God´s Will or Free Will? - 15th June 2016

So what does this ego look like that is separate from the 'I am'? This is the hard way. Unless it becomes 'I am something,' it cannot become the devil. The devilishness is only once you add something to the sense 'I am,' the greed to attach. So 'I am' itself has to believe something about itself. The gap seems very, very... I'm hearing a little bit of it like, 'Oh, I don't know why,' and now it's gone. Help me. Tell me.

No, no, I was fine. I think the gap in some context is very, very narrow or small between the thought and another thought of the ego that is picking up some baggage, some memory. And then there is that sense of, 'Oh, the second thought on that conveyor belt is looking at the first thought and believing it,' while all of that is observed. But sometimes because the gap is so short, there isn't that space to really internalize it in a way.

So let's look at whether this is really possible: that the thought went past and while it is going past, it is waiting for the next thought to see what is coming next and it decides to believe it or not. This change, if it goes like this... no, but not always. It's in the memory. All right. So I don't know where the memory is. Memory is another thought as well. Okay. So let me take another example which would make this clear. If I told you, 'Ron, you're a terrible figure skater,' does it matter to you? This plan, figure skater, ice skater, whatever—doesn't matter. What if they say, 'Ron, you've been in Satsang so long, but I don't see you understood anything at all. It's been a complete waste.' Does it matter? Which other one doesn't have any pinch at all, and one has the king of some things? Why is that so? This is what you are talking about. The one which identified—the habit of identification is with ice skating. Maybe if you were an Olympian ice skater and someone came and told you, 'You're a terrible ice skater,' it would pinch. But because that is not being nourished in your case, it doesn't, you see? But if there is this seeker identity or someone who wants things in Satsang, and if something is spoken about that, then that seems to have a pinch about something. Listen. So this is somewhat what you are saying, that you still get some interest in the thought which is coming. But it is not the thought of the seeker itself which is the thought or not. It is still consciousness posing as if it is this something, the seeker. Then it takes it on as an attack, or he is like, 'Something is not nice about this particular thought.' Right. Over. So there is no 'a thought.' There is nothing but this momentary energetic construct. This sense of separation seemingly feeds on these thoughts, these energy constructs, and seems to become either stronger or weaker. So that which we call the conditioning—the increase of the conditioning and the toppling of the conditioning—is just what has been fed, the attributes which have been believed about the 'I am.' So thought by itself has no power of belief. Only belief belongs to consciousness, to Being. So just to clarify that 'I am God' and 'I am devil' example: it is just that once we take on this perspective of being, 'Oh, I am Ron and like this, these are my attributes,' then we seem to operate from that perspective. All of our belief system seems to color our seeing of what we are. So if you can make it very simple to say 'I am anything,' but actually speaking as if you are the voice of the thoughts or the voice of the devil, but even in pretending as if 'I am something,' 'I am this' or 'that,' no actual person, no actual ego, and no actual separation actually happened, isn't it? Now, did you lose me somewhere in all of this?

If I... no, a little bit of echoes. If I heard you, then certain thoughts still trigger the conditioning, which is yet another thought. But the first thought that triggered another thought, it's not there; it's gone. It's just an energy construct that triggered another thought, and the triggered thought is believed in, so it feels real. But it's still only the 'I am' that has the power of believing that thought. And yet all of that is within as it is, then, appearance. So there is no separation. I'm kind of lost, though. How do we get here? That's really great to say what you say. So is there something in this which you see differently? This relates to what Robert... not there is that conditioning of an expectation that certain behaviors would change or feelings. And in this context, I don't know if I'm explaining well, but there's that thought that comes up with the seeker: 'Okay, what do I do with this? Because there's still that problem.' You know, that problem being whatever behavior that the seeker doesn't like. So how do we get... how do we remove that? And 'this doesn't help me' kind of thing, you know?

Yes, this is good. So let me take a story which might seem a little bit of a digression, but actually it is not. One day I realized while looking at a mirror that a mirror, because it's two-dimensional, lies too. So when you're looking at it straight, then it doesn't tell you about how far your paunch has gone. So you have to look at it sideways, and you realize that when you're looking at it side-on, it's turned off. So it isn't so. So let's say that this extent of the fat which is already there in the body is the existing behavior or the existing condition. So we say that, 'Yes, yes, all of this not believing the new thoughts is not adding to the conditioning, but how do I get rid of the existing condition? So how do I get rid of the existing fat? I'm not eating new fat, but how do I get rid of the existing fat?' Just by not eating fat. It is actually like this: that existing conditioning can be there, the existing potbelly can be there, but the only way to let it dissolve is to just not intake fresh fat. There is no need for an operation. Although we can say that every time we inquire into who we are, every time we recognize this moment who we are, a lot of this fat dissolves. And yet, actually, even if that is not happening, unless you're picking up fresh ideas, those patterns, those tendencies, vasanas, conditioning—whatever you call them—are dissolving in their own way unless you keep nourishing them with new stuff. So although it might seem like, 'Okay, it is telling me not to pick up new conditioning, but how does it help my existing condition? How are we getting rid of that?' It is happening on its own. We cannot survive without your nourishment of fresh food. Could it be a disease? Actually, conditioning repeats without you nourishing it. It can be that the activity of the body feeds it. It can be that some energetic sensations can come again and again, but the belief will be put on them. But without our nourishing the interpretation of them, they will not last.

Yeah, and I think that was my understanding also from the free will discussion: that the activities and these decision points or a seeming choice will continue, but the problem, if you will, is only believing the interpretation that comes afterward by the mind, or before, saying, 'You have to make a decision,' or 'You see, you made a decision or a wrong decision.' But so long as that interpretation is not bought, the rest of it is completely fine. Exist one and the same. And conditioning... even if there is seemingly the activity keeps going, coming up, and for sure the mind is going to keep... the checker is going to keep saying, 'You see, you missed it again.' But if that is not bought, then it's fine. Because I think that was where it was sneaky, where the checker is going to keep coming back in.

Yes, this is very well spotted also, because this is the mind pretending to be your spiritual guide. 'I see you didn't do that properly. You should have done this like this. You're still not getting it.' Who made this one the spiritual guide? Who? What? Who made this one the spiritual guide? The mind. It takes up that position also. It says, 'See, now you didn't do that properly. What you were supposed to do is this.' Yes. Yeah, I feel like medicine... so I got the medicine that the mind offers up is more of the disease, actually, than actually helping with the disease. And the sense of doership is very subtle as it's not the activity. Yes. And I had great fun experimenting with doership, and I would suggest that all of you, instead of making it such a...

Who made this one the spiritual right? The mind, it takes up that position also. It says, 'See, now you didn't do that properly. What you were supposed to do is this.' Yes, yeah.

I feel like medicine... so I got the medicine that the mind offers up is more of the disease actually than actually helping with the disease. And the sense of doership is very subtle, as it's not the activity. Yes, and I had great fun experimenting with doership. And I would suggest that all of you, instead of making it such a difficult sounding topic and trying to mentally analyze it, play with it. Ask yourself: How do you move your body? How do you speak the next word? How do you decide to do certain actions? Who is deciding? Play with it like a game, and then it will reveal itself that everything is just moving on its own. Don't make it very serious, just play with it. Until then, you move your hand, decide to move your hand and see how did you actually move it? Irrespective of the decision, how did it actually happen? How did you actually move your hand? Who is the one that moved it? Who is the one that's speaking these words? Who is the one that is listening? Like a game, like a play, have fun with it.

Who is the one that is nice to have fun with it? Reminds me of a beautiful pointing that Rupert Spira had of asking: Is there anything that you know except for the knowing of the experience? And that was kind of a mind-bender, or a twister, what would he call it, for me initially when I heard it. But you keep pondering it. It's something just sunk in at a certain stage and there is no substance, there is no object that I am in contact with. So of course, I can't be a doer of anything. That is all just Consciousness. And yet the feeling is still very usual, I want to say normal, I don't know what to call it. But it's a beautiful point.

There was nothing but the experience, but the knowing of that experiment, of whatever experience is happening. What you said when you're moving, like I went swimming now, I can't even... there's just the bundle, seeming sense that I associated with the body, but I can't say that I know how to swim or I know what water is. And where is all of this happening? It's just happening and there's a knowing of that happening. And so all of that must happen within the knowing.

Look at that, how beautiful. This is very good. Another way to play this, like what you say: So if this body is just this bundle of flesh, blood, basically all the food that we've eaten, then who is that that is moving this bundle of flesh? And what is a part of this flesh and blood, the 'me' that says 'I will do this and I will do that'? How does it interact? At what level does it interact with this layer of flesh and blood? And if it is also made up of flesh and blood, then why don't I find this 'me' in an operation, in a surgery? Who is this 'me' that is moving this flesh? And then the idea might come that, 'Oh, I must be the brain. The brain is controlling the movement.' So brain is flesh. If I'm just the brain, then how does it matter what my bank account is and what my relationships are? Look at these things. Say, 'Okay, if I am the doer, I'm moving this body, and from where am I controlling this body? How is it? Am I sitting inside the head?' To move this bucket of flesh and blood, do I need to be flesh and blood? These are very beautiful contemplations and experiments. And my only advice would be don't get very serious about it. Have fun with it. See how the hand is moving, words are flowing. Then it doesn't feel like frustrating, depressing. It feels like, 'Oh, this is my fresh experiment today, fresh experiment.'