Transcript:

This transcript was created automatically from the audio recording and has not been proofread yet. It may contain errors, especially with Sanskrit terms and with questions from the audience. Please get in touch if you would like to help improve it! https://robert-adams.de/contact/

I was talking about yesterday, the difference between a yogi and a Jnani and so forth and so on. And when you left, I opened a magazine Mary left with me and I came across an article by Sherry Sai Baba, which was talking about the exact same thing. so would you like to read this story and we’ll get a different perspective a different point of view obviously not okay that’s all right that’s okay I can sit right there this is great no hassle okay the incredible Sai Baba can you hear me from down here okay Sai Baba never wrote a book his behavior was bizarre and he flaunted his miracles with the reckless exuberance of a child. Is this a surety sign, Bob? Surety, yes. Right. This was written by Arthur Osborne. No easy saint to introduce to the modern reader. Not only did he not write books, he did not read them either.

He did occasionally instruct a devotee to read some religious or scriptural work, but for the most part he discouraged them from reading people hope to find Brahma in these books but it is Brahma confusion not Brahma God that they find there there is nothing unorthodox in such a statement some basic theoretical understanding is necessary except in very rare cases but continued accumulation of theoretical knowledge does not help toward spiritual understanding. Indeed, mental study can distract a man from the more arduous task of spiritual effort with the false allure of an easy alternative, particularly in this age when such floods of books are churned out is it a danger. Sri Ramakrishna also neither practiced nor enjoined scholarship. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, though enormously erudite, wrote in a derogatory way of book learning. It is the unlearned who are saved rather than those whose ego has not subsided despite their learning. The unlearned are saved from the unrelenting grip of self-infatuation, from the malady of myriad whirling thoughts, from the endless pursuit of mental wealth. It is not from one ill alone that they are saved. The The unlearned state described here means, of course, not mere ignorance, but the simplicity and integrity of mind which Taoism extols, which Christ designated as like a little child, which Islam implies in the illiteracy of the Prophet. It is not incompatible with learning, nevertheless learning cannot produce it, and absorption in learning can destroy it. For years it was doubted whether Sai Baba was even literate.

Certainly nobody supposed that he knew Sanskrit. Then one day he gave an exposition which showed learning as well as the perspicacity, and rough humor natural to him. A devotee was massaging his legs and feet, chanting to himself, the wild in an undertone. Sai Baba asked him what he was muttering. A Sanskrit verse, he replied, not suspecting that Sai Baba knew enough of scripture to want a more precise answer. However, he asked, what verse? A verse from the Gita. Well, say it aloud. And the devotee then recited in Sanskrit, verse 34 of chapter 4, know that by means of prostration, inquiry, and service, the Jnanis, the enlightened, who have realized the truth, will teach you Jnana, knowledge. Do you understand this, Nana? Baba asked him. Yes? Then tell me the meaning. Nana gave a free rendering in the vernacular, but Sai Baba was not satisfied. I don’t want a paraphrase. I want the strict grammatical meaning, with case, mood, and tense. Nana gave a literal translation, wondering the while whether Baba knew anything of Sanskrit grammar. He soon found out. And Tatvidi? What does Tat stand for? Baba asked him. Jnana. Knowledge. What knowledge? Knowledge of what? The knowledge referred to in the previous stanza. What does pranapath mean? Frustration.

And Pop? The same. If they meant the same, would Vyasa have added two unnecessary syllables? I don’t see any difference between them, Nana admitted. Baba left that for a while and passed on to the next point. What does Prasna mean? Asking questions. And Paraprasna? The same. Then if they both mean the same, was Vyasa off his head to use the longer? Vyasa is the author of the Marabharata.

I don’t see any difference. Next point. What does seva mean? Service, such as I am doing now in massaging your feet. Nothing more? I don’t see what more it can mean. We’ll leave that too. Next point. Krishna tells Arjuna to get Jnana, knowledge, from Jnani, the enlightened. But wasn’t Krishna himself a Jnani? Yes. Then why does he send Arjuna to others instead of giving him Jnana himself? I don’t know. Wasn’t Arjuna a jiva, a being, and therefore an emanation of Chaitanya, universal consciousness? Yes. then how can knowledge be given to what is already an emanation of consciousness or knowledge Sai Baba then interpreted the verse to mean that it is not Jnana, knowledge but alhyana, non-knowledge or ignorance that the guru gives Nana, now thoroughly bewildered over what had seemed to him a straightforward verse asked Sai Baba to expound these points. He explained, the verse tells us how a disciple is to approach his guru in order to attain realization.

He must completely surrender body, mind, soul, and possessions to the guru. That is the prostration referred to. The inquiry must be a constant quest for truth, not questions asked out of mere curiosity or for a wrong motive, such as to trap the guru. The motive must be pure desire for spiritual progress and realization. Then the service is not mere physical service, such as massaging. For it to be effective, there must be no idea that you are free to give or withhold service. You must feel that your body no longer belongs to you since you have surrendered it to the Guru and it exists only to do him service. Then follow the Catechism on the Guru, giving Ignacy. Isn’t Brahma pure knowledge or being? Yes. And everything else non-being or ignorance, non-knowledge? Yes. Don’t the scriptures declare that Brahma is beyond the range of speech or mind? Yes. Then the speech of the Guru is not Brahma or knowledge. No. Then you admit that what the Guru says is not knowledge, but ignorance. It seems so. Then the Guru’s instruction is simply a piece of ignorance used to remove the disciples’ ignorance. Just as we use a thorn to remove another thorn from the foot, isn’t it? I suppose so. The disciple is a jiva, a being, whose essential nature is knowledge, isn’t he? Yes. Then there is obviously no need to give him knowledge, but simply to remove the veil of ignorance that hides the existent knowledge.

This, of course, is not to be done at one stroke, since the disciple is immersed in age-old ignorance and needs repeated instructions, perhaps through life after life. And what is the nature of this instruction through speech about what is beyond speech? Isn’t it like removing a cover? Conceals the pre-existent knowledge Just as water plants Cover over the surface of a pond Clear away the plants And you have the water You don’t have to create it It is there already Or take another example A cataract grows on the eye And prevents a man from seeing Remove the cataract and he sees ignorance is the cataract the universe is the efflorescence of the indescribable maya which is ignorance yet ignorance is needed to illuminate and dissolve this ignorance divine knowledge is to be realized, not taught prostration, inquiry, and service are the methods by which to obtain the grace of the guru. It is an illusion to suppose that phenomena are real. That is the screen of ignorance which hides knowledge. Tear it off and Brahma or knowledge will shine forth. Ignorance is the seed of samsara, birth and death. Put the medicine of the Guru’s grace on the eye and the screen of Maya lifts, leaving only Jnana knowledge. Jnana is not something to be attained. It is eternal and self-existent. On the other hand, ignorance has a cause and an end. The root of it is the idea that the devotee is a separate being from God. Remove this and what remains is Jnana. Now the question why Krishna referred Arjuna to other Gurus instead of giving him Jnana himself. Did Krishna consider other Jnanis separate from himself or their teaching different from his? No. So their teaching is his, and there is no difference. Thank you, Mary. Now let’s talk about you.

Your real nature is knowledge. You know that. If your real nature is knowledge, what do you expect to find in books? That’s a book, and I just pointed out that you can’t find anything in books. That book is a finger. It’s a finger pointing towards the goal. Okay, but you cannot destroy all books. We don’t want to destroy all books. We want to realize that many people waste their lifetime in books, one after the other. It’s like a drug habit. Once you get involved in books, you can’t stop. And you read book after book after book. Then why read this to us? To tell you what I’m telling you. But we might get stuck in it. That’s why I’m explaining it to you. That’s why I’m talking and I’m explaining it to you. Just like my words are ignorance, right? The words are ignorance. Because words cannot tell you the truth. They can lead you to the truth. We did another transcription of Robert’s tapes, and it was called The Fourth State of Consciousness, and Robert always asked me to put a little introduction to it, and I just want to read that introduction, if I may please. Sure. We sit at the feet of the Awakened One. He fills our hearts with his overflowing love. Even if we are a little receptive, we come away charged by his very presence. Receptivity helps break the barriers that block the flow of the all-pervading current of love.

What he gives, we already are. I just wrote this before and it’s before the team. There is no search to be made. There are no books to read. Soon the world begins to fade and we find there is nothing we need. Beautiful. Look at all the talent there is. No, no, no, no, no, I’m just good for that. My goodness, we always find something else. Some great talented memories. But that’s true. Try to understand. What? You’re free to read books when we want to. You’re free to do anything you like. Right. You can do anything you want to do. You don’t have to get fixated on nothing. That’s a fixation. It’s like when you speak. Who’s talking about being fixated on nothing? Well, when you say, no need to read at all, if you feel like reading, read. I’m saying there has to come a time in our lives when we realize the reading and the external searching is virtually sort of useless.

The end of search. Yes. there is a time years before when we read books and we got involved in external means but now we’ve come here and we have grown therefore I can tell you plainly and surely books are not the answer anything external is not the answer my external body for you is not the answer the answer is within you you are the answer you are the beginning and the end you are the wisdom you are the solution turn within find the knowledge that you are and even to say find it is a misnomer for there is nothing to find you simply have to awaken and again that’s a word who has to awaken? the ego, right? but the ego doesn’t exist So there’s no one to awaken. Awaken from what? Awaken from the sleep, from a Jnani, from ignorance. But who is in ignorance? The mind, the ego. But the mind and the ego do not exist. So how can you be in ignorance? There is no ignorance and there is no one to awaken. There is no battle. Many people like to believe they’re fighting a battle within themselves. themselves. And they tell me, Robert, I’m fighting the battle of the Bhagavad Gita.

What’s in me? The Bhagavad Gita. All kinds of turmoil is going on in my mind. Who’s mine? My mind. How do you know you’ve got a mind? Who told you this? No answer. There’s no mind. there’s no ignorance there’s no battle there’s absolutely nothing you have to do except to open your eyes and see that’s what he means in that article a guru can only teach you ignorance four words and not the answer silence is the answer yet in silence the mind starts to move and brings up all kinds of concepts preconceived ideas you can’t control it sometimes then you have to learn to observe it and you watch your thoughts you see your mind the way it vacillates when you do that for a while you ask yourself who sees the mind and the observer has to go then you ask yourself who is getting rid of the observer no answer no one left to get rid of the observer there is no observer watching your thoughts there are no thoughts and there is no mind you are totally free now but you don’t believe me no you don’t you won’t believe me something says I want to but the first thing that comes along your interest will perk up toward it and you’ll go chasing it so you believe me to an extent as long as you’re in this room but when the world gets a hold of you say you come home and you find your house burned down

What do you believe then? Then you’ll say, if Robert was right, my house wouldn’t have burned down. What does your house have to do with the teaching?

You are not your body, you are not your house, and you are not the experience of burning house down. If you can be free of all that, then you can say you believe me.

But as long as things still disturb you, as long as what you hear still disturbs you, you listen to the TV, you hear the radio, You hear what somebody says Talks to you on the telephone And you may get shocked You may get disturbed Then how can you hear me? What does one need to understand What has to happen to someone To prove that In any circumstance That they don’t get disturbed? One needs to understand nothing No thing And be free from the whole mess But how does one ever tell That they’re free from the whole mess? Oh, you’ll know. Because the world will be like images on the screen. They will not affect you when Iota.

The good or the bad are in between. So-called. The world will appear like images. And you will be forever you. Your eternal self. You will not feel turned on one time and turned off another time. You will not feel happy when something good happens to you. And miserable when some human evil befalls you. you will treat those two imposters just the same and you will be totally free so if that’s happening in someone’s life then well just that statement is erroneous because there’s no life where something has happened to the life becomes extinguished nothing can happen something can happen to your life when you are an a Jnani then you say something good happened in my life or something bad happened in my life but when you’re experiencing total freedom there is no life to have you have no life so nothing can happen you’re just totally free without any happenings then there’s no you for it to happen to there’s no you, you has been extinguished right there’s no you, there’s no I there’s no object, there’s no subject would the proper attitude be when you say when you realize there is that this doesn’t exist and we don’t exist and you say and when you realize that then you’ll be free if the student says then free from what? Your whole sentence is a misnomer because you say when you realize that if you realize anything you can’t possibly be free because the realizer is still there you follow?

As long as there’s a realizer you can’t be free a realizer goes and there’s no one to make that statement yes but what about the last statement free from what free from no see the subject that you just spoke of free from what is only there when you think you’re a body’s mind then you say free from what but if you’re talking about freedom like I think you are there’s no one left to say free from what because there would be nothing to be free from you were never bound in the first place well the person would ask when a person asked that question they’re obviously bound well they wouldn’t ask the question free from what yes because if the person were free he wouldn’t have that feeling to be free from anything there would be nobody left to have that feeling there would be no limitations in any direction yes so when the question is asked it’s asked by the ayinani by the person who’s bound the person who’s free just smiles but if the person who’s smiling wished to express something that there was no threat let’s take myself as an example I share these thoughts with you and I talk to you about these things but to me they’re utter nonsense but I’m doing the talking because I’ve got a class well in the same way couldn’t there be someone else talking because they’re in the class with you anybody can talk so they couldn’t My princess, my Jean is addressing…

Your Jean? That’s her name. Oh, Jean. I thought you were Clyde. You were my Clyde, yes. I have two names. So my Clyde is addressing Robert. And on that left, I’m saying… And I’m telling you, who asked the question?

Who just said free from supper? Who was asking the question? Oh, that was in the teaching, of course. You can get into that if you like. But then what suffered? Exactly. Exactly. Well, anyway, Clyde thought that that was expressing the fact that stuff happened. Well, Clyde is expressing where she’s coming from. And that’s good. Nothing wrong with that. But when you say free from what, then if I answer you at your level, I will answer like perhaps what he said, free from suffering, free from pain, free from this and free from that. But I would rather ask who asked the question. And if you get the drift of my meaning, it would awaken you.

Because nobody exists to ask that question. Clyde doesn’t exist. And Clyde is asking the question. Never know. If you’re not ready to disappear, I thought I had you to do that. Yeah, I think the whole problem is that like the personal self is trying to get liberated and liberation is freedom from the self. Hmm, of course. As long as you feel you are the personal self, you can never become liberated because the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. So it’s a waste of time doing all of the yoga practices, meditations, and everything else if you want to become totally liberated. It’s fine to do those things if you want to have a better mind and a better body and find human so-called happiness for a while. But if you want total freedom, all that has to be given up. And we start from the top, not from the body, not from the bottom.

We start exactly at the top. There is no body, there is no universe, there is no one to get enlightened, there is no God to pray to, there is no universe as you see it, and you do not exist as you know yourself.

And that’s it. And no self-inquiry? No self-inquiry. Those sound like good words. Sounds like good words. No self-inquiry. You use the self-inquiry. You acquire into the no-self. Then why acquire if there’s no-self? If you realize there’s no-self, what do you need self-inquiry for? You don’t. But do you realize there’s no-self? You realize if you don’t realize. So you ask the question.

All questions are necessary for the one who asks. therefore don’t feel funny when you ask a question and when I answer you I don’t mean to sort of put you down that’s not my purpose, I’m not doing that but it’s just fun to have a go about and go back and forth my position is nothing exists period and I am is that and that’s the end, I am is that what does that say? I am is being being is absolute awareness We’re just trading words. That’s what we’re doing. We’re just jumping along on different things. That’s exactly what we’re doing. They all mean the same thing. Yes. Nothing. What’s the point of that? No point whatsoever. Why do you do it? Because people aren’t able to talk. When you answer questions, do you hear the questions that are asked of you and asked them appropriately? Or do you misunderstand sometimes? or do you say things to try to see if there’s a reaction in that person and then play with that? No, I have no motive.

It’s all spontaneous. You’re not sacking them out, are you? No, the contrary. Well, then I, if I have a question and I’m not, it feels like there’s, I’m not getting any kind of appropriate answers, I’m speaking very loosely. You’re a loose guy. Yeah, I don’t want to get caught up. When I speak with you privately, I get a very different response from you. Whenever I speak with you publicly, it’s very different than when I speak with you privately. Privately, you seem to be able to understand where I’m coming from, what I’m saying. Publicly, whenever I ask you something or make a statement or talk, it’s very different. And it doesn’t upset me in the least. But it’s not confusing, because, you know, whatever I’m experiencing or whatnot is what I’m experiencing or knowing. I suppose what I’m doing publicly, Jay, is I’m giving you the answer for the whole class.

Yeah, but… And that’s for your individual. An individual person, and I’m talking about relative terms, on a relative level, everyone’s at a different place, so to speak. And is it, I enjoy coming here just because I just come here. I’m always here. I don’t think I’m going to get something here. I just love being here. And I love being with you. So sometimes I want to, I have an understanding of what state I’m in, so to speak. And I don’t relate to, when you talk about your experience, the experience of a Jnani, then I identify with that night from experiential viewpoint I can I know what you’re talking about then when you start at some point in your talks you come to a point of talking about well you know you you think about this or you talking about people who aren’t Jnanis you know that you’ve suffered you’re out of sorts this and that. And you start talking on another level. And for me, it’s either I don’t relate to it, it’s not my experience, or I laugh because it’s so funny that those words would even be said. And so at this point, I want to get some kind of a sense of something. let me explain when I answer your question take it for what it’s worth I do everything spontaneously and I have no preconceived ideas about it so I talk and answer the way it’s supposed to be at this time but if it’s worth nothing then take it for what it’s worth means what?

Take it for what it’s worth means no it’s not inaccurate that’s the answer you needed this time to just listen to whether you know it or not I don’t believe that and I don’t accept it neither because I’ve seen too many things that seem to be amiss in that direction I mean there’s a sign of it that I see that’s perfect about it you know it depends what what, while you’re doing something spontaneously, what the reaction is for people, and it’s quite good. But it’s not always, it doesn’t seem, I don’t know, for me it’s not appropriate. That’s what you should say. That’s your opinion, that’s how you’re saying. It doesn’t do, sometimes it doesn’t feel appropriate, so it’s almost like I didn’t even need to ask you, yet I wanted to ask you, ask you, and maybe that’s why your response is appropriate, is give me something to reflect on, is why are you asking in the first place? What you’re actually saying is you don’t like abstract answers.

No, no, I… You want direct answers. Yeah, yeah, to me, to the person who’s asking, yeah, it would be good. He’s saying sometimes you hit the nail on the head and sometimes you miss. Yeah. Individually. That’s what he’s saying. But that’s the self’s opinion. That’s the self’s opinion. See, what can I say? I’m the way I am. I walk in here and I just say what comes naturally. I wonder why I experience a difference in my communication with you when I’m privately with you versus when I’m with you when other people are around. I notice a definite difference. There’s something in you that enjoys the privacy more.

You probably want to be closer to me. But the response I get from you is very different. Well, maybe because I pick up certain things in you particularly at the time. Because it’s a different time and a different place. But those are corresponding exactly to when I’m alone with you or when I’m… See, a person’s psyche changes daily. now we’re talking about psychology we’re going back into the relative world a person’s psyche changes daily it’s never the same so perhaps when I I don’t know but perhaps when I talk to you privately on a certain day I pick up something in you that’s different than it is today so I answer you differently but what I answer to you today is what I did spontaneously that came out well I’ve had an experience where I talked with you in one day publicly and afterwards talked with you privately and found out that that whatever the response was publicly was obviously a misunderstanding and when I talked to you about it privately after satsang only within half hour maybe of when I asked you originally in public there seems to be miscommunication a misunderstanding. Things change, perhaps. Things are changing every moment, moment to moment. Don’t you also key your response not only to the individual? Oh, I didn’t know you were here then. I didn’t see you. Oh, hello. Don’t you key your response to the individual who’s asked the question as well as the general audience? Yes, in a way. So that might…

To tell you the truth, I don’t even know what I do. That takes care of it. I’m just here. I really don’t plant a case to a general audience or to an individual.

I just do what I do. If you like it, enjoy it. Keep it. If you don’t, don’t. You don’t have an explanation for your own… I know. No, I don’t. Responses. They just occur. you may be a mad man we don’t even know I probably am and there’s no point really in trying to analyze them that’s really the worst thing you can do yeah that’s the point perhaps that’s what he means is that what you’re saying well it’s actually I experience miscommunication whenever I talk or present something to Robert publicly Look at it this way. Everything is an awakening process. Just think that. But, you know, on the other side, if one is in relationship with a teacher or someone, then sometimes one maybe not needs it, but wants some kind of feedback as to what they’ve experienced, what they continue to experience, and how inappropriate the teacher is talking to the group and it’s not fitting every individual in the group.

Well, if I recall, I’ve given you many pertinent answers to personal questions. But now you ask a different kind of question so you get this kind of an answer.

Just enjoy. I do, of course I do. Get your personality out of it. Get rid of the personal I. And just be. Now what was I talking about? The article on Sai Baba. We finished that. It’s a good article. Surely Sai Baba was an interesting guy. Somebody in India told me this story about him.

He used to walk around naked, and at other times he would dress like a king. And people would think he’s from royalty. But when some pundits and Brahmins would seek him out to test him, they would take all his clothes off and stay naked before them and urinating them. He’d run into the woods. I don’t know what that means. I don’t even know why I’m telling you this. I hope you don’t do that to us. that’s because we were talking about it on the way here, remember? I mean, it seems written in the very least. Accept it any way you like. What? Accept it any way you like. You’re free to do that. You know, Robert, I heard a similar story to that one time that Yogananda told that Palangaswami used to do that. He would walk around naked and people thought he was deranged. And he would urinate on him so the police would arrest him, but the people found out later that it was fragrant and that he infused a subtle blessing on him. isn’t it like to blow their minds you know to blow their minds to shock them from what they’d expect yes the old Zen masters were full of things like that it was a matter of color outrageous stuff that’s a little Lyndon Johnson quality rudeness not that well if it helps you to awaken, great it shocks you it’s all for the good if your mind becomes ruffled and you feel something is wrong ask yourself to whom does this come that attitude must be gotten rid of you shouldn’t really have any type of attitude whatsoever it’s Greek to me Yeah, it is Sanskrit, and it’s just a prayer to the divine.

And basically, most of the words mean God. Jaya is sort of hailed. Jaya is hailed. Health of the chief. Since most of us are English-speaking folks, is this a teaching from a culture who speaks, who knows these worlds? I assume it is, and they know what this means, and this is meaningful to them, would it not be more meaningful to us to speak in English and say, bless it? Not really. It wouldn’t rhyme. I’ll tell you why. That would show it right there. Yeah, that would show it. It doesn’t sound exotic either. I’ll tell you why. Sanskrit is one of the few languages that are left on this earth where every word is another word for God. It’s a very meaningful language in that respect, whereas the English language, well… It loses a lot in the translation, too, like if you take a Wagnerian opera, it sounds beautiful in German, but when you hear it in English, you talk, my finger, my finger, I hurt my finger, it’s so stupid. But when you don’t understand what the words are, it seems so profound. just for your information judith tyberg has a beautiful booklet out on sanskrit it’s a primary called uh language of the gods it’s very about the bully tree who we used to work with east west and we mailed out tons of them every day to do what are the only books sanskrit

Nice easy to read a little book that’s like a primary note dick and jane I mean, there are beautiful words, but we do do a lot of beauty, beauty, beauty, beauty. Enjoy. Wouldn’t it mean more to us mortals? Okay, let’s play something. Does it bring that feeling through us? Is that what it’s meant to do, is to bring the feeling? Let’s play some English words. There’s another point to Sanskrit. Someone did some testing on Sanskrit language, and they found that people who chanted OM, the way it was supposed to be chanted, and it was connected to a polygraph or some kind of graph system, it came out and spilled, actually, through the sound vibration. so that means the power of the vibration of the let’s sing English but if you said something in words sing Clyde I’m sure it really doesn’t matter but isn’t it customary for the person who starts the song to sing the verse and then the remainder who respond Yes. He says it alone, and then responds. Yes. You’re not a Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but you’ll be okay. The question always arises, is Advaita Vedanta a practical teaching? It may be good for Indians, or people who live in caves or monks, but is it practical?

You know it is, because it teaches you that you are not the body, and you are not the mind, but your body came to the series to do something, and it’s going to do that what it came to do, whether you like it or not. This means you are in the right place, but you lose identification with the doer or with the body. You know that you are not the doer. Therefore, if you’re a banker, you become a better banker. If you’re a garbage collector, you become a better garbage collector. If you’re a postman, you become a better postman. And if you’re nothing, you become a better good for nothing. So the teaching is very practical. It removes worry. It removes fear. It removes anxiety. It makes you understand that you are life itself and all is well. There is nothing wrong. There are no mistakes. Everything is unfolding as it should. And everything is beautiful. Just the way it is right now. Now I know you can tell me, but Robert, what about this, what about that? The reason you bring this up is because you’re thinking. But when I said everything is beautiful right now, this moment, you cannot deny that. Right this second, is there anything wrong? As soon as you start to think there is, but in the second there is bliss.

If you can’t expand that second, you will be self-realized. Stay in the second. There’s nothing happening. And you taste the bliss. You feel the Satsatananda.

But as soon as your mind begins, it’s lost. That’s why I emphasize, kill the mind. Still the mind. Innihilate the mind. Become no mind whatsoever.

And you will always live in the second. We do the self-inquiry, and we ask, who am I? That silence is also… Yes. The silence without thought is the second I’m referring to. But whenever there’s thought, no matter what kind of thought, even good thoughts, you spoil it. Remember we’re not trying to exchange bad thoughts for good thoughts. We want to stop thoughts and merge with the infinite. Again, this does not mean you will be spaced out. It means if you’re an artist, you will become more creative and your body will do the work but you will be totally free. You will not think I hope somebody likes my art I hope I’m good I hope I won an award I’ll be devastated if I’m bad those thoughts will be gone from your life. You will have no goals your body will just do whatever it has to do but you will not identify with the body

Any questions about that? So is the feeling, does being have a feeling? Is that love bliss? No, being has no feeling because there has to be somebody present to feel. So what’s the bliss? Isn’t bliss a feeling? Bliss is an experience.

It is just being, not being this or being that. It is being and it is ineffable. Is it similar to feeling? No, it’s not a good feeling. Good feelings lead to bad feelings. Well, it’s not a feeling, but it’s ecstatic, kind of. No, it’s not ecstatic. What about the ecstasies of the different sages? They’re supposed to be in tremendous ecstasy. Those are yogis going through their samadhis. Oh, really? So ecstasy is only a point That has to be given up at a moment. The bliss we’re talking about is beyond ecstasy. Who experiences bliss? No one.

Bliss just is. There’s no one left to experience it. There’s bliss, period, bliss, self. That’s it. What about self? The self is the same as bliss. But doesn’t the word bliss seem to bring to mind a happiness, an infinite happiness? To whom is mine. Well, then you can’t use the word bliss because bliss connotates some kind of infinite happiness. To whom does it connotate that to him?

That’s your experience. But if you listen to what I say, bliss is beyond humanhood, beyond concepts, beyond feelings. Bliss just is. It’s is-ness. And you cannot describe it. You cannot explain it. But you can be it. Or being is it. You are it. And when you become silent, you experience it, but you can never explain it. That’s what the word power Brahman means, beyond Brahman. But the mind doesn’t, like my mind doesn’t want to accept that there’s anything in the silence. You know, it sees the silence for a moment and right away it says, oh, there’s nothing in here. So run to thoughts, run to experience, run to knowledge. So sing bhajans.

That’s what singing or listening to music throws the mind out again. Chants. It’s like the consciousness knows there’s something in the silence, something of infinite value, but the mind keeps saying there’s nothing in this. Consciousness does not know that. Speaking of your personal ego, your ego knows that, but consciousness… Consciousness is self-contained. But doesn’t consciousness egg us on? Isn’t there something egging us on to transcend the ego?

They say that in some books, but it’s not my experience. My experience is there’s nothing to egg you on. If something existed, you would never be consciousness. Everything has to be transcended.

There can’t be one iota of any human thought left. But then the nothingness is influencing to some extent to throw us into the nothingness. The only thing that’s influencing you is that you are already in your real state. The reality of your real state wants you to come back to it. That’s pushing us. But that’s still on the relative plane. It’s pushing us because it already is. The reality has a want? No. He says it wants you to come back to it. That’s why I said it’s on the relative plane.

That appears that’s why in the relative plane. But the truth is, there is nothing left. There’s nobody to want. How can you want something that you are?

It’s like the eye trying to see itself. Yes. And you can never get it physically, verbally, or mentally. you have to go beyond that this is not going to be a popular teaching that’s good it’s not good for business that’s right maybe you could bind together a couple things that maybe don’t totally fit there in my mind the self-inquiry the bringing to the eye is it correct I think that’s sort of a process of going inward the self-inquiry what it seems like the self-inquiry is sort of like a process of going inward yes yes there are some things that occur to us in life when you’re driving cars and so forth where you can’t devote your full time to that because it’s inappropriate when you’re driving your car yeah sometimes and so from that point of view uh mindfulness it seems like a good thing to practice, which seems like it’s going in the outer direction, but on the other hand, the whole business helps to quiet the mind, but it’s going to turn mindfulness, perhaps.

Well, that’s okay, but self-inquiry is not meditation. So you can practice this while you’re driving in your car. Well, there are times when I don’t, it feels like I would risk my life if I’m in some situation driving, if I were in a… I do sometimes, but if I’m in a… Well, what are you saying to yourself? What are you doing?

Nothing if I’m in one of those situations. I’m just reverting to whatever I think I need to do to drive. I’m in a tight situation on a freeway or something. You can look at the cars and you can say to whom did these cars come from?

Who am I that thinks about the crowds of cars? Who’s the eye that observes this? You can do that while you’re driving. Okay, so in other words, theoretically, the practice can extend through all… It’s your all of life. All of life. Everything. And if you don’t feel so exposed, you don’t have to revert to mindfulness. No, you don’t. But you can if you want to. Right. Isn’t that what you were talking about, observing ourselves at all times? So you might say, to whom does this frustration work to try? Yes. So you probably still react as a person that then you inquire about it. And it’s safe to drive your car while you’re doing it. You will not go into a trance. Robert, what is meditation? Meditation is focusing on an object.

So if you’re doing something like pouring water, you can say, is it appropriate to say, who is pouring water? And then in blatant contrast to all the common teachings, you say, I am pouring water, and then pursue the true reminder. You can say that. You can say, who is pouring water? Then you can say, I am. Then I am pouring water. You say what? Just I am. And then you ask, who am I? Because when you say, I am pouring water, you’ll go right back to your ego.

Just say, I am. Okay, Colin, take care of yourself. What is the mind? Nothing. It’s a conglomeration of thoughts. This is what occurred to me, I don’t know if I haven’t thought it out, but when you’ve told us before that you have thought that they’re spontaneous, it seems like that may also be a product of the mind, and that seems that that’s a proper function. But, say, those that have other attitudes that are mental, fear, anger, any of the other sort of it, I don’t know if those are necessarily a product of the mind or a product of conditioning or whatever. And yet they may both function in the mind. They’re both responding to each other. Well, they don’t function in the mind because they are the mind themselves. They make up the mind. In other words, you are telling me that the mind is like a receptacle and has all of these thoughts. But it’s not a receptacle at all. The mind is the thoughts themselves. So when you think a thought, it comes from a preconceived idea.

It comes from your being programmed. All thoughts are from the past and the future. There are no original thoughts. So every one of us has been programmed since we were little and from past lives.

And that’s what’s in the mind right now. That’s what the mind is made up of. So you have to ask yourself, to whom does this mind come? and if you follow it through you will realize there never was a mind because the mind is only thoughts it’s nothing solid, nothing tangible it’s a bunch of thoughts how about those thoughts that can come to you that are spontaneously that’s so that I exist those are just thoughts it’s like the mind has been extinguished but there’s still a little bit left to keep you going on the earth that’s how it appears to others in reality there’s no mind no thoughts, no mind is the mind the thing that operates also when someone is doing something they say they’re involved in a work a chore, a task, a problem if they are not enlightened the mind controls you the mind is your master it tells you all the things that you think about all day long and it makes you enter the door so you take appropriate action when the mind is extinguished there’s no one to take any action but you become spontaneous or you wouldn’t be here at all you would just disappear as long as I’m here as you see me you see me the way I am there has to be a mind a little bit of a mind left to play the game with you that I’m playing.

But it’s all spontaneous. And that’s how it’s explained, but in reality it doesn’t exist. Does meditation always imply a dualism? There has to be a focus on an object. Well, there has to be someone focused on it. Yes, there has to be a subject and an object. So that’s always dualistic? That’s always dualistic. It never transcends? No. Meditation cannot transcend. It cannot. It can lead you to a place where you become quiet. And then you drop the meditation. Well, it’s like the thorn, then it’s a means to an end. It’s a means to an end. Well, abidance in the Self might be called meditation also. No, because abidance in the Self is thinking of I Am. There is no form, no shape. Yeah, but I mean loosely some people may say, well, I meditate when they abide in the Self. They may say that. But it’s a misnomer. It’s a misnomer, yes. Because there’s no dualism. It’s only one. And just one and that cancels meditation. Meditation is word defining it right now. Robert, you said abiding in the Self is thinking of I Am. But isn’t it just being I Am that’s not thinking of it? It turns into being. In the beginning you think about I Am, then it turns into pure being. You use the mind to destroy the mind. Seems like the mind is only here to protect the body, right? To keep it going. Well, actually the body came first.

Because you think you’re a body, you think you’re a mind. So you can think of the body. Without the body there wouldn’t be a mind. The mind seems to come up. So the eye is the body. The eye is the body. Without the body there wouldn’t be the mind. it wouldn’t be the mind, and without the mind it wouldn’t be the eye. And there wouldn’t be any thoughts? The eye is the body. The ego-eye is the body. The knee is the body. Robert? You can have a mind as long as the quality of the thoughts entertain, no longer participate in the illusion of the identification with the body. Then you wouldn’t have a mind. Well, no, you would have thoughts, but they wouldn’t have the quality of maya. They would be just functional thoughts. That’s what we’re talking about, spontaneity. That would be spontaneous, yes, that’s right. True. Like in personal thoughts, like a computer just to do the job, like the working mind, the functional mind. So it’s not the mind that’s transformed, the maya is filtered out of the thoughts so that we no longer believe in the illusion, or the thoughts don’t dwell on the illusion, that this is this, there’s a separation, That’s this over there, that’s a car, that’s a tree. Those thoughts disappear completely.

There’s only enough thought left so it can’t exist. But again, that’s an appearance. Let’s follow on your last question. In general, would it be appropriate to disrupt? Don’t use any adjuncts like, for example, you would say, if I would say, who’s thinking, say I am, and then we’re in the real life. That’s it. But when some experience comes to you, you ask yourself to whom does this experience come I don’t think like you could do one or another I mean you could do that with thoughts with or not sure you can so is there a preference like to whom do these thoughts come or who is it yes exactly there is a preference or is it there’s no preference you do what you have to do with the time but there is a preference not to stick adjuncts on I am because that will drive you back into the ego that’s true after a while. In the beginning, you do. You ask, to whom does this come? Who’s feeling this pain? Who has this pain? To whom does it come? Then you say to me. What if you say, who’s having this experience, who’s treating the pain, or is it appropriate to say, I am or I am treating the pain in the beginning? Yes. And think for a while and say, who is this I am? Where did it come from? So when you say that I am, you’re saying it’s better even in the beginning just to say I am and don’t say I am feeling the pain?

You have to be so spontaneous. It depends what you’re going through. I know what you’re driving at. I don’t want to give you an exact practice. Because the practice is different to all people. It will all come to you when you do it. Who spoke? The mind enters the body when you believe you are the body. Oh, you’re talking in a more esoteric sense. You say you have to have a body to be a vehicle for the mind. Yes. So the body is a container. When your mind develops in what’s progressed to be more clinical? At what time? Is this when the child is being carried? Oh, I see what you mean. Or when it emerges from the mother or just when does it become this thinking sentient person capable in childhood or developmental ability? About 40. Yeah, that’s a good answer. They’ll say that we’re really not capable of thinking until, or I mean, of being analytical in child development until 12 or 13 or different things.

When you’re approximately seven months in the womb, the body consciousness starts to function. So how about what we call the soul principle, which is also, now how would you take the soul component to come apart different from this mind or this mental energy. Where does that come from and when does it enter? The soul and the mind are the same. The same thing. Yes. So now you have just said that the mind is thoughts. No. Which are like abstract thoughts that are just whatever. Now, we can’t, we would almost be insulting to say that the soul is a bunch of just abstract… This is true. The soul does not exist. There is no soul. There’s no soul? No. Then a lot of people are very disillusioned, are they not? I should think so. So what do we call it? Is it a group soul or a group energy? There’s no group energy. There’s no group soul.

So what differentiates you, Robert, from Harley or this lady or whatever? How do we become separated and just not being a great big blue? There has to be some kind of separation for us to have a separateness to communicate with. The separation appears because you believe you are the body. You believe you’re the only, the own body? When you believe you are the body that’s separate then there are other bodies there’s this body, there’s that body there are millions of bodies because you believe that you are a body when that belief vanishes then there’s no body there’s only consciousness In other words you would just drop the body? No the body never was to begin with the body never existed there’s nothing to drop you just become free now are you saying that the body is like what we’re talking about dichotomies of philosophy or whatever is this a matter of semantics we’re back to the young man asking the question here there are you have on a blue shirt which separates your body from Sheila back here who has on a red jacket but if you’re in pure consciousness or in a state of total awareness then you would be one with your brother in that philosophical, like a philosophical conundrum or whatever which becomes almost a double talk here.

Are you speaking at that if you reach a pure state of consciousness then you become so totally one that you feel a presence with everything and everyone which is often the supposed attained goal, to become so free of your own personal thoughts that you can blend with the whole. You compare the screen and the images. When you’re totally free, you like the screen. But you know the images are on you. And we’re just players, like Shakespeare would say? We’re all players. So, every human form, every sentient being, every tree, every animal, every cloud, every particle of dust, is a superimposition on consciousness. Now, if consciousness is the real, genuine thing, and we are only reflections of this consciousness, then the consciousness how do I ask this in mundane questions this has to be something very not material but