Lets First Establish Who This 'Me' Is - 27th June 2016

It depends on how much you suffered, actually. If you suffered a lot, mostly those who come to satsang, they run out of moves as people. They run out of moves as people, and to them, option two seems the most attractive. For example, when I read your message, I knew you were inclined to option one. But when I read it, I was like, 'Who will choose option one?' because option two seemed so beautiful. No matter what happens here, you see, there can be no suffering. For most of us who are in satsang in this way, I feel that there has been enough suffering. So you don't want to be able to analyze life and continue suffering; you'd rather drop all of this or analyze the primal question, which is 'Who am I?' So that itself is a blind spot in the mind's approach, isn't it? 'I want to analyze everything that appears, but to whom it appears,' that it doesn't want to look at.

And so, for those for whom that is clear, yes, I don't want to suffer. I don't care what life brings because I'm not suffering from it anyway. You see, once I'm clear that I don't want to go with this mind, there is no way in which I can suffer. Then it doesn't really matter what happens in this life. That is surrender. Including his point that I commented on, the other point that I made is that if you let go of the mind—and then I gave the example that there are many species or beings on this planet in whom the process of life is such that the mind is not at a very developed stage, presumably. We don't know, but presumably, as it seems obvious. And in those beings, it is very apparent that their lives or their functioning or the involvement in their life is very primal. Like you could find many, many beings, millions of beings, who are not very intelligent and questioning 'What is truth?' and 'What is not truth?' and 'Who am I?' and 'Is there anything outside of the field of my perception and experience?' They don't have any of these kind of inquisitiveness. But if you look at their life, then basically their life is just contained within the experience of survival and procreation, because for them, life is just this, nothing beyond that.

Yes, so regarding the second option, I get your point. Also, we might feel that our lives are much more sophisticated than that, you see, but I have seen this: if you don't get a place to sit and you have to stand on one leg, you might be hearing the best satsang but you keep saying, 'What is this? What is this? I can't even sit, I can't even sit.' You see, it becomes primal. If you don't sleep for one night, then it becomes very basic. Things become very basic: 'I just need to sleep, I don't care what's being said.' The same thing if you skip, like you're fasting, so you skip some meals; it becomes very basic. So basically our primary concern continues to be these primal needs: sleep, food, breathing. You stop your breath for some time and then discuss spirituality—it doesn't happen. So although humans might feel that we are much more evolved and sophisticated, at the basic, very primal level, it continues to be the same.

Now, because it seems like we've come to a stage where all these things—survival, food—they don't seem to be so primary, that's why we have been able to look at this deeper subject. But I feel to go deeper according to the mind is still a bit superficial. Can we go even deeper? What is the point of exploring what something means to me? The mind can help me supposedly explore what something means to me, you see, or how I can interact and engage with that something in this realm of appearances. So if I raise this question, 'Is what I am experiencing right now, this physical realm, is it real?'—yes, but if you are not experiencing it, why would you want to contemplate it? That's what I mean when I ask what something means to me. What does the realm mean to me? If it wasn't yours, like 'Why does this person behave like this?'—if they weren't engaging with you, it wouldn't matter. You see? 'Why do I get pulled towards the earth and not away from the earth?' You would not want to explore if you didn't feel the resistance. If they didn't experience these effects, it would not really matter to them, isn't it? They want to understand their world. This is the primary: 'Me, my world, my life, my universe.'

So what would be the deepest contemplation, or the simplest—let's not even say deepest—let's first establish who the 'me' is. Because if everything is about the 'me,' let's establish who the 'me' is. So if we change your two options: the second option we already said is surrender, but the first option is self-inquiry. You see? Because before we can say what this is for, 'Let me analyze this, let me analyze that,' can I analyze who I am? For me, that seems primary.

From the perspective of the one who is involved and identified with the mind, then to go along with any exploration, it first needs a motive for that exploration. So if you raise this question of 'Who am I?', then just for curiosity it's okay. But if you are really giving up everything just to explore this question, then it's bound that it will raise this question: 'What's in it for me?'

Yes, yes. But the point is, you said that option one is useful because it helps me analyze and inquire into life. You see, even if you say it's motivated because 'What's in it for me?', you wanted to question life. So at the root of all the mind's questions is the idea of this 'me.' See, if I tell you that fifty galaxies away there is a small star which is half the brightness of our star, it doesn't matter to you. But if I tell you that from tomorrow onwards our star is going to become fifty percent less bright, you know, at the end of human existence, it immediately matters. You want to ask why, what happened? You see? So at the root of all the mind's analysis is this idea of 'me.' So first, can we get validation about who this 'me' is? Clarity about who this 'me' is? It says, 'What's in it for me?' I know that is the mantra of the mind: 'What's in it for me?' So can we at least find out who the 'me' is? What's in it for who? That is self-inquiry, and that's why you're here.

If you truly choose only option one, you will not come to satsang. You leave the mind, leave this mind—that's the point. So see it in this way: simply, you want to enjoy the periphery for some time, and I understand that feeling. It's okay, I understand that feeling. You see, what does the 'me' want? 'I want to understand how flowers bloom and how God has created this world,' and all of that is fine, I understand. But at the end of all of this analysis and inquiry, you will come to a point and say, 'Okay, who is the me at the center of all of this?' Don't skip this question of self-inquiry. Don't escape it. What do you find?

I find it's always a mystery.

You find this? I am happy speaking Advaita because it brings us a lot of integrity in the conversation. This is good to have this out. You find that it's a mystery as to who I am. The 'I' who finds the mystery is a mystery, right? That's what you're saying, isn't it?