4. IF YOU WANT THE HAPPINESS OF SELF, GET RID OE THE BODY-MIND SENSE


VISITOR : We spend our lives always searching after happiness

MAHARAJ : Could you define what is happiness? You won't be able to

Do you want the happiness of having a wife, the happiness of eating food? V : I want the happiness of self

M : If you want the happiness of self, get rid of the body-mind sense. There are plenty of things to talk about, and I can. But don't talk about anything irrelevant. Think about that self or the touch of “I-am-ness”only. Make that the very core of your being, and you will understand that itself is the manifest Brahman

INTERPRETER : If you have read the book [presumably referring to I Am That] and wish to make any comments, you may do so now

M : I would like to know what is the knowledge you have of your own self, that you are. You are here right now. What is it that you are? To know that you are is that knowledge “you are” without words

V : Sometimes there is a mood of happiness which I cannot explain. At that moment, nothing can be explained. Now that I am sitting here, I can say: It happens like this, but that again is a bodily experience

M : I call it...[unintelligible Marathi or Sanskrit expression], the priormost “I-principle.” prior to anything. Subsequent to that, the five elements come out of that...conjuring up the space and the remaining four elements. So there, in that priormost principle, we have to stabilize

The question now is: Is one stabilizing downward or upward? Common parlance has it that I am getting elevated, my position is getting higher and higher. But it is not so. We have to subside, settle down into our original state, in our priormost state. So I prefer to call it the lower state: to subside into one's foundation, sink into the source

From your standpoint, what is knowledge? Knowledge is that which is collected by the words or their meaning.,which means the mind. But that is not the self-knowledge. Self-knowledge cannot be captured by words or the mind

You are sitting here: “you are.” Prior to words. Now the hearsay goes “I am.” "I am" means the flow of mind has started. Now Whatever you say with that “I-am-ness” through the mind about “you,” you have represented as yourself. But that is not so

The traditional knowledge comprises whatever is collected through this mind or through the words, externally. But that is not the self-knowledge, which is prior to that also

How could there be any bondage or shackles to the atman? It ls only the meaning of the words which one accepts for oneself that becomes the shackles

We want only that "self-knowledge" which is acceptable or palatable to the mind. not true knowledge. But that which is accepted by the mind is only a yoke

The atman principle remains untouched by the meaning of the words that flow from it. Even the four aspects of the language - para, pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari - do not touch it. Words trying to describe that original, primordial state invariably fail. That is why the mind sinks into quietude and why the Vedas settle into quietude. And when there are no words to use, it means there are no Vedas

Even in the worldly, everyday life you must develop the conviction that whatever language sprouts out of you is the language of the Vedas only

V : This means that you must have that purity in you

M : We must be purified to that extent. In order for the Veda language to come out of us, it is not a question of being purified or not purified. One has to understand the principle

Whatever I say, you must apperceive directly, without the filter of the words

Because. if we accept the words, what happens? Based on those words, we create a concept; and then based on that concept, we accept that for what we are

We create an image based on a certain concept based on the words we think we are hearing. But that is not jnana. Only that which is directly apperceived is knowledge

The capital we have is this knowledge "I am." But what have we done? We have handed over that knowledge to the body and we say “I am the body.” Thereby we have reduced the totality, the limitless, to the limited - a specified, insignificant body. And that is why being unable to give up this association with the body, we are afraid of dying. If any idea is traumatic, it is the idea of death

Why ? Because we are not able to disassociate ourselves from this identity with the body

The knowledge I try to convey will not be acceptable to the average person

even if he happens to be interested in spiritual knowledge. This is because he expects something from the point of view of the body, this identification with the body. In that state, as an object, he wants to get something - knowledge as an object - which is impossible because knowledge is purely subjective.1 (1) Maharaj obviously does not use this term in the usual sense of “a matter of opinion.” He is refering to the knowledge that lies beyond the subject-object relationship, when the subject is knowing himself as subject and not as object

How amusing it is that all of you are listening to what I am saying but do not accept what the words are trying to express regarding your identity. You listen but the real meaning underlying the words is not accepted; there is no receptivity for what is being conveyed. It is only a rare one who directly apperceives what I am trying to say without the words, one in ten million

You all entertain a certain concept, and whatever I say you are trying to have within the limits of that concept. Then you say, “yes, that is acceptable to me.” You listen to me, once, twice or several times; then at the end of a certain period you come to the conclusion: "I have not benefited much from Maharaj's words." Why ? Because, based on the words you are trying to create an image about yourselves. And when, whatever I say appeals to you according to that concept

you say “Yes, now I have got the knowledge, and now I understand what Maharaj is saying and Maharaj is right.” Why? Because what I say appeals to your concept

I would like to know from all of you whether what I say appeals to you as truth and is beneficial. I repeat: When does one say that it is beneficial? When it tallies with the concept one cherishes. Then you say “Yes, it is beneficial.” And when it does not tally, you say “Sorry, that does not appeal to me, it is not for me.” We stick to the words and the meaning, forgetting that what we are is prior to even the beginning of not only the word but also the first basic thought

V : Then. there is no communication, no grasp of what is being said? M : I started saying that that which you are is prior to any words or thoughts

So that cannot be identified as such. You can have a word and meaning for almost anything. but for this sver [literally: “being"] there is no author, no word

Any other thing has been or can be acquired, but with respect to this there is no acquisition, you are That. Many of these japi-tapis, even those who consider themselves as jnanis, are still entangled in the concept based on certain words

Any mind or word-created design can have no real significance to you, for it is only conceptual; your true nature is such that it can have no color or design

V : I have read the questions and answers from I Am That. I found it hard to understand how Maharaj, though in the body, always answers questions from the highest level only, and somehow it has filled me with the greatest happiness; it may be bodily happiness also. I do not want to say anything about that. But both of us, my son and myself, have had supreme moments of joy - "peak experiences," if you like - during the reading of some of the answers

M : Because I am stabilized in that foremost absolute principle, all the talk will emanate from that level only. Whenever you talk from the five-elemental bodily or consciousness state, that will pertain to the worldly life. But this is purely the knowledge related to the highest

Share: