
MAHARAJ : Take the case of someone who says, I don't like what Maharaj is saying, so he gets up and walks out. What has happened? He has reacted to the meaning of a particular word or set of words which has come from the mind. So the mind says: I don't like what is being said and that thought is converted into words. And again the mind takes the meaning of these words - that I don't like this - and the action takes place of his walking out. If similarly, as the basis of all thought, one accepts some definite principle, then all one's future actions will be based on it. This firm base is the result of accepting the meaning of the word which has come from a particular thought. My guru told me that I am Parabrahman and nothing else. I have accepted that with great conviction and therefore whatever other things appear seem to me palpably false. At one stage for example I was extremely strong; fifteen or twenty years later I had to use a stick. And later on, even the stick becomes useless. So all these changes in the body are not mine. Whatever disease has come, it refers to the area of body only
All thoughts that come will be based on the firm primary thought “I am the Parabrahman.” Unless one adheres to this fundamental principle - and most of us don't - we accept that we are the body and continue as such till our deaths. But if the guru's words are accepted with total conviction, our entire destiny, our entire life, will be transformed
I am splitting off what you are in yourself from whatever thoughts that occur to you. I stated you are not the thoughts but that if you embrace the thoughts as yourself you actually become the thoughts. So I drive a wedge between you and those thoughts, between you and your assimilation of any thoughts or words
Earlier I had said that you become the sum total of all the thoughts and whatever meanings you attach to them. You are the victim of the thoughts, of the meaning of the words, which you entertain as "yours." I gave you the example of that fellow who had accepted the meaning of the words “I have been offended,” had wholly swallowed the concept and so made it his own
In driving that wedge, I say “You are apart from thought or the meaning of the words.” What are sattva-guna, rajas-guna. and tamas-guna? Sattva-guna is doing all the tricks, and you say “I am doing this,” you accept the actions of sattva-guna, rajas-guna and tamas-guna as your own! You are not that either
There is the example of the married woman who had been in the family way for three months, and somebody made a forecast that the fetus is that of a very great person, of the standing of Lord Bhagavan Sri Krishna. The child to be born will be as great or even superior to Lord Krishna. That concept or that thought is given. So this lady accepts the thought in toto; embracing the thought, its meaning, as herself, the child must be born as great as Krishna
The sickness of which I am accused, of which my body is accused, is actually a great blessing, because it is not what I am. But it is also like that lady in the family way. I am also in the same state. That lady, because of the concept given to her, would indeed believe that her child is as great as Krishna
Similarly, my guru has given me this conception that I am the Parabrahman. So that is always there. So then what is the impact of this sickness? The sickness is going to deliver me into the Parabrahman state, because I have accepted Parabrahman as my real nature. I am the Parabrahman only! So this sickness is helping the delivery into the Parabrahman. Therefore, the culmination of the sickness is Parabrahman
You are a slave to the meaning of words, to the meaning of the mind
Therefore, you are the victim of the mind
Who accepts this conviction? It is not the mind. The deep sense in you that “you are” must accept that you are the Parabrahman, not the mind. Don't be a slave to the meaning which the mind imposes on you. The culmination of that sickness in me is Parabrahman only, but for others having this sickness there will be panic that they are going to die. This is the normal concept of ordinary people. But for one who is firmly convinced that he is the Parabrahman - I would almost say, whatever the “self” is, that the self is convinced that it is Parabrahman - then the sickness is a blessing, because the sickness helps to deliver one into Parabrahman
Who has the knowledge “I am”? Somebody in you knows the knowledge “I am.” Who is it? It is very obvious that you know you are, but what or who is it that knows you are? VISITOR : I asked that question, too. Who knows I am ? M : Am I to reply that you are sitting here? You know you are sitting here
And you are asking me! You must understand why I am asking this question
Unashamedly, you are asking me to reply to your question
INTERPRETER : You see. the point is we have to go to our very core; the whole idea is not to reply superficially. So what is the point in asking others to reply to your question? V : Because it sounded like a rhetorical question
I : We are to be prior to “I-am-ness.” Then Maharaj want us to study ourselves and find out whatever it is. There may not be a verbal reply. At least we must try to understand what he is driving at
V : I understand that
SECOND VISITOR : Is it pure awareness that knows “I am"? M : Yes, that's right. Who can understand that illusory state? “I-am-ness” is illusory only. It is not a perfect state, it is illusion. Who knows the illusion? A non-illusory state only can know the illusory state. You are not wrong in your reply, but why did you say "pure" awareness? What is the necessity of your saying “pure”? V : There was no necessity
M : "Awareness" means pure. Since awareness knows “I am.” it is other, it is more than “I am.” That is the highest; there is no gradation in awareness. In the Absolute, the Parabrahman state, there is no question of impure awareness or pure awareness
V : Is there love in pure awareness? M : No. What do you mean by "love"? What is your experience. your idea of love? V : Something much higher than the love that the mind and the body have
Something that is formless
M : Up to the state of beingness, "I-am-ness," consciousness, there is the state of love. That love is the love to be. This "love to be" is not the perfect state but when transcended, it is the perfect state. No imperfections ! V : You say "up to the point of beingness," is that when you are still in the Absolute? I : The no-being state is the Absolute, that is what you call pure awareness
Beingness is the feeling "I am." That “I am” itself is love to be. I would like to be. I would love to perpetuate myself
V : And where is love? M : That is love. Consciousness itself is love. With consciousness, you would love to be
V : And in pure awareness? M : There is no "I-am-ness." there is no consciousness
V : And no love
M : In love to be you want to have something, right? Some desire is there, the love to continue to be. In the Parabrahman, there is no love to be, because it is a perfect state
V : What is the purpose, if the Absolute is up there? What is the purpose of the Absolute coming to birth in a form? M : Why do you ask such an elementary question? I will give some example
You want to go to a particular place, to visit. You are that need. Because of that need, you love to go. Love is the motive force; it moves you. Similarly, when you are beingness, the beingness wants to continue. It wants to continue in time and space. That is the state of love to be. So love is there only in the state of beingness
In the perfect state, that state does not want to become something other than what it is. Nor does it want to be. Therefore, that beingness is not there, the feeling of “I-am-ness” is not present, in the perfect state. Everything is complete
When your need is fulfilled, there is no more need, no more lack. There is no more movement. Love is also dissolved at that moment. Suppose you want to go to a place, some far-away station. You rush to the station to catch the train. Why are you rushing? Because you wish to reach your destination. Once you reach it, you don't rush anymore. You stay put in quietude. You forget the movement also: there is no more rushing. Again. I am not addressing an individual or personality. I am addressing that final outcome of the five-elemental food essence, "I-am-ness." You are not the personality or the individual. The quintessence of this food, which in turn is the outcome of the five-elemental play, is the taste "I am." "I am" is not a personality nor an individual
For example you want to employ a servant. And there is a very weak fellow whom you want to convert into a good servant. He is very weak and cannot perform. So you bring him good food, good nourishment, and then he becomes stronger and steady. Then, finally, is it not the food that has made him into a good servant? The good quality of the food that you gave him is converted into service for you. Similarly, what are medicines? Is not medicine also a type of food? An antidote to a deficiency of a particular food in your body is administered in the form of medicine. Therefore, who is serving that servant? Is it not the food essence? And with respect to your own body, who is serving you? Is it not the food essence that is a good servant to you? Does all this knowledge that is exposed here confuse you? Normally, what is happening is that people assume themselves to be human forms, and they try to understand everything through the filter of that human form; they translate whatever I say into the mode of thinking of a human being, a personalized human being. That is the trouble. I am addressing that principle, that touch of "I am," that consciousness, which is the product of the food essence body
[To a particular visitor] You are not yet very clear? V : I thought I was fairly clear; you can't really judge me from what I say
What I say might belie my understanding
M : You are of the firm conviction that you understood? V : No. There are certain things that one understands at certain levels, but from the totality nothing was understood
M : Did you say the highest level or the totality? V : Totality
M : What did you mean by "totality"? V : When one remains in the “I am,” there is no knowledge, no thought, no movement
M : When you are only being, are there no thoughts? V : No
M : The very consciousness is the potential for thought activity
V : There is a potential for thought, but if it is not exercised there is no thought
M : When the consciousness is there, thoughts will spontaneously come or they may not; you have no control over that whatsoever. It is exclusively the business of the consciousness to have thoughts or no thoughts
V : But we were talking about the universal consciousness as having no thoughts and no mentation. That being so, where then is the thought? If we are told to be and to remain in the "I am," where then is the thought? M : Leave it for now and stop thinking..
*** M : What I am telling you, you are not in a position to understand, and what you are telling me, I don't understand. So what is the use of more talk? V : Well, it wasn't my intention to imply that I knew anything; I felt I knew a few things relativity-wise, but now I realize that I know nothing and that is due to Maharaj's grace
M : Since you are talking from the standpoint that you understand nothing
still you are asking questions. So how am I to understand them? The type and the quality of questions which emerges from you indicates that you are not understanding what I am driving at. The whole object of the dialogue is for you to understand what I am saying and that I understand what you are asking. If this is not the case, then what is the purpose of a dialogue at all? I am not well, I shall be talking only crisply and to the point. No digression
Many people have listened to my talks, have understood and have gone into quietude. If people cannot understand me. what can I do about that? if my talks cannot be understood, it is no use attending them
This morning I asked a question: “Who knows I am?” And you asked me a counter question: "What should I understand by that?" May you keep quiet; don't ask any further questions today
*** M : In the morning, when you asked that question, I thought you were trying to be argumentative
V : I apologize for your feeling that way; my question in return to yours was perhaps facile; it was, however, not meant to be argumentative. I felt there was an answer to that question that I perhaps did not know. But in truth I did know the answer and I do understand what you have been saying. Yet at times, with the knowledge that is being absorbed one feels that one does not really understand after all, yet the knowledge is absorbed. Who is there to know? And that is all I wanted to convey
M : I felt as if you are trying to attack or challenge me by your questioning
You should be quiet; when there is no answer coming out of you, you should not ask me to reply, for that question was meant for you, for your opening up. Don't ask questions for some time. Don't ask any questions to challenge me
[To another visitor] Were you here in India earlier? V : This is my first time: three days in India
M : You are already full of spiritual wisdom, you know a lot in spirituality, and I am in no position to address you. I am a pygmy before you
Do you have questions? [To a particular visitor] What happened to your question? V : I try to understand that level where there should be no more questions
Why should I come down to this level and put questions in this ease? M : What happened to your question? V : They are in the beginning. But in the ultimate state, there are no questions. Why should I come down to a low level to ask questions? M : Who invited you to step down into questions? I : If you don't want to ask questions, what is the point of meeting him? M : In the morning I clearly told you, I am not addressing you as a person, as an individual. I am addressing you as the expression of the consciousness. In these dialogues, there is no question of I and you. This consciousness is the product of the food body essence and is talking to that expression of the consciousness. You always assume that whatever occurs to you is knowledge, but it is really a concept. True knowledge is beyond concept, prior to concept
The conceptless, wordless, speechless state is knowledge. The trouble is that a foreign concept occurs to you. you like it, then you give it a title, you remember the title and you call it "knowledge" and are satisfied with it. How can you speak or develop any concept unless the primary concept "I am" is available? This primary concept begets further concepts; that is, all other concepts occur to it
We call it God, Ishvara and such names; and all that we call "knowledge." This primary concept illuminates all those concepts which later become my knowledge. However, whatever concept occurs to you, including the primary concept “I am,” is not the eternal state
This primary concept occurred to you, then you called it Brahman, Ishvara
Because you like it, because you like to be, you give it these glorious names as mentioned. But with all that, it is still only a concept. Why is it not eternal? Because its very foundation is this food body only. So long as the food body is available in proper balance and proper condition, that or any other concept will be sustained
Now where is your sample available in this? It is not to be found in you as the Absolute. Only the sample of the food essence in the form of a touch of “Iam- ness,” is available
I am telling you my story. And while I am narrating my story to you, it means that you are getting to know your own self. If you understand my story, you will also understand your own story. Abide in yourself. Actually Lord Krishna expounded his story; but he gave it the glorious name of Brahman vidya, the knowledge of Brahman. Can anything good or bad happen to the Brahman vidya, knowledge of the Self? Since nothing good or bad can happen to that Brahman, that Parabrahman is known as nishkama, the desireless Parabrahman state. The knowledge of beingness, the knowledge of the self, is like the utility of an unborn child; it has absolutely no use. Similarly, this Brahman vidya in final analysis is of no use
Most of the so-called jnanis unjustifiably thought that they had the knowledge through certain concepts which they valued very much. They glorified the concepts by giving them various high-falutin names. And they hung on to those particular concepts as their creed, religion, or profound knowledge
Even this primary concept, "I-am-ness," is dishonest, just because it is still only a concept. Finally, one has to transcend that also and be in the nirvikalpa state, which means the concept-free state. Then you have no concept at all, not even of "I am." In that state one does not know that one is. This state is known as Parabrahman: Brahman transcended. Brahman is manifest; Parabrahman is beyond that, prior to that: the Absolute. Do you understand what I am driving at? Whatever you caught in your attention, that attention should eventually turn into no-attention. The state that is finally left over is Awareness. Parabrahman
I am addressing the consciousness. The instrument of consciousness for comprehension is attention. Anything is absorbed in the attention and whatever is really understood goes through that attention, which itself is then dissolved into and as consciousness. So what remains? No concept is left. Thus, attention also turns into no-attention. With the arrival of consciousness, it occurs to you that you are; simultaneously, “I am” occurs to you or in your attention. So when the consciousness is not there, attention is also not there. Subsequent to the arrival of consciousness and attention, everything else crept in. Now let us assume that through your attention you are able to embrace the entire manifest universe. 'When your consciousness is not there. where is that attention which embraced the entire universe? Therefore, the is that principle where there is no question of a person transcends this “I-am-ness” state. It is the “no-I-am-ness” state. The jnani dismisses the consciousness. A jnani has no scope at all for any pride, because there are no props left for supporting his pride
The absolute state is prior to consciousness: it means the unborn state. Since the Parabrahman is the unborn state, prior to consciousness, can it have an iota of knowledge? An unborn child does not know of his existence. Similarly, the Parabrahman state does not know itself, that it is. My words are only rooted in the Absolute
You must be able to divine any meaning out of them
The principle that understands relationships and tries to understand, still exists in the realm of consciousness; it is in the realm of attention. But that to which it points has no attention in it
V : If you harness your attention. there is only silence
M : Up to the precipice of consciousness, into the abysmal depth
V : It is like drilling a hole in the desert, if water comes you don't have to do anything anymore
M : Whatever I say cannot be grasped by your intelligence. It is beyond the scope of the intellect
Every living being, every person. every species, tries to preserve itself. That is the work of the very life force. But have we any knowledge about that life force? This "I-am-ness." the touch of the consciousness, will be sustained so long as this food essence quality is retained. Once that quality is gone, the consciousness cannot be sustained. This is the product of the five-elemental play. I repeat. so long as that five-elemental food quintessence is available. the consciousness will be there. Once the quality is lost, the consciousness will also be lost. Is it possible for you to preserve the quality of these five elements perpetually? When you take this organic food essence, moisture must be present. And water is bound to dry up one day. Therefore, the food essence is also bound to dry up, and so consciousness is time-bound: eventually it will disappear. How can you retain that pride that I am like this? This "I am" business depends entirely on the food essence, So how can you retain it perpetually - that I shall remain like this only? To extract any essence, water is very necessary. and the water quality is bound to dry up
At this point. if you want to ask anything, please go ahead. If you are in a position to dwell on this theme, about your identity, please speak up
I : I told Maharaj you know about Bhagavad Gita and so many scriptures
He says, all that is very interesting but you ought to remember what is the primary support. You must be, must you not? V : I did not want to ask any questions. The knowledge of the scriptures has not brought about what we desire. For that, grace and satsang are vital, M : What is the meaning of the word “truth”? We understand what is unreal: that which is not going to last. But what is the meaning of "real"? What is the meaning of truth? It is whatever is eternal. Whatever we experience, including the beingness, is unreal because it is not going to last. These are all non-eternal, and one experiences only non-eternal items. The knowledge “I am” is a primary concept and is also non-eternal. The One, the Absolute, which is eternal and aware, why should he worry about anybody else? Because in that state, whatever appearance takes place is That only. There is no other, so the question about any inquiry about others does not even arise
Eternal means: Now and for ever. When the state is now and for ever, why should one worry about anything else? Whatever is eternal is the truth. That state transcends knowledge and ignorance, so there is no scope for knowledge and also ignorance. You may call it jnana, you may give it a fancy title but actually it is beyond jnana and ajnana, knowledge and ignorance
It is a most fascinating state, radiant. Brilliant, glorious - you can give it all sorts of titles. It is like the unborn child, the child of a barren woman. The truth is like that. The eternal is like that. The eternal means: the Unborn
V : Maharaj may have realized That, but how are we to realize that state? M : What do you mean by realizing that state? And what is that state? The child of a barren woman
V : I meant that which is eternal and now, as you were saying
M : Yes, I said that about that state, brilliant, glorious, etc., but it is like the unborn child