There Is No Answer to the Question 'Who Am I?' - 27th October 2017

We are not... we're not talking about that aspect yet because what has happened is that so far our tools of gathering have been used to gather phenomenal things. So we are actually that inward movement of essential. So now, about the rest of you... but you are there. You not even talk about which 'you,' what that 'you' is, anything. But if I see, do you exist right now? It doesn't matter whether there is screen, and the answer 'yes' is not come from a concept that I have to exist. It is just so naturally. So this is what is meant, like natural, effortless, natural, not cropped up, unsupported by any phenomena, unsupported by any constant, and supported by any energy. That existence is here.

So here we are just checking and empty of all that is concepts that you might know, anything that we might know even about the satsang and what is shared here. And I say, do you exist? If you do, who with the mental concept of existence and here? So here we can converge to start with. Now, if we were to define pain as something we just thumbs up nately, it comes and goes, but suffering as something which requires a sense of something happening to me, something happening soapy images, the energetic experience of a movement in consciousness. But suffering means that is a 'me' which is involved. 'Why does this happen to me? I hope this doesn't continue until tomorrow because I have something important.'

So irrespective of whatever energetically might be appearing now within this existence, can I suppose this very moment is there of 'me' here who has a life, who has a plan, who has grievances, who has resentment, as pride, as humility, as regrets? Right here, right now, only through your direct insight, the same way that you have been checking to find the one that has any problem. Keeping it there, as I said, distinguish between pain and suffering. We said be a fun any energetic we thought about this is there, but is there a owner, individual owner of this problem? And if there is, where is that one? What does it look like? If there is a problem with a relationship, but there is a problem with money, there's any problem, even the freedom problem, where is the one that has that one?

The body isn't concerned about money. Emotions towards money cannot touch any of this. Where is the one that has any problem in the openness, the nakedness of the right now, empty of any mass? If you are not presuming anything at all, then you're just looking. Do you find this one? Thought is labeling a certain 'why.' Why it's true is because the 'me' which could have the problem itself is not there. See, this is important to see because the 'me' has remained as a presumption. You can rely on our knowledge; it says, 'Now this part I know what they are doing.' So when we are looking now, we are actually doing the audit and seeing whether there is such a entity there.

So if there is no such entity there, then what can it have, including a problem? It cannot have because there is no such entity there. What color is the necklace of the... look at on that table, like that necklace of the blue cat on the table? So non-existent. So that's way more important to say that how there is no necklace hint is to see that there is no blue cat at all. Within the possibility of necklace itself is taken away. You see what I'm saying? If there was a 'me' and you find that that actually can be no problem for this 'me,' it's a nice pointing, you see. But to see that there is no 'me' like that at all which could have that accessory called a problem is that it cannot have any such possibility.

But as long as there... if there was a limited, if there was an individual 'me,' then maybe you feel today, 'Okay, God is taking care of all my problems,' something like that. But then tomorrow it could feel like, 'Whoa, what is testing me with?' So we can switch from perspectives about having a problem or no, but as long as the 'me' idea is still there... so we are really exploring the root of this regime. Is there such a one which is here right now? What he seems to appear, towards him to appear, emotions seem to appear, 'me' seems to appear, but the one that is concerned about relationship or security or how life should be, power should be perceived, all of these things, that one, can we find exactly that? That's how we come to the 'not applicable.' Can you come to you that is actually not applicable? I'm originally in the world of for seconds, yeah, well, but actually it does not apply when he comes when you see that there is no such 'me' here. I am to see that it is the presumption, and we are going to get into now how that presumption comes about.

So can everybody see that there is no such 'me' inherently in this now? Here in now, you cannot find this. We look at some of the messages I'm getting in a bit. I just want to follow along like this. You see right here and now, let's take a simpler example. Where is the one that has or had any concern about the security, money, the state of the world, any of these things? Do you find this one? And what is the shape or size of this one? 'I exist'—this was undeniable, most of you said yes. Oh, my effortless. And now we are looking for that one. It's a fourth chance problem. We're looking for even the seeker who is seeking freedom. I need the one that has any sort of lack. Your naturalness right here and now, you will come across such an entity. Is there such an entity?

Do you find the limited one, the one that has any boundary at all? So he says, 'What is the term boundary and what does it mean now? What is the constituent?' So the limited identity that most of us seem to carry enough to say is 'what I do.' So where do you actually and hand at the body? But what is our actual experience of this? How are you experiencing your body now? Solute content of the body experience: you have the visual perspective, the sensation which seem to define the boundary. So there's a virtual perception and there are taraji sensations. Now this visual perception and these sensations, where are they being experienced? Is knowledge. So what is the boundary of that visual? Is there? His sound is there, and the sensation of the body are there.

I know it can sound like a strange question. It's this to be with me for a bit and see that what I'm saying, these words are heard, that seemed space. The sensations of the body are felt in the same space. All these visuals are also experienced in the same schools. But one would call it like the stream of consciousness, but we don't have to worry about given those words. Where is all of this happen experienced now? Mind I said that this is my boundary and the walls which I'm hearing, which is a month as words, is coming from outside of me because this is my boundary. For a minute, we are topping that, like a child who doesn't know whether this hand is the toy or the toy is the device. We don't have... we end up... we are not picking up the idea with 'this is my bomb.' And we're just going to go with our insight about where all of this is being experienced irrespective of whether the mind is defining.

So although it is very radical, if there is some... so that which we have taken as the violet voice for the 'me,' that is what we are questioning now, which is the mind itself and its presumptions. So now, if you don't just blindly follow what the mind is saying, you say, 'Okay, Mr. Mind, this is what you are saying, but let me check this for myself.' Then do you find that the sensation of the body which seem to define your boundary is actually happening in the boundless space of you? It is not a physical experience, but we just have to use it. So we save all the space of you. Are you like the water which is contained inside the glass, and suppose the boundary of the glass had some sensa—

Its presumptions. So now, if you don't just blindly follow what the mind is saying, you say, 'Okay, Mr. Mind, this is what you are saying, but let me check this for myself.' Then do you find that the sensation of the body, which seemed to define your boundary, is actually happening in the boundless space of you? It is not a physical experience, but we just have to use it, so we say the space of you. Are you like the water which is contained inside the glass? And suppose the boundary of the glass had some sensations; so are you experiencing it like the water within the glass experiencing the boundaries outside of yourself at your edge? Or are these boundaries also contained within that same space of existence where this voice is heard, the traffic is heard, and any experiences? So what is experience? What do you experience? When it is mixed up to the mind, then it seems to define a boundary thing. But in the experience itself, do you find any boundary to you? And look at where is that. It seems to be perceived as a boundary; where is that contained?

So, boundary means what? That there is a drop which is separate from the ocean. This is this type of drop of water which is contained in the ocean, and that drop will have a particular boundary here, here. We are just checking: really, are we this drop itself? Are we that ocean which contains all of these experiences of that which we have called previously 'me' and 'another', 'inside' and 'outside'? Where is all of that? Where is this body sitting in front of you? Where is that experience? That's within. The sound is experienced within. Everything is experienced within. Again, we are not yet talking about what that 'within' is, but in that same space where all the objects of perception are experienced, in the same space, even this seeming sensation of the body is experienced. Now, this is not a persistent thing. Now, a part of the boundary, for example, I have ears, but you were not even aware of your ears till I pointed them out, you see? In that moment, there is no perception of it.

One of my teachers used to say we feel like the body is defining us, but like your ear, you won't even know that you have an ear. So it is the sensations which seem to have been created as a definition for a 'me', but actually all of these are sensations. I mean, within might be any good that we walk together so far itself is very, very good. So what do we see? I exist unsupported, effortlessly, naturally. Existence is here no matter what the experience might be. I just have the one that has all the suffering, all the problems. I look for that one, but at least so far, I don't find a tangible entity that I can say that one is this. And I notice also that all that I perceive, which is like a perception or a sensation, is within the same existence that is here effortlessly, unsupported. You're good so far. See, on the track.

Yes, we will come to awareness in just a bit. There's a question of awareness; we will come to that in just a bit. Maybe I want to say something about... we have been talking about... come listen.

Here is something like this. It is about... I'm not sure if I put it... you know, I have a strong opinion. Okay, thank you. It is, you know, I'm just wondering, it is something like this personality structure here. It is, for example, it is very fearful, yeah, this structure. And I'm wondering how it is possible, you know, to experience all these fears and emotions, and I don't understand it anymore. I have no... I don't know how to put it. And I just don't understand how is it possible that the other personality stuff is still experienced and playing all there at the same time, you know? It is just nothing. It's just nothing.

Yeah, this is very good. This is very good. So this is exactly what brings us to the next point. So now, when we saw that there is existence here—I exist, I am—and as long as there is a sense that I exist, you know, all these energetic perceptions, whether we call them sensations, whether we call them thoughts, whether we call them emotions, basically it is all that which is the object of perception. So now, what is here effortlessly? And how do we even perceive something? We found that there is a boundaryless existence, and the limited one we have not found so far. Now we are going to dig a little deeper into what is the nature of this existence.

Now, as soon as I exist, the play of Maya unfolds. In this play of Maya, there are very intimate sensations which we call the body, intimate sensations that we call my emotions, intimate sensations that we call my thoughts. These are perceived by all aspects of consciousness which are experiencing themselves in this way. Sensations which we call the body, sensations which we call emotions, sensations that we call thoughts, we just saw. And sensations that we call perceptions and outer perceptions like the world, people, objects—all of these are perceived. We just did a stunning experiment and we saw that all of this is experienced within the same Being, within myself, you see? There is experience within myself, and we saw that this space is boundless.

Now, as our sensitivity is increasing, many of us will also experience sensations like the pain of another body, the emotion of another body, the thoughts of seemingly another body. How is this possible? Even now, if somebody falls in front of you, do you feel their pain? Even for the mildly sensitive, this happens. You see someone get hurt, 'Ouch!' comes here. How does it happen? You see that here is one piece of experiencing. Now, some sensations seem more intimate and some seem less intimate. Now, this space of Being, this space of existing, consists of every possible flavor of experience that consciousness can fathom, beyond even that which the mind can fathom. A flavor of every experience, whatever it wants to taste, is available to it.

But maybe we're going a bit too far. Let's come back to where we were. Say, 'I exist,' and this existence is beyond the boundary, but within this existence, any experience can show. This much everybody follows? Any experience can show. Now, there seems to be a force which is present which is called attention. So if attention goes to the world, then worldly perceptions seem to appear. Attention goes to the mind, then thoughts seem to appear. Attention goes to a different layer, then emotional experience seems to happen. Then ultimately, attention and Buddhi peep into this very same existence that we are talking about; beyond that, even the functioning of attention ceases.

So what are we discovering so far? Within this existence, there is a play of all of these phenomenal qualities. For these phenomenal qualities to be experienced requires this force that we call attention. That which does not have our attention seems to be present in our existence, but it does not have our attention. We cannot really say that it actually exists. You cannot confirm through your own insight the existence of anything which is beyond your current perception. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or it exists right now; I'm not saying any of that. So don't let your mind wander off. I'm just saying you cannot say what is happening in anything which is outside of your current perception. This much is clear. And all of this perception is happening within me, like we saw that it is happening within me. We don't know what this 'me' means yet, but it is clear that all that is being experienced is being experienced within.

Now, if I was to... if I had the ability to pick and choose what shows up within me, naturally, is it? We are not at the state that you want to say, 'You know, I want only chocolate ice cream and I don't want vanilla.' So naturally, all these things are coming and going, and the one that has the preference, the one that says, 'Okay, my experience should only consist of this or not of this,' that one is not there. So if you were to bring that one on, if you were to create a reference for yourself, if you were to say, 'This is what the next moment in my life will bring' or 'what every moment in my life will bring,' what would you have to do? In our natural state, no, this is there right now. We check: I am, I exist, but the one with all these preferences and ideas is not. And within this existence, all this phenomenal world is experienced, which is happening naturally. But if I had to actually say, 'You know, this is what I want' or 'this is what I need,' then what do you have to do? So is there that sense that 'I want something' now? If you had to create that, what would you have to do?

So you won't even worry about how the thought is created, but at least the thought has to be there.

Suppose the thought did not come.

Not possible.

So then thought came. Suppose it came. Just by the coming of that thought, do you want it? So the thought says, 'I want to own a villa in Alaska.' What is that choice? So thought is coming, that means it is perceived; attention is already on it. Now, there can be some sense of control over this attention, so we might say, 'Okay, okay, I am not going to pay attention to my thought.' But in your experience, that seems to create some struggles, isn't it? So try and fight attention away from it. So I just look the other way, and the thought will... who is it really? So it's magnetic to our attention in some way. So now, what has come? Attention is also gone naturally then. So thought is come, attention is gone: 'I really want to have a villa in Alaska.' So where does the choice operate? The seeming choice, as you say, what is that? What is that seeming choice?

So another thought would come. I say, 'This is completely feasible.' Then the next, 'You know, it doesn't make sense.' In this up and down way, it makes sense, then it doesn't. Look, it works in that up and down way.

Is just the coming of these thoughts and their attention to these forms causing any desire, causing any want? Observe. Go through. What you will find is that there is a primal force which is not even just attention. This is what we call belief. Now the thought comes, 'I want a villa in Alaska.' Attention can be fully on that thought, and yet that saying 'yes' to say that that thought is true, it is meaningful, that is not arising. This is an inherent part of consciousness, your existence, which we so far talked about—attention and how the perception happens with attention. We are now talking about belief.

Now, attention can bring all kinds of objects to light, but can you believe an object? If you perceive this object, can you believe or not believe it? It doesn't make sense because... so attention goes to it, so specs are there. So that is the play of attention. But attention is there on the specs; believe the specs or don't believe? No such thing. But if the thought is there, 'Oh, the specs are dirty,' then you see that the belief or not believe is not about the perception itself, but about the interpretation of the perception. It is not about the experience. Fear is experienced, but when we believe the idea 'I should not fear' or 'fear should go away,' that is what we call resistance. This is the invention of the new dimension of the 'I'. And you notice that attention is bringing every perception to life, but belief is only to an interpretation of a thought, about the concept, of the notion. Because in the object itself, there is nothing to believe or not believe. So belief applies to concepts.

Now, what did we notice? You notice that my existence is independent of my belief. What about my desire? 'I want my next experience which comes to be chocolate flavor.' Can you have this want without the concept?

In the space of Being, existence, about the sensory... initially the feeling was that the mind is the space in which this processing is happening. Now seeing that it's also another independent object in the space of Being.

The mind, yes. It's just another... like these, you see? It's another random thing. And it has its rounded boundaries of what is, but they have nothing to do with me. It is the question of how we define it. If we take a minute on that, so it becomes clear. In this existence, you know, these various, various qualities of perception that seem like...

Initially the feeling was that the mind is the space in which this processing is happening, not seeing that it's also another independent object in the space of living. The mind, yes, it's just another like—like these, you say, it's another random, yes, thing. And it has its rounded boundaries of what is, but they are nothing to do with me.

It is the question of how we define it. If we take a minute on that, so it becomes clear. In this existence, you know, these various, various qualities of perception that seem like sight, hearing, imagination, emotion—not only that, but sensations which we call the body. Then the leg sensation is different from the arm sensation. All these various flavors of sensations are there. Suppose we had no buckets. We defined any of the sensation—we don't say pain or pleasure is in the body sensation. We don't have any bucket. We don't say body, mind, nothing. It's just a set of sensations in our experience. Now, whatever attention goes to is the sensation, is the perception.

Now, for ease of communication, we have made these three buckets called the body, the mind, although we never—suppose we had none of those boundaries and everything is an experience of the sensation. What is undeniable is that I am. Within this being, all this perception is happening, all these sensations. At least now, for ease of communication, you can say, okay, let's take a concept called atoms, that which we call these sensations of imagination, let's call that mind. Some might say let's even put emotion—see, emotion is what some might see. Now, some might say why not take everything which is phenomenal and treat it like that? Using the word mind, mind contains everything here. Everything that you perceive is the mind. And sometimes mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts. So the containers containing to define a boundary, actually it is—it is also so that I don't want to call it stimulus and response because I want to say that everything which is phenomenal, both the stimulus and the response, let's call it a perception or a sensation or, you know, basically, you know...

So let this—you know, so I cannot define responses. Somehow by default, it's identified as me.

Exactly, this is the thing. So same way as we've got these theoretical constructs now. Hey, there are various, various millions of sensations, but we use some theoretical constructs called the body or the mind and we have defined them as buckets. We have one theoretical construct called the 'me' which we have taken to be the superset of these two other theoretical constructs of body and mind. So everything which is contained in this body, this mind, we have taken that to be me. But all three are theoretical concepts. There is no such thing. There is no such thing as the mind. There is no such thing as the body. Even physically, it's just a set of atoms seemingly hanging together for some unknown reason which a scientist also can't tell you why they have to be so. So there are these two to three theoretical concepts on the basis of which we have the sense of individuality.

Now, you're absolutely right. The response that seems to come from this body or from this mind about any of these sensations, we have labeled that and we said, 'This is my response. What is happening to me is coming from outside of me.' But as long as you can see that there is no direct experience of that, there is no insight of that, it is only a theoretical notion, you see? Then you can see a thing like this—it really sounds like very irritating Advaita sometimes. Everything is just happening. There is no me who is doing it. There is no me who's not doing it. You just have these kind of things when people say that. We're doing away with the theoretical notion of the 'me.' Doing away with the theoretical notion of there being a 'my.' The theoretical notion that there is everything in a set of sensations. Nothing actually divides anything. There is no boundary. Everything we experience within this existence, stimulus and response, is phenomenal. Actually, both are also theoretical constructs because it has to—it has somewhere the notion of cause and effect built into it. At some point this came, and the thought that came is also a distinct notion, isn't it? Both ideas, like the bird came and landed on the branch of the coconut tree. Coconut seller, can you really say the word? Yeah, if you want to take a theoretical construct which is more generic in both ideas: perceptions.

Oh, that is firstly—one could be perceived as a physical stimulus, that could be a response in the level of the energetic appearance, and yet just energetic appearances. So hence we remove this cause and effect, or as I like to say, everything has only one cause, which is consciousness. So this is what I am meaning. I know it got a bit technical in the middle and our audience might have dropped away. It is really important. I don't mind that. It is really important because we are now discovering what I have been speaking about: insights versus incidents. Insight—what is it that we actually find for us? If we see that a lot of perceptions are being experienced, but if I do move with any interpretation of them, first doubt your inferences. Then we will come to a point whether anything that we are having insight about has actually ever happened. But what you can truly say at least right now is that your inferences have been complete fairy tales and fantasies mostly.

So let's start with doubting our inferences. Then will come a point, I will tell you that even though these insights that you're having about yourself—there will come a time when you're like, but what's next? Like Maharaj, you say, 'I am.' There is no 'I.' Forget about even consciousness. Or you say, 'Oh, the I Am infection, are you suffering from it?' But right now it is not at a point where I can share these kind of things. So now we are leaving the tyranny, the misery of this non-existent ego as we are freed from that. One day we will leave the realm of consciousness, which you see that actually...

Father, please can you—I want to say something. Yeah, you know when, like, just when you said look and see if the person is there. Whenever you ask us to do that, then like where you took us to that place where you said, 'Okay, do you exist now?' And then in that, you know, in that direct experience of just existence. So they didn't seem—so later on I kind of recognized that this 'me' which you asked me to look for, does it exist? Is what I was calling my existence, you know? And you know, when you see that, you know that you first asked us because that existence, that was no boundary initially. You asked me if the person exists, but having seen that the person which is not a person came, is also the thing is though we also were boundaryless, no?

Yes, so a very important point to bring up is that when a thought comes, when the mind comes, it seems like the task which is assigned to it is to require consciousness itself—this existence—is actually a limited entity, is the person. So we're all so used to this notion that this seems to have become the underlying notion in our life: that I am a limited entity who is the body-mind. Now, as we are really checking, 'What is the boundary of my existence?' we're not finding it. We're finding that within my being there is all of this perception which is happening, but my being remains untouched, a space in all of this. So nothing can actually hurt me, nothing can touch me. The body can come and go, the thoughts can come and go, the emotions can come and go. What is it? You also can be left in the space of where they came in. Everything in this world which is phenomenal is coming and going, but it leaves no residue on our existence.

So the mind comes and says that amongst all the millions of sensations etc. that are appearing, there is a set of sensations which is you. You are the one that is sitting in this room; you are not the traffic on the street. In the innocence of an infant, this distinction is not there. Everything is a perception which is experienced without the boundary for me, without the sense of an other and one. This is true oneness which doesn't need the concept of oneness. I am not being one with the traffic on the street; it's just that no separation actually ever came. The distinction there—one is that I can cry and be one with everyone, I'm one with the Sangha, theory like that. There are those who see that, okay, actually there is no one here in that separately. There is no boundary that I can define which is me. This is what you are finding for yourselves when you check. In a minute of checking, you come into your boundless nature, seeing that in your existence you are holding all the perceptions that are coming and going.

If you throw all theoretical constructs away and we remain in the openness, in the nakedness of the perception itself, there is no me or you, there is no past or future. And all that we define this as often melts away. It's why I've been saying stay with your insights. Stay with your insights, don't pick up any incidents, any judgment, any emotion about anything at all. And this instruction also falls away fast because once you start to see this about yourself, you won't even have to stay with anything. Even your insight you cannot leave. It is the recognition of what is true by pointing to the seeming drop to check whether it is the drop or the ocean. And sometimes you'll hear the term, 'This drop is the ocean. Don't pick up the drop identity.' You will notice that actually I can only ever be the ocean. This is what you're finding for yourself: that your being is this unbounded space beyond space, timeless beyond time.

All this play of time and space can happen. Zillions of years, trillions and trillions of years can be experienced. Hundreds and thousands of thousands of lifetimes can be experienced, but nothing leaves a residue on your being in reality. Whatever memory might come, whatever imagination might come, whatever you are presently experiencing and calling my body—millions of these you can have right now in consciousness. In the apparent appearance of this world, you have more than six billion bodies apparently. I have a habit of going too far very fast. When the question is posed saying, 'Do you exist?' or any other question, there is—it hasn't even landed and then after some time mind comes to the skin to answer it. So don't worry about the answer at all. So if I say 'Do you exist?' the presumption that it is not landing because what will happen is that some of these are very dry, you know, things. Like if I say to you, 'Can you stop existing right now?' Take a position with regards to that: ending or starting. Sometimes something which is landing, sometimes which is not. See for me, it doesn't land or it does.

That's what I've been saying recently: that once you ask the question and boom, molested first. What we do, we start an inquiry: 'Who am I?' Just those three words, then it's molested with type of class because meaning has become so strong that we have to answer, and we have to answer first, and we have to answer correctly. Then all this can be very frustrating. Answer is not coming. So that's why sometimes when I see these things, it is also so that you can relax a bit. So if you had the idea that I have something for me in the millions of years, in ten days or ten months or ten years, it doesn't seem clear what the answer to 'Who am I?' is. It's completely fine. But at least there is a relief from all this 'I am something.' You see that 'I don't know' is good enough as an empty space. Not filling the blank with something. Don't ever look down on 'I don't know who I am' but with a lot of integrity. Okay, we need the details. We would say 'I don't know' why do the practice work compared to the ones who are sections inside. It is not seriousness, it is good to play with this and again not in an exam sort of playground.

So what happened? I—I—because the amount of attractive stimuli we do since ninety percent when I close—this is like so much stimulus they can feel like. But actually now that you had that insight, I don't see what changes when I close. Isn't it just the quantity of stimuli? But actually nothing changed.

The details, we would say, I don't know why do the practice work compared to the ones who are sections inside. It is not Salinas with equal to play with this and again not in an exam sort of playground. So what happened? I, because the amount of attractive stimuli we do since ninety percent when I close, this is like so much stimulus they can feel like. But actually now that you are hot that inside, I don't see what changes when I close, isn't it? Just the quantity of stimuli. But actually nothing changed about where it is experienced; the quantity and the nature of it seemed to change.

So what I'm saying is that with you say, with my eyes closed, which is so apparent that all this perception is happening within, I'm saying now with eyes open, besides it being the quantity of stimuli, the nature of them like visual stimuli that come to something thinking about you or the perception or something like that, those who validate. Close your eyes and this nod when you feel like it's clear that everything is happening within me. When it's clear that this sound which you're hearing is my words, it's just a perception within your own being and that is clear. This module here, you know, gently open your eyes and notice whether something really changed except that there's a lot more visual stimulus. Where is this voice now? In the same place where it was when eyes were closed.

You can feel like we have so much positive alerts, can seem like now there is a mini inducer outer world. You become clear it's always been like this. Sometimes the quantity of the stimulus can make it feel like the mind can compensate. This is okay, we can only deal with this much as yours. Now the Guru's saying everything is already me and then it find funny to them give this to you. I already know it's fine, it is your cue. Bye. I'm not speaking specifically gently where it is said in Satsang that I can't give it to you. It's you who limited functional fuel cell. Most of news already is already; it belongs to that one consciousness. Any real experiment with this as you play with this, I'm happy to see that you are saying at least now with the eyes which is so clear perception as they just in my existence is imagination. What are you? The perception is like a big percentage of okay.

I'm just gonna pick up things especially from those who are new. And one says, 'I don't know whether this question is really significant, but does attention have a role to play in the recognition of the primal witness?' Has attention a role clearly in the recognition of primal witness? The right answer is no, but there is a qualification to get on. Now when we are talking about the primal witness, that is beyond even the play of attention, beyond even the play of existence. And yet it is not that this primal witness has forgotten who it was or is and is coming to the recognition. Awareness is always, has been aware. There is no play of losing recognition and coming to the recognition in that.

So from that, from the perspective of the primal witness itself, so now we have to really look at what is coming to this recognition. It is this very existence, this very consciousness which is playing it. That's what we discussed, using the thoughts clear as if it is a limited entity and now coming towards recognition. So what we've done so far is that I have brought the conversation to this level, though we have seen that I am, I had this existence and began this existence. There is nothing that can hurt me, harm me, make me suffer. To that, I is the I am itself. Now this is the end of most spiritual paths: to discover your world light each other, to discover that you are consciousness. In some parts, then you come to see that even this 'I', there is an awareness of.

Now what is the role of attention in this? Attention is divested from phenomenal things and comes to rest in existence. When the recognition of that which is even beyond existence happens between there on here, even 'I am that I am' doesn't sound like it is true. 'I' is recognizing that its source where it comes from with independent given of 'I am'. Before the solar cell never been confused and never even played confused. But consciousness is played as if 'I am something' and now coming to the recognition plate 'I am even beyond I am, just I'. That we are some things are being dropped away. So attention plays a role only till the point where attention is brought to justice i am-ness itself. But as we ask the question 'Who is aware of this existence?', we find that here there is no play of attention also. So deeply, deeply, deeply intuitive insight which is beyond attention. You believe any longer poses boom function here.

So attention works and conditional consciousness, and consciousness diverse attention from all phenomenal things and it comes to rest in the Self. But in this 'Am I aware?', but I resting is happening from all phenomenal things. If we cannot even say all the conversation me, sometimes we might say that attention goes to awareness. Actually, just resting. There is no way of attention here. Beyond attention, beyond time, beyond space.

I hope you verified a little bit. To put it simply, the role that attention seems to be given in the play of self-recognition is that it is divested from all phenomenal objects. And in that moment of resting, the true insight which is beyond even attention was completely. When you say a slight falling into a bottomless pit when I do the self-inquiry, yes, it can feel like this falling, falling, unlimited ocean. Find that there is nobody who's falling. That which you seem to be falling into is actually that which you have always been. The recognition. So far, because we are conditioned to believe ourself to be a limited object, as you're coming into the recognition, it can be interpreted or dominated by the mind as if 'I, a limited object, am falling into the unlimited ocean of myself'. But actually what you're finding is that you have always with this unlimited ocean.

And ask yourself, where is this unlimitedness, unlimited bottomless pit? Is this bottomless pit outside with you? Can you fall anywhere which is not within yourself? Only if you have the notion that you are a limited option. Mom's too merciful proper antigens. I was like a child lost in jungle with all kind of kids who are so graceful to adopt me and quench my thirst at your feet. No few more questions since then start asking for anything. You are so graceful to give everything without asking for it. Thank you.

Exactly what I found with my father. They found there coming into his presence, he just adopted this one completely. All that I could've asked for good free taking care. One more if it's possible: 'In what aspects are awareness and consciousness similar?' In what aspects are awareness and consciousness similar? They are not just similar; actually they are the same. We have one. It is just like this: there's a moving part to the car and this is static power. Let's say the example which I like to use is a hand and there's a moving finger. Do you see your hand or a finger? This which is moving is consciousness. This which is the unmoving where consciousness comes from is awareness. But actually ultimately they are one. That is why consciousness is only a dynamic aspect of the same Self.

It is another actually to say there's another theoretical construct, just like we created a theoretical concept called body-mind. In the same way, this theoretical concept of awareness and consciousness to define the unmoving, the unchanging part of the Self, and to define the changing form who behind the quality moves Self, Nirguna Self and the quality full of attributes. So is it beautiful version which was J, which means 'Did I consider you Saguna, full of qualities, or Nirguna, empty of all qualities and attributes?' Saguna Nirguna equivocal URI, which means covin love causes the term for Krishna, absolute Self. Whether with the attributes or without attributes, there is only one seven, one God, one moment. That's why terminologies can vary and that's why it helps a lot if you are on the same page in terms of terminology. So you know that the constructs that we are using bring clarity without empty of constructs. If they are not properly understood, then you can seem a bit confused and I make the quality aspect of the Self Thomas is that is unchanging irrespective of whether the view of qualities is and with what view of quality is happening. The rest of them will look at absolutely you. Thank you all so much for being incidentally Mooji Baba too. So good. Chidananda Rupa.