Contemplation on the Ashtavakra Gita Ch.18, Vs. 1-26 - 31st August 2017

Now, from this insight about yourself, all the questions about whether the world is real, whether it is a dream—all this will be clarified. But as long as you consider yourself an object within the world, all these conclusions of the sages might seem strange. For the sage to say to view the world as a dream, if you are an object within this world, if you consider yourself to be an object within this world, it can seem like an attack on your own reality. So the first part is more important, which is: what is that? When that is known, then all this moving play of light and sound will seem no different. They are the moving play of light and sound. So you say substantively there is no difference between a dream and this seeming waking state, although the phenomenal forces which can come to play in the waking state are also available at the dream state anyway.

My main point is that don't worry about that differentiation, especially if it sounds a bit operational or strange. You focus on this: what is it that you are? Are you also a play of light and sound? Are you also an appearance? Focus your truest position. How to find the truest position? That which is not coming and going, that which is unchanging. Most of the doubts, most of the 'buts' will come from the changing. What doubt can you have about that which does not have phenomenal quality and it is unchanging? So all confusion, all doubt can only be when we bring this changing aspect into the picture. What if you just allow the changing aspect for some time to move as it is moving? We are concerned about finding an answer about the changing. Sometime be unconcerned about finding an answer to the changing. Stay with your inner revelation, inner intuition of the unchanging.

One may enjoy the abundant pleasures of the world but will never be happy until giving them up. One may enjoy the abundant pleasures of the world but will never be happy until giving them up. And yesterday the sages explained that giving them up includes giving up the concept of collecting something or rejecting something. So giving them up is giving up on the whole way of wanting and pushing away, the whole play of desire and aversion. Not giving up as a position. Giving up to a position. Except how many get confused with this? Let me see some hands. This is a subtle point which is very important and it concerns both desire as well as aversion.

What I'm saying is that many times when we hear that we must give up, then we take on the position of the giver-upper, you see? Like, 'I am now the giver-upper.' Even that position is not what the sage is pointing to. The sage is saying irrespective of anything that is moving in the world play, you allow it to move. Remain unconcerned by this. Don't take on the position of the renouncer, of the renunciate. Same thing what happens when we hear about non-doership: we take on the position of the non-doer. It is not either position. Those either positions imply that you are still referring to yourself as a limited entity. Now, whether you are attached or unattached, if you still consider yourself a person, a person is going to get to something. Whether you are considering yourself the doer or not-doer, as long as you consider yourself to be a person, you are still being embroiled in this play of individual suffering.

Why? Because individuality is a lie. It is not the truth. And all lies must lead to some suffering. God designed the system where the lie could also lead to more suffering, then you never come to this point of waking up. The way this play has been designed is that everything that we pick up from the idea of our individuality leads to some poking. Even children can—we have seen this, isn't it? You've seen how many can start to feel like, 'I am not the doer now.' But why are you doing this to me? Why are you doing this to me? Victim mentality can become very strong with this kind of thing. This 'me' is a fundamental concept of trouble, a limited 'me,' the limited 'I.'

One may enjoy the abundant pleasures of the world but will never be happy as long as they consider themselves to be a limited enjoyer of them, until giving them up. So give up the idea of individuality and then you don't have to work on giving up specific desires or tendencies or conditions. We are not working on the branches because branches have a habit of growing back. So we start working on the branches, if you start working on your tendencies individually, then going to the tendencies, desire, say, 'Okay, what is all that you desire? Okay, why you desire a relationship? Why you desire money?' By the time you're done looking at one thing, something else grows out. When you're done with that, then something that first one grows back. You're not working at the branch level. I mean, when you can work at the branch level it's fine, but here we are looking more directly at the root of all of this trouble. What is the root of all of this trouble? It is this idea of the limited 'me.' And it's just an idea. This is an idea supported by thoughts and sometimes some energetic feeling. That's it. In the entirety of you, it is meaningless. In the reality of you, it is meaningless.

It's like one of my favorite examples is this example where I say that if there is a big white wall in front of you and then I make a black dot on it, a small black dot on a big white wall, I ask you, most of you, 'What do you see?' There's a dot on the wall. Is the dot ugly? Anyone will say, 'But there's a big white wall.' So what happens is that when we focus on our condition, our tendencies, the mind is quick to report to you that this must go, then you will be free. But the wall remains untouched. These ways in which these energies, these thoughts are playing, remain untouched no matter what the content is. The mind will constantly give you something to fix, something to change, something to get, something to remove. Drop out of that view. You cannot do the dropping on something. Just hear this. This is the monologue between consciousness. The sage heard somewhere, so won't even attempt to do the dropping on this. Whatever attention is available to you now, see if you can stay with these words. The rest is taking care of itself. Even if attention becomes a struggle, you believe that if naturally you find yourself being able to give some attention to the words that have been spoken, that is more than enough. Drop out of this play of positions of either the doer or non-doer, play of positions of the enjoyer or the renouncer. None of these apply to the truth of what you are.

How can one whose innermost heart has been scorched by the sun of sorrow—sun as in the S-U-N—and some not water that comes from duty, be happy until the sweet rain of torrential stillness? Very poetic verse. How can one whose innermost heart has been scorched by the sun of sorrow that comes from duty be happy until the sweet rain of torrential stillness? So that scorching that happens, that comes from duty, means the sense of doership. 'I must do.' Or the sage says, 'Everyone is miserable because of their constant effort.' What does it mean, constant effort? Not the movement of the body itself, but because they consider themselves to be the doer of the scene. It is also one of the ego's guises.

Now, don't pick up the position of the non-doer, neither doer nor non-doer. Where you are now, the mind will not understand it because the mind can only understand opposites. 'Don't do this,' it feels like 'I must do the opposite.' 'Don't tell a lie,' and 'I must speak the truth.' Hardly any mind will say that means be quiet. If I say, 'Don't tell a lie,' the mind will say, 'Yes, you must always tell the truth.' Why the mind doesn't say, 'Okay, this means be quiet'? Because it deals in opposites. 'You are not the doer.' 'Okay, then I am the non-doer.' 'You must not be concerned about what worldly pleasure is coming.' 'Then I must give up on worldly pleasure.' And sometimes the words in scriptures also sound like that. That's why sometimes it's needed that we share like this in more detail, because the sages will put the pointers very clearly, but the mind will latch on to its idea of what the sage is saying.

So like that, we have to look at this and come to this stillness. From doership, we don't move to non-doership. Stillness. Stillness means doing and non-doing can happen; I am untouched by it. I think we release the surrenderer as well. Surrender all the 'ers'—the doer and non-doer, the experiencer and non-experiencer. Give up any position that you can take on and give up the one who is giving. How to do all of this? Just don't buy what your mind is selling. Don't believe your next thought. Allow it to just come and go. Allow yourself to just remain as 'I am.' Just be this being. 'Just be' can be a position. 'Remain open' can be a position. It's right. How to do all this is don't buy what your next thought is selling.

Surrender the surrenderer as well. Surrender all the 'earth to earth' and do they experience a non-experience? Were to forgive any position that you can take on and give up the one who is giving. How to do all of this? Just don't buy what your mind is selling. Don't believe your next thought. Allow it to just come and go. Allow yourself to just remain as I am. Just be this being. Can 'be' be a position? Remain open. Can 'open' be a position? It's right. How to do all this is just don't buy what your mind is selling. Focus on you, this consciousness itself, 'I am,' which picks up an attribute. For 'I am' which says 'I am something,' this attaching of attributes only works with belief. Now, suppose I'll give you something without picking up any belief. At least you meet the concept of what you have to pose as possible.

The mind itself will come and say, 'But this belief also happens just automatically.' And I know it can feel like that as we are still from a limited perspective. Any time it can feel like belief also just goes automatically. So how not to believe? But you'll notice that belief is to give—oh yes, to give assent to a concept about yourself only comes from consciousness. The power of belief belongs to consciousness. And consciousness is never powerless. You can never say, 'Oh, consciousness itself doesn't have any power to let go of this concept.' So consciousness is only playing as if it is habituated. It has the habit of giving belief to something. So consciousness is also giving you the solution for that.

The truth is like there are some concepts which always get up those concepts. So the popular concept in satsang is 'I am not yet free, not yet there, and not yet he.' So investigate this 'I' who is not yet free. Does this 'I' have any reality? You'll find that there is no such 'I' here who could be free or not free. If it doesn't exist, then the attribute of freedom or bondage does not apply. You saw this previously also. Understood? So that which persistently seemed like a habit, then look into your inquiry and say, 'Who is the I who is not free?' And notice the mind. What I was saying will immediately try to sell you the opposite concept: 'You are free.' But I didn't say that. I said that freedom and bondage do not apply because even in the concept 'you are free,' you can pick up the idea of a limited me.

Guruji, when he says 'come to me empty,' it means be empty of these concepts of all opposites. Empty of the 'me' condition. And it is completely in your power as consciousness. Withdraw your belief from any concept that we have even managed for millions of years in the past. Then you come to a simple letting go. So when the thought comes—because it'll try to keep coming and poking you, 'You are not yet free, but I am not yet free'—you will find that there is a greater ease in allowing it to let it go, allowing yourself to let this be. This is the allowing. And when I say 'open,' I am not talking about the position of open. When I say 'open,' I'm saying empty of all reference points, empty of all self-definition. As I keep saying, like a newborn baby.

The universe is but a thought in consciousness. In reality, it is nothing. One who sees the true nature of existence and non-existence never ceases to exist. The universe is but a thought in consciousness. In reality, it is nothing. One who sees the true nature of existence and non-existence never ceases to exist. The universe is but a thought in consciousness. Now, usually in satsang, we have defined thought as that particular energy construct which is always claiming our individuality. In fact, which we call the mind. This particular energy construct, which is this voice which sells us the message of individuality, we have called a thought. We have called it a thought.

Now the sage has broadened the definition of the thought and he's saying that every energy construct is just a thought, always made up of consciousness. We're saying that all of these energy constructs, no matter what their shape and size might be, he is considering that as thought right now. So saying the universe is but a thought in consciousness. Consciousness is 'I am.' At this 'I am,' we excel then this way of universe with sun. So all of it is just the light of consciousness made up of consciousness itself. So we can consider thought to be like a product of consciousness, a subset of consciousness. Universe is just a thought. It's like the dream can be called just a play of thought. It seems like it is a manifest universe, but now I'm waking up, you find that you would say that 'it was just my mind's play.' What does it mean actually? Play of consciousness playing as a manifest universe.

Ordinarily we say, find that which is unchanging. Now from that reference point, we will see that this universe, any manifest plane, is just a coming and going. These words can only be spoken from that position. As long as you still consider yourself to be an object within this manifestation, then these words will not smell of truth. They can be spoken by anyone, so don't be in a rush to proclaim any of this. There's many times when we hear these glorious words that 'for me the universe is just a thought' and something the mind wants to quickly jump and proclaim this. Hold yourself. There is no rush for that. Stay with the truth of what you're discovering about yourself. Let all these utterances, if they have to come through your mouth, let them come on their own, through their own beauty and their own fragrance.

No person has ever spoken these words as if they were true. Make sense? You always suggest no person has ever spoken these words as if they were true. No person has. They can only be spoken from intuitive insight, from the divine presence. Every time it becomes—it is spoken personally, it's hypocrisy. So, 'universe is just a thought.' From which reference point? If you consider yourself to be just an object in the universe, then from that reference point we cannot say something like that. You must find what the truth of 'I' is. Who is the Self? Now you find, if you find yourself to be this unchanging, unborn, undying, non-phenomenal Self, your witnessing of all that is coming and going, then these words will start to smell true. If you consider yourself to be this body, this apparent universe, these words might sound really glorious but they might not still be so true.

So from that position, what you find about the universe? In the position of the Self, you see a body, so the reflection is like a reflection. It's like the dream. It's like a coming and going. Now when we—I said that when we talk in satsang, we refer to a particular aspect of this reflection, to this energy construct, thoughts, thinking. Obviously, they are doing that. And he included everything into that energy construct and said everything is just a thought, coming and going. This entire universe or the Self is nothing but a big play of consciousness. So here, the verse says, 'The universe is but a thought in consciousness. In reality, it is nothing.' It doesn't have any reality. It doesn't have a real tangibility in relation to you. All reality, again, is the perspective which is important.

'One who sees the true nature of existence and non-existence never ceases to exist.' This is one of the most beautiful ones. 'One who sees the true nature of existence and non-existence never ceases to exist.' Which one is this one? This is the true nature of existence and non-existence. Let's see if you can find this one right now. What is aware of your existence? And if you're struggling to understand what it means, existence, then follow the simple exercise which I give you, which is to try and stop being. Or be. Try to stop being. Just don't be. We notice that there is a presence here which cannot be stopped. I exist. I am.

Now when you say 'I am' itself—stay with me—when you say 'I am' itself, you could be saying it in one of two ways. One way could be, 'I'm not sure, but I like the idea that I am.' And second would be that 'I am aware that I am.' So is it just an idea that you are, an attractive idea of your existence, or it is a claim that you exist? You are aware of it. Isn't this that is aware of it? Again, stay with me. The mind will resist. Don't be worried about this. That which is aware of your existence, is that awareness also an object contained within existence, or is it independent of existence? Every object comes and goes. If 'I' don't exist, there is no objective experience. And yet awareness remains. Which is this which is aware of this? That 'I am' has gone, all the objects are gone. 'I am' has come, all the objects have come. That's why we are able to see that there is something called sleep state, there is something called waking state.

I saw a property very often used to ask this: 'What wakes up?' Then you say you woke up, the sense of existence. Yet there is a witnessing of even this. This awareness, this Self that is aware of existence and also non-existence of sleep state, that one always exists. That one always exists before 'I am.' See, one of the best clues as Guruji has given us is the title of one of these books: 'Before I Am.' The sage is speaking at that level. 'I am' is the sense of existence. There is something which is before, which is prior—not in time, but greater truth—because even 'I am' ultimately comes and goes. That's why the sage is saying, 'One who sees the true nature of existence and non-existence never ceases to exist.'

The Self, which is absolute, effortless, timeless, immaculate, is without limits and at no distance from you. You are forever it. How many clues in just one verse? Absolute, effortless, timeless, immaculate, way beyond all. What is it in your discovery that conforms to all of these clues? What is it that you can say is absolute? Because in the previous verse, we saw that even existence comes and goes. The existence comes and goes. And it's effortless. You are not trying to be aware. If you were to try and become unaware, you couldn't do it. It means no effort. Nobody taught us how to be aware. Timeless, beyond this play of time and space. Awareness, the Self, is not aging. How will it be? Our awareness, that which is witnessing all phenomena, does it ever age? Is it subject to time? Unborn and undying, eternal, is timeless.

Immaculate. Immaculate because it is completely empty of any quality, any attributes. To have a lack, to be tainted in some way, you need some quality. How can this Self, which is empty of any phenomenal quality, have any sort of incompletion, any sort of lack, any sort of pain? None of these apply. And it is the same, therefore it is always immaculate. And it is without limits. As I said, beyond time and space, limitations do not apply. This is the opposite of what the mind is telling you. The mind is always trying to define you, always trying to set your limits. You are the undefined.

Now the sage is saying that it has no distance from you. You are forever it. Forever it. That means you have always only been this. That is the whole play of Maya, how the absolute, effortless, timeless, immaculate, limitless one starts to consider itself to be all these opposites. Subjected to 'I am,' subject to birth and death, both in their beauty and pain, full of devotion and effort. Not to say this thing, you are this one and you are forever it. It is at no distance from you. Where do you go to find it? Look, even to find your body, you have to take the step of noticing a sensation or a visual of the body. To find your mind, you have to take a step to notice a thought or an imagination or a memory. To find emotions, you need to take a step to notice some sensation. To find the world, you need to take a step which is to go to the senses. How to find that which is at no distance from you? Don't take a step anywhere. When you take a step, you are moving to this side of the perception, the moving side. What's on the other side? Before you take this step, who are you?

For those whose vision becomes unclouded, illusion evaporates and the Self becomes known. Also, one who is instantly this Self. How do you find yourself to be this timeless, non-phenomenal Self? Try to become a someone. I mean it, that it will be a struggle if you want to get suffering for yourself. All suffering has come.

When you take a step, you are moving to this side of the perception, the moving side. What's on the other side before you take this step? Who am I? What I mean for those whose vision becomes unclouded, illusion evaporates and the Self becomes known. Also, it is instantly this. How do you find yourself to be this timeless one? Phenomenal self-study to become a Zulu—I mean it—it will be a struggle if you want to get suffering for yourself. All suffering has come only from the limited notion of yourself, and empty of notion means you cannot suffer. And once you see the reality of what you are, which is empty of notions, to pick up notions will seem like a struggle.

Seeing everything as imagination, knowing the Self as timelessly free, the sage lives as a child. Seeing everything as imagination, knowing the Self as timelessly free, the sage lives as a child. I really feel like Ashtavakra is here and guiding these words because, you see, when we go to distraction, when you see this to that, can you see this timeless, unchanging, non-phenomenal, knowing Himself as absolute, knowing existence and non-existence to be imagination only? What is there for the desireless one to learn, say, or do? Knowing Himself as absolute, knowing existence and non-existence to be imagination, what is there for the desireless one to say or do?

Because many times there is confusion about: but is awareness really aware of itself? And sometimes it is also said, 'until existing,' so we get confused. Now, to say 'I am aware' implies that awareness is aware of itself. Even also saying is not a prerequisite, which is this simple recognition. It is awareness itself; how could it be unaware of itself? It is awareness of everything here. There are very few words to explain this because this is so awkward. The Absolute is completely aware of itself. How would it not be? It is the Absolute. Otherwise, awareness itself would have to go on a journey of self-discovery.

See, 'I am aware.' You can see it actually in two ways. We can say that as consciousness, I am coming to this recognition of my source, which is awareness itself. Now, as an aspect of awareness, which is consciousness, you can come to this recognition because our idea of knowing can still be confused. Our idea of knowing is still having the concept of something that we know. It is not knowing itself. If you feel like knowing the concept, having a concept about yourself, then it does it. If it feels like having a perceptual experience of something means knowing something, all of this also belongs to it. But I'm saying that in its purest form, phenomena is just a knowingness, knowing itself. It cannot be outside of its own knowing, although there is nothing to be known mentally, nothing to be known as actually originally. In any worldly way, knowingness itself knows itself. That's why they said, 'knowing Himself as absolute, knowing existence and non-existence.' So awareness is aware, knowing itself. Awareness is aware, and it is aware that 'I exist.' You are aware of your existence right now. You are aware that you exist. I mean, these are wordless things which we try to put some words to, so some clarification is possible if they are still very confusing for you.

This to me will decide, and you stay with this. These notions that have been given out: what is that unchanging witness of all there is and all this? What is there for the desireless one to learn, say, or do? Talking for the Self to be, because I mean, such effort on some sense of limitation, going to certain that all is Self. He who has no trace of thoughts such as 'I am this' or 'I am not that.' No trace. So 'no trace' means that these thoughts can come; they can come and go, but they leave no trace. They leave no footmarks. They leave no identity because they are not given belief. We leave no marks, leave no condition. To come to our unassociated being means only this: that all that is left or creates is now let go. A vast bit of leaves is empty now. If you do not believe everything for yourself, would you be alright here? No concept also has already been used. How do you still feel like, 'At least these few beliefs I need to have to exist'?

One little hand. This is war, this is war. Trust and devotion help. As trust and devotion is growing, we will find that all my existence is the problem of subdued distance. So use this as an opportunity for weighing these beliefs in the fire of Satsang right now. To be here, see, it should collapse. Deeper existence goes away. They're still here innocently like a child. Flow with this. Is that in monogamy? Stay here. We exist. Existence is effortless. World's free approaches. The Self is effortless. It needs no clutches of anything at all.

The yogi who finds stillness is neither distracted nor focused. He knows neither pleasure nor pain. Ignorance is dispelled. He is free of me. Infusing the interpretation is going one paragraph ahead of the verses, and we have given all that you know, all concepts, any of these opposites dispelled now. Our idea of ignorance has been that one does not know anything, and he is saying the opposite. Our idea of ignorance—this wouldn't be called a word—'Oh, he doesn't know anything.' Now he's saying, 'dispelled.' You don't know anything that we have picked up on. Hostile has been evolving. We hold ideas about cancer; we throw this away. And going away, this ignorance is apparent darkness of which the Guru is dispelled. Translate the word 'Guru' itself; it translates into 'dispeller of the darkness' which brings light. So ignorance itself, just like darkness, doesn't have any substance to itself. It's nothing phenomenal that you have to change. It leads to a misunderstanding to exist. A misunderstanding: you saw a snake where there was a rope. You thought that you are something limited in this body. That limited one was never there. It looks like the snake was never there; that limited one was never there. That is all that you are discovering.

All the rest is in service and consciousness system because consciousness is nothing when you're just aware. They go, consciousness, there's no difference. It's seamless. Usually, the way we said—although I like to sit very much—is the ultimate reality. This display of existence and non-existence also never really happened or is real in the new. So what you're speaking of is, I recommend what I would say usually how it is used, that we consider Jeeva. Although I am something which I am, we consider yourself there to be a limited entity. I am.

In this that I like very much also, what would you say? I would say that it's like the story of the two birds, or two words and one non-dual. It's like the story of that story. We can also say in this case that which follows the rope, and this meaning which itself is like the rope. The metaphor can become country consciousness. 'I am' in this bullet position on top of 'I am' as 'I am something.' This is the basis of all heaven or poverty, gain or loss, society or solitude. To the yogi free of conditioning, there is no difference. Again: no poverty, gain or loss, society or solitude. To the yogi free of conditioning, it makes no difference. We'll be clear whatever we've said so far.

And in Chapter 18, Verse 12: religious merit, sensory pleasure, worldly prosperity, discrimination between this and that—these have no significance to the yogi free of opposites such as 'I do this' and 'this I do not.' Most of this: religious merit, sensory pleasure, worldly prosperity, discrimination between this and that—these have no significance to the yogi free of opposites, such as opposites such as 'I do this' and 'this I do not.' All of these opposites feel disgust for a long time. Still, the yogi who is liberated while living has no duties in this world, no attachments in his heart. His life proceeds without him. His life proceeds without him. This is the last night character. It's not playing in the opposites of duties and no duties, attachments and no attachments. It is allowed to play as it drifts. Life proceeds without the great soul who abides beyond desire. Where is aluminum? Where is the universe? Where is meditation on that? Where even is liberation from there? They are over all of these things. All the contemplations, all the meditation, all the inquiry is to come to this discovery: what is it that I am? I am completely beyond the concept of complete. What desire can I truly have once we come to this? His business then, all of this most part is seen to have been part of the play, and whatever continues after that is also seen to be part of the play, the movement of consciousness.

He who sees the world may try to renounce it. What can the desireless one do? He sees there is nothing to see. He who sees the world as something which I have a relationship with—me and the world. Many times when we come to the discovery of the Self, we get stuck in expectations of how the world should perceive us. Now we have any in satellite videos telling me also, 'Master, they expect our closest relationships to see this, making this discovery. Why can't you see? I can tell there is something different about me. How blind are they?' A kind of expectation. Then ideas get picked up, and these become in the act of a very ego to come back in the spiritual me in the world. As long as this play of me-more continues, the motors at this meeting are still holding a concept about itself, not openness. They find that everything is allowed. There is freedom for everything to move as it is. And when I say everything, it will also include this body. The body will continue to move in its own way as is ignited by consciousness. So don't separate the appearance of your body from the rest of the appearance. Many are doing that. We see the world is an appearance, and then if you see that the appearance is moving effortlessly, that includes this with all of this. So don't allow a mind to come in with that subtle trick which means this boundary here between the world, some physical boundary. No, anything phenomenal, everything phenomenal is the world in action. It is a world towards other world. So when you say this, allowing this body in it, don't be so concerned about what are those parts are about movements or actions with this one.

That's another term. It'll tell you that, 'Yes, yes, there are a few thoughts. Now you're not believing your thoughts, but what others think of me like this? Why is my husband or wife thinking of me like this? Is my partner...?' And what did you find about thoughts? We made no consideration. We can let this come and go. But this thought will still come here saying over to you, 'First explain to them the death once more.' All these tricks the mind will feel issues. Everything phenomenal is in the world and know where it is moving with the will of consciousness as it has to be. You don't even have to step back from the world as we have seen to grip the world. The motion of reality needs a step forward. You have to go to the mind emotion.

Father, how does the sage live in the world where you're being seen as a live entity?

So a sage should not actually live in the world. See, it does not reveal even more that outer expression in this play. What is happening is that it seems like some aspects of consciousness are discovering their true source. None of this is true. The absolute truth exists. We need to give some explanation to clarify. So in the appearance, we find that some aspects of—most aspects of consciousness—continue to move as if they're individual entities. Somewhere aspects of consciousness seem to come to this discovery of their true self, which is non-phenomenal. So your question must mean that: how does this other appearance of this one move? It seems to move in the same way with the same power that it always did. Only consciousness making this movie come alive, and it continues to be consciousness making the movie come alive. But consciousness is also designed, written in such a way that those who are open to this very same discovery about themselves, he will read for the same truth about themselves to the aspects.

Your true self, which is Ram's nominee. So your question must mean: how does this other appearance of this one into more at one seems to move in the same way with the same power that it always did? Only consciousness making this movie come alive, and it continues to be consciousness making the movie come alive. But consciousness is also designed, written in such a way, that those who are open to this very same discovery about themselves—who yearn for the same truth about themselves—the aspects of consciousness were yearning for this. When we come across such an aspect, such a being in their outward, we will immediately sense a sense of attraction, some resonance. And it will not just be with this; it seems to be the design of consciousness.

So I have seen, like the same only, if you see like this video: if you have some friends who are very interested in wine, for example, so they will collect wine. They recognize a roof or see all they have to do is hear the word 'wine' and then they are so attracted. 'Oh, what is it that you write? Which vintage do you like to collect?' All this. So this attraction to commonality, to resonance, is there in this play of consciousness. In this thing, when there is one aspect which has come to this unwavering discovery about their Self, and if that really is true in your heart, you cross her to be—is about to be—this resonance in attraction. So then this is how the life of the sage plays out. For one reason or another, one would want men to come to them to find the same discovery about themselves; they seem to be drawn.

So that is why in the presence of the sage, you might find Shanti coming to esteem it's quite a few, whereas another who is yet not looking for this in the worldly play might find just torture of boredom and frustration. That will happen here. People come fresh without knowing what they were getting into and just couldn't handle it, so they had to leave within the first few minutes of the play of this. Now you see, if it was deciding how to live, then this head would still be considering himself the doer, you see. It isn't even the graces of this kind of effortful devotion, you know. It doesn't mean that the doing stops. A simpler way of putting it is that the sage's body just becomes an instrument for the divine presence.

So Father, the owner of the existence and the one who knows, the one who owns the existence—just hand over the existence to the one who owns the existence and let it play. Because the play does not leave any scratch on you, on the knowing of your own Self. Even within the play also, even if however hard you try, it doesn't get any scratch. But the existence is not owned by you. You just happen to exist and know that you know of yourself. You are not knowing of yourself, but the existence is a gift. Existence is a gift. I cannot say that, you know, I'm a self-sustaining existence. If I say that, then I enter the play, see.

So there are two ways in which you better ask this question: how does a sage live? The first way is to come from this innocent curiosity: 'Father, what happens? What changes?' So the joy of it. The second way would be subtly you're trying to say, 'Then how should I live?' Yes, Father, I want to know how should I live while it should not be my problems and I am not bothered. Even it is because I'm entering this satsang, I know I am entering this satsang. Otherwise, as a child, I don't even know what you are talking. I have not learned the language. All I just see, you know, your mouths are moving, there's so many faces here. A child would respond to you, you know, it needs to believe and we will feel happy that somebody is talking to me.

So Father, I was just like this in this satsang, but as soon as I tried to listen outside of my innocence, immediately something came up. I had a choice to either let it pass or to ask you. But this is not my choice. If I consider everything is my choice, then at the same time I also see that it does not affect knowing the knowingness of my own Self. It doesn't leave any scratch, Father. If I don't ask you, then whom shall I ask? You know these subtle things. If you tell me to keep my mouth shut and let everything pass and just be an infant, I will do that. If you feel like replying to this, you reply. Whatever you say, because all this has been triggered by my Master. If I was capable, then why did it not happen before? Guruji tested me, so I know whatever is being played is being played by Guru, by my Guru. He shows me what I see. It is absolutely no doubt about it.

So whatever you said so far, the one that was most attractive for me was when you said I can let all of these pass and I can be just like an infant. And if you say I will do it, this for some time, yes, fine, fine, fine. Father, that is fine. Actually, you know, sometimes there is a debouncing again and again, again and again. So because the interpreter comes in between, you know, an interpreter, thinker, analyzer, you know, it comes in between and I don't hide it within myself. I expose it immediately before you. An infant even doesn't have that position. It is not even knowing whether it is hiding or exposing. Whatever happens, this happens naturally.

That would be best. That would be just the best. I read it's there, Father. So clear of desire and fear is also part of appearance and it is also part of playing as the rest of the world. Yes, yes, yes, my dear. That's why I am saying that all of this depends on our perspective. If we are still somewhere holding on to a limited notion about ourself, then we must not be in a rush to claim any of the world as an appearance. Because if we still consider ourselves to be an entity within the view, then our focus should remain on finding who we are. Once it is seen that I am beyond this play, then all these words will be very natural. The clear of desire, clear of fear. Because once you have seen what you are, as you are seeing what you are, then you will find that the potential of any of these appearances—desire and fear—to cause any real suffering goes away. Because the misunderstanding that there is a snake which can bite you is taken away.

In themselves, no appearance, including desire and fear, are a problem. It is only the interpretation of them as something which creates the trouble. So as checking of the reality of what you are, as you are seeing that this is all part of the coming and going of appearance, you will see that sometimes there can be the appearance of wanting something, the appearance of fear from something, but it will not be held onto. Do not make a thing now to feel. And then I say sometimes, so if the part of the play, the appearance can continue. But that's what I was saying earlier: it is usually seen that in those aspects of consciousness which have come to the recognition of what they truly are, then the appearance of these qualities does not become sticky. It does not become part of the condition.

A lot of some sort of an individual feel that his life proceeds without him. Father, whatever means happening in functioning will happen without intervention from this false imagined one. Right, Father? Something is haunting the usual.

Yes, big 'Yes,' capital Y-E-S. She will this feeling of reassurance continuation because as the switching over of power, you see, and this virtual world is all smooth conceptual. Actually, it is only consciousness that has always run our life. But our the seeming switchover happened from the individual, our individual ego, to Being itself. Then there can be this feeling, more this is what I was saying, ugliness, shakiness. And as there, I know that sometimes this reassurance is needed: everything will be taken care of. So when you took the question itself, it says whatever needs happening in functioning will happen without the intervention of this false imagined one. The question itself has the answer, isn't it?

Now, if something is false or just imagined, can that really intervene in the happening and functioning of life? Since FEMA is what we were saying when you were here: if I see the non-existent blue cat spilt that bowl of milk over there, he is talking crazy. So if it is an imagined one, how would it do something in this life? So in that way, naturally this kind of fear can come. Like you said, some fear came. Like you said, enough fear can come, which we also know is actually unwarranted. Sometimes we need just some reassurance that everything is taken care of, and that reassurance is always there with capital Y-E-S. All comes out.

My problem, let's see if we can get to twenty verses, eight to twenty verses. Five days we can finish the chapter. 'He who has seen the supreme Brahman thinks I am Brahman, but he who has transcended all thought, what can he think? He who knows, he knows no other than Self.' He who has seen the supreme Brahman thinks 'I am Brahman,' but he who has transcended all thought, what can he think? He knows no other than Self. So you might have seen any aspect of consciousness which Shiva—no, I said this or I'll have to clarify.

There are two ways in which we define Shiva. One is as this pure Self, as awareness itself. When we say come to your Shiva nature, we come into that Shiva which is even beyond consciousness, which is Shakti. Shiva and Shakti. So that is one way in which Shiva is used in Indian spirituality. The second way in which Shiva is used in spirituality is to look at three aspects of consciousness. If you were to look at your consciousness and give it some aspects, one simple way to do that is to say the Creator is one aspect. That aspect of God which is the Creator is one aspect, which is Brahma. That aspect of God which is the sustainer, the provider, gives this life energy, life essence, that is Vishnu. And then the regenerator to despoil, the one that leads to all of this get impression of again clean up, clean up job happening, it's Shiva.

So here I'm saying you might have seen the supreme aspect of consciousness, which is Brahman himself, and you might say, he might pick it up as a concept, 'I am Brahman.' But he who has transcended all thought or creating, that means what thought has any value? To enough any meaning or relevance? Good enough. So beyond all of this, even the aspects of—and the mind can only operate within the aspects of consciousness—give you reports from within this phenomena. You, as glorious as the play might be, who are transcended all thought, he will know the play itself is nothing greater than the discovery of this thing.

Even Arjuna's perception of Krishna is the enormous on the Veera truth. We saw the form of Krishna, maybe in chapter seventeen of the Bhagavad Gita—I might be wrong about the chapter numbers. Conversation, Krishna sharing the truth of the Self, but Arjuna is playing the role of the typical seeker and after someone and he starting to get frustrated and say, 'Show me, show me real form,' because he's still very attached to the form. Krishna says, 'Okay, let me show you the form which is beyond any other form that you have so far to see.' And he sees this almost magnificent form of Krishna in which all the universes are coming and going, life and death are in service. It is calm, everything, the most magnificent form that you can imagine.

Hadn't seen as a reception of Arjuna did a simple recognition of the service even through the pointing, 'Are you aware now?' is beyond any form, including that form. The formless Krishna, obviously that Krishna is pointing to, most of the rest of the data is more valuable that it was seen. Arjuna also came to the discovery actually much later, closer to his death, and that's the story for another day. Oh, we can get great spiritual experiences. We can see all kinds of lights and fire. You might even see all these universes bouncing around in place to clear. But if you make worldly concepts out of them and just eat them to our sense of specialness, they will only contribute to a spiritual ego. If they remain as the pointers that they are, going to be open our mind to go beyond our current perceptions and point to the formless nature of your own Self, that is the right use of spiritual experiences.

So my sharing from what appeals to is like a constriction for them along with.

You might even see all these universes bouncing around in space, but if you make worldly concepts out of them and just add them to your sense of specialness, they will only contribute to a spiritual ego. If they remain as the pointers that they are, they are going to open our mind to go beyond our current perceptions and point to the formless nature of your own Self. That is the right use of spiritual experiences, you see.

So, my sharing from what appeals to you is like a constriction for them. Along with the 'you,' also sharing that 'it's my problem now.' You have reported and you have surrendered it; it is my problem. Don't give it another thought. It is my problem. You don't need to give it another thought. It is the same as saying 'forget about it.' If you give it to me and then you keep feeding it with more thoughts—'Is it gone yet? Is it done yet? Is he further taking care of it in this way?'—that's again feeding it. The fire example is very good. So, if you throw it in the fire, do you jump back into the fire and see how it's going or how the burning is going? He himself, the controlled one who sees his own destruction... but the great soul is not destructive. He has nothing to achieve, nothing to do. He's the man of knowledge. He may live as an ordinary man, but he is not. He sees he is neither focused nor destructive and finds no fault with himself.

He's answering the question: 'How does he live?' He is the man of knowledge, lives as an ordinary man, but he is not. And we explain why he is not. He sees he is neither focused nor destructive and finds no fault within himself. 'Within himself' means what? The play of the gunas is no longer something he sees as his own actions. Like I said, he sees this body being used as a divine instrument. If we cannot blame the non-existent entity for any action, who is not just to blame but also to praise? All praise which is offered here, he also recognizes as offered to this Guru, which is neither praise nor being mistaken personally.

He who is beyond existence and non-existence, who is wise, satisfied, free of desire, there is nothing, though the world may see him. Depending on the same point: he who is beyond existence and non-existence, who is wise, free of desire, there is nothing the world may see here of motion. Sometimes we have these kinds of questions. Someone asked me after Satsang, I was sharing a little bit about learning about this direct or intermittent fasting. She asked me, very, very interested in fasting: 'If you see that you are beyond the body, then why do you play the motion of this, including the play of taking care of this body?' To some level, you are neglecting the body; to some flavor of opposites, it still continues without the notion of picking up this individual. Some solution to the play continues, but there is no sense that 'I am doing it.' I am as much watching this play of Ananta as you are. Nothing special in this. You are as much watching the play of Ananta. Now, I know many of you, as consciousness, we are perceiving this play. We're watching this body. It seems so intimate in sensations and its perspective, representing the position of witnessing, and it is running in with each other. It's not just the idea that a non-existent entity is doing something or not doing something.

So, joking again, once I discovered that I am not the doer, then should I go and tell her that we are getting into the flow of life? What will stop mostly is predicting it, desiring it only this way, not that way, wanting the quality of the appearance or the content of the appearance to change in some way. All of these are requirements that come from the mind, the requirements of the limited vision of our self. Most of that gets dropped too. We also never pick up the idea that 100% it will be thought-free. There is no 100% in this phenomenal world. You might even suffer for a few seconds. When we say 'end of suffering,' it doesn't mean that oh, some sorrow cannot come. They come, and if they come with great strength, they might even take over this phenomenal play of the body, but you will not find the light here that there is somebody for whom it is suffering. We might buy into the idea of the sufferer, and the player of the world is also designed with that which is not resistive in this way. Also, that which seems to last very long, so far that has been my experience, that which is not ego-fulness seems to lose its fight very easily. But if you have the expectation that it must not exist, then that is the fight.

He who is beyond existence and non-existence, who is wise, satisfied, free of desire, there is nothing the world may see him. The wise one is not troubled by action or inactivity. The wise one is not troubled by action or inactivity. He lives happily doing whatever gets done. Doing whatever gets done today is like without him, like doing whatever gets done like a leaf in the wind. The liberated one is untethered from life. Like a leaf in the wind, the liberated one is untethered from life, desireless, independent, pure, untethered. So, we have been tethered to this identity and to the concept of 'myself.' Now, flying free like a leaf, not tethered to anything, no mistaken identity, no preconceived notions.

One who has transcended the world, there is no joy or sorrow. With a still mind, he lives on with no body. One who has transcended the world, there is no joy or sorrow. To the still mind, he lives on with no body. So, we explain all these points of view. If anyone is still scared of some of this, why? Because it might be a scary notion for many. One whose mind is serene and spotless does not desire to give up anything, nor does he miss what is not there. One whose mind is serene and spotless does not desire to give up anything, nor does he miss what is not there. His mind being in a natural state of emptiness, the wise one knows nothing of honor and dishonor. He does what comes to be done. His mind being in a natural state of emptiness, the wise one knows nothing of honor and dishonor, he does what comes to be done from this day forward.

Now, one who acts, knowing 'this is done by the body, not by I, the Self,' indeed does nothing, no matter how much acting takes place. Not by the body in general, but as a movement of consciousness itself. I, the ultimate I, am not concerned with all of these movements of consciousness. That one becomes free. You see that he indeed does nothing, no matter how much acting takes place, how much action takes place. Although 'acting' has another meaning also, which applies: the liberated one acts without claiming to be acting. But he is no fool; he is blessed and happy. He will do in the world what is happening. I won't get into every line, even though 'in the world' means it is countering the notion which is also spoken from a different place and has some truth in it, of course—the notion that the world is suffering. As long as the world is existing, then suffering must be there. That is a misunderstanding. To consider yourself to be an object within this world, a limited entity in this world, is the cause of suffering. The world by itself, running in its own rhythm, unchanged, cannot lead to suffering. So, it is saying you can do the play of the world, it continues, but the end of suffering starts here.

What I want to make this point about suffering: some of you might say, 'Why is it said, especially in Advaita, that suffering starts and suffering ends?' That's a very valid question. Why do we focus on this end of suffering? One must understand the end of suffering. It is because in the design of this play, unless there is this egoic identity, unless there is the belief in this limited self, this aspect called suffering cannot happen. Because suffering means not a pure energetic appearance. You can see anger can be looked at as a pure energetic appearance. Something happens, something triggers, and anger comes. Now, how to make anger into resentment? Can you do it without mixing egoic beliefs with them? How to make not just anger into resentment... how will you make an action that happened—suppose you shouted at your children—shouting happened at the children, how will you make that movement into guilt? Can you do it without mixing egoic identity, mixing the false with the truth? How will you make something said which helped another one in a great way—suppose you were with someone, something was said, and they really said 'Thank you, that helped me so much'—how would you convert that movement of appearances into pride? You cannot do it without mixing the egoic identity.

So, suffering is just a play. All of these degraded emotions are like that. It means that you take this pure emotion, which might be a sensation which might be coming, mix it up with some thoughts about yourself, and then it becomes... anger becomes resentment, appearances become really degraded. So, suffering is just a generic name for all of these degraded emotions you're experiencing in your life, or seem to be experiencing. And you say that this is now as morning, they'll be coming, and your insight about what you are will lead you then to not pick up this individualized 'I' term to create more of the trouble you already saw. Resentment, regret, remorse—any of these qualities of suffering that we spoke about are not possible unless you accept some sensation with the individual 'I.' That is why it is seen that those who come to this discovery and more and more are letting go of the false conditions of all teachers, they come to the end of their suffering. This is like saying they come to the end of guilt and pride. Once everything always was the play of consciousness, but we are talking about now the mechanics of the design of consciousness itself, and it apparently seems to work in this way. Unless you pick up the notion of a limited 'I,' you cannot play with experiences such as guilt and pride. That is why it is hammered over and over again that you come to your end of suffering only in your own recognition.

Now, yes, like every notion, there is a downside to this notion. And the downside of this notion also is that 'suffering comes to an end' is handed over to the seeker identity, the rampant seeker identity called the 'checker guy.' I call it the checker guy, which then uses that itself, like the appearance of any sensation, and says, 'See, you're still suffering.' And they thereby enhance egoic belief and therefore enhance suffering itself in the loop, you see. So, when it's handed over to the ego itself, where suffering must come to an end, then it can become a terrible notion. Therefore, this statement, this 'end of suffering,' is a species statement of finding about the play of this life. It must not become a column in your report because you will use concepts, right? 'I should no longer feel guilt,' to make yourself feel guilty. So, one is the report of how the design of consciousness and the function of this play works, and the second is the motions of trying to get there and trying to come to it forcefully, which itself seems to amplify the trouble. Are you hearing me? Are you hearing what I'm saying? Because it's a bit subtle. If your hands are truly open, then this notion of suffering will seem more and more clear. If they are closed, if there is resistance, if there is just conceptual understanding, then it might seem like such suffering still perpetuates. And if suffering still seems to perpetuate, then don't beat yourself up. So that at that time, the notion that suffering must end just remains in you as an empty function. It is important to present both sides of this to you. Many will present just one side, and that might cause confusion for themselves. And I know that especially those who attend Satsang long enough now are able to see this from both perspectives. Thank you all so much for being here today.

It is important to present both sides of this to you. There are many who will present just one side and that might cause confusion in themselves. I know that especially those who have attended Satsang long enough now are able to see this from both perspectives. Thank you all so much for being here today.

Satguru Sri Mooji teacher, yes. Why don't we meet? Evening, evening, I'm here many times. Are you looking? And I say like that, it's okay, but many times I mistake I tell people.