'

So this concern about what is happening to this limited appearance, to the body-mind, this concern is desire. What I want should happen in my life. Now I'm not the doer, therefore I cannot do it, but God might be kind enough to give it to me. And so desire can play as if you're the victim and this powerless mobile phone. 'Why don't you buy a nice cover for me instead of talking all the time?' What is using this example? So it becomes clear. Not that way. Beyond, you are consciousness itself. Yogis who preach either effort or non-effort are still attached to the body. I neither disassociate nor associate with any of that and I'm happy.

I have nothing to gain or lose by standing, walking, or sitting down. So whether I stand, walk, or sit, I am happy. I have nothing to gain or lose by standing, walking, or sitting down, so whether I stand, walk, or sit, I am happy. This means that irrespective of the position of the body, whatever might be the activity that I'm performing... and so simply the sage is pointing us to show us that which is this. Who is it? Maybe Katy or somebody, she said, 'But all that you are doing is either you're standing or you're sitting or you're lying down. Anything else is just an idea.' I do not lose by sleeping nor attain by effort. Not thinking in terms of loss or gain, this is breaking all those conceptual paradigms that I must do something to become, to find my freedom. If I just sleep, then I lost something. Whether sleep or awake, with dream or without, you are That. To see it said earlier, whatever might come or go, I am neither enhanced nor diminished.

You are not changing your level. Another popular fallacy: 'I'm changing, I am going to the next level.' The Self has no levels. You don't have to become the next level Self. It's funny, and it's not me... it's coming from... I can't help... One student, she said the first time she went to Peru, she went to do an 'advanced no-ego program.' Does anybody else find it as funny as an advanced no-ego program? Not just a no-ego program, but an advanced one! So who's advancing? The Self? Pleasures and pains are inconsistent. Without them, I live happily. So my pleasure came and went, and good and bad, whatever we label as good, bad, all of this is same as the coming and going in the play of appearances. None of this shakes the reality of what I am.

The first time she went to Peru, she went to do an advanced 'no ego' program. Does anybody else find it as funny as I do? A 'no ego' program. Not just a 'no ego' program, but an advanced one. So, who's advancing? The self-pleasuring theme, but it is inconsistent. Without the bad, I live happily. So, my pleasure came, and good and bad, whatever we label as good or bad, all of this is the same as the coming and going in the play of appearances. None of this shakes the reality of what I am. And in the saying of this, unattached to any outcome, unattached to any appearance, there is a simple substratum of happiness. Simple, simple trick, isn't it? As Mooji says, you don't need anything to be happy, but you do need something to be unhappy. That something is an attachment or desire, duality, the worship. Can you truly be unhappy without a belief, without an identity?