When We Die, We Will Meet | Satsang on Love, Grief, and the Self

NSo let's start by clarifying what it means to identify with the body. Because it sounds like once you see that you're not the body, you're past that. But actually it goes further. In the last call we had, we had this conversation on — if there's only one I, one Self, why can't I experience your experience? That's the question. So this is also coming from identifying with the body, because the "I" in that question is based on taking these experiences, these thoughts, this feeling, all these memories — taking that and identifying that with yourself.

So identity is deeply tied to the experiences, the perceptions, the thoughts, and memories related to this body. And then from that standpoint, if you ask why can't I experience your experience, your memories and all that — that's creating that split. Because once you identify, then there are separate selves. So that's why I posed the question: what if you were to swap over to another body? What would really happen?

The expectation is — because we have created this identity — that you would bring your memories, your name, your thoughts over with you. But that's not what would happen. Because those are all things related to this body, and not to that body. So the identification with the body goes quite deep. Once you lose it, then it's very clear what you are — because you put aside the name, the memories, the thoughts, all the sensory perceptions, shed all of that, and then what is left is the true identity.

Okay. Sometimes I get questions on near-death experiences. They never fascinated me much, so I haven't read too much of them. But in the ones that I know of, there's still identification with the body — as I hear now, you're seeing your body from the outside. So it's still "my body." There's still identifying with that body versus all the other ones.

Or you go and meet your long-dead relatives and all that — it's still "your" relatives. So to really de-identify with the body is to disconnect what "I" is from all the other things which are attached to it. Yes, there are memories. Yes, there are experiences. But they don't define what the Self is, because those are just phenomena arising and passing.

None of those are anything that can be called Sentient — and the Self is Sentient. So from that standpoint, when you ask "why can I not experience your experience?" — the question cannot be asked, because what is "I"? Any experience is arising in that same "I."

All right. Who would like to go first today? Yes, Sasha.

QHi all. If the awakening is completely unknown to the mind, how is it that we can feel a desire or attraction towards it?

NThe awakening is not unknown. So what is felt is this shift from what was taken to be "I" — the mind had this concept of I, and it was based on all these identifications, like these thoughts, "my thoughts," there's a person at the center, there's this one subject that is myself. And that shift — of taking that imaginary something, that didn't exist, an entity as I, to realizing that oh, the Awareness that contains me, the mind, is I — that is the awakening. So there's a mental shift. But then, because the Self was always the Awareness, from that standpoint there's no... okay. But in the mind there is a cataclysmic shift, because what was taken to be me doesn't even exist.

It's like you took out the foundation of the mind. It's like I described — when you pull the plug at the bottom of a bathtub, everything goes round and round. It's gone. So a lot of things do change in that sense. But I tend to shift focus from that, because then you start to keep fighting concept with concept, which takes forever.

QSo this is because — actually, let me see if I understand. So this is because we are aware all the time, but just... our attention is not there in the right place.

NIt's not just attention. It's what is being identified as you. Every thought that appears begins with I. It need not be explicit, but it assumes I am there.

What is it taking to be I? If it takes I to be a human being, a person, or it switches between roles — sometimes you're working, then the I is focused there; sometimes you're in a relationship, then it's focused on your role in the relationship — so those thoughts and everything that they then build into is around an identity. And that misidentification is what we're taking apart.

It's not that you are forgetting, but every thought that assumes you to be a separate entity is starting from the wrong place. Then one thought leads to the next thought, and all the moods that induces, all the wrong lines of thinking — it starts from that point. But if you start from the point of realizing the basic recognition of what the Self is, then everything can carry on. That's fine. But we want to stay firm on that basic recognition of what you are.

QBut the point is that we know it all the time, on another level. This recognition — it's not something new, it's always... this is why — what I'm asking is that we feel like something is incomplete, something is not real. Otherwise, what's the problem? Everything is good. Why desire something? Something is recognized on this other level, even if we are, you know, kind of not awakened — let's say like that. It is a deeper recognition, but who would continuously be aware of that?

NThe mind cannot do that. The mind can only, as it starts its function — which is part of it — is thought. At that point we can go back, it can go back, it can question: what am I taking to be I? And then you, who are there, the Awareness, see this mind in action, whatever it was doing. Even if it didn't turn back, you would be the same. But there's a return to the recognition: the Self is just the Awareness, not an entity, not a person, not a thing. Why should we do this? Actually, there's no need.

But there's an interest in finding out the truth in this life. You have somehow found that interest. And so we inquire. At some point it becomes very clear. Then you don't need to continuously ask the question. It's clear, and the mind finds its way back. As it's making the mistake of taking something else to be I, it realizes — oh, same mistake.

Hey [unclear], thank you.

QHi Nabeel. Hi everyone. I have weird questions. Very weird questions.

NOkay.

QIf I believe I am this name, this body, these sensations, whatever, and I believe my name is Marina and I am someone separate doing things in the world — all the emotions, sensations, thoughts, everything that I believe to be... Is it a normal functioning of the body and the mind? The brain function makes something happen in this organism.

So there are thoughts, there are emotions, whatever. And because I heard the notion that the body is not Sentient, doesn't have any Awareness — so everything is going through this body. What is it? Where does it come from? Who makes it? What makes it?

NMy daughter asked me the same thing yesterday. She asked me — she said, "Who made the first person?" Nobody made the first person. That's not how nature works.

There's no inventor creating things. It's just a process — processes going on — and they create more and more amazing things, and it's all just based on simple natural laws. So what is happening is: you have to find your role in what's going on. What you described is right — that's just the functioning of the body.

Which part can be said to be "I"? So you start with the most fundamental fact: I am. Whatever I am, I am what is aware — that cannot be denied. And then from there you realize nothing else actually is something you can claim to be "I," or if something claims to be you, it ends up just being a thought.

If you take stock — you say, "Okay, we're going to hold court." The mind is holding court. Whoever can say "you are I," stand forward.

QBut I don't... sorry, I don't want to interrupt, but I don't know — there is a thought, there is some energy going on, which I'm confused about, because I think I am that thought. But that thought is energy — is it a normal body process? Is it a body function to have thoughts?

NNo. So the body function appears to you as thought — to the body, it's not thought. The body is just functioning.

The body is... it's not one thing. The body is trillions of cells with all their own functions. And as that functioning is happening, you become aware of it as sensation or thought. So the inquiry at that point should be: why do you become aware of this body? At what point do you become aware of it? According to science, it's only at the point of certain brain activity. So why are you in contact with that?

This is the billion dollar question. Why? Because you are the Awareness. The idea is there's something in the body that is conscious — but nonduality does not see it that way. If there was something inside the body that was conscious, then that would be a thing we can identify: that when the brain activity reaches this point, then that thing is on top of it and experiencing it. But we don't find anything. So it's either the brain is conscious, according to some people.

Or there is something more basic, fundamental to Reality, which when you do this kind of activity, it appears as experience. That's the view of nonduality — that Awareness is not possessed by things, because you cannot find a single thing that is aware, in the mind or in the world, objective or subjective. There are no conscious entities. Awareness is fundamental. And when you create certain kinds of processes — or what look like processes, if you observe them in Reality — they are producing experiences. This body is producing a very coherent experience, which is not just the sensation but also the seeing, the hearing — all of that together. The whole world is being stitched together by the processes in this mind.

The perception is yours, but it takes in inputs. It computes them, and the output is an experience. There's no reason for there to be experience according to science. All the functioning can happen without it. So the only reason there is experience is in the nature of Reality — there is this capacity for a process to turn into experience. That is the capacity of being aware, which you cannot separate from what you are. And so you can completely de-identify from this particular body and see what you are as only that pure Awareness.

QAmen. I have to elaborate. Thank you. Anyway, thank you, Nabeel.

NNow, [unclear].

QHi Nabeel. Hi everyone. So, I feel it will help. It's just continuing on the same discussion. So we get to a point where we say we are just seeing and hearing, there's nothing there, we are that. I think we get there first, and then we say, okay, what is it that is this seeing, and is it an entity, or what?

So we get to that point, that gateway per se, and then these religious views that we are all fed when we were kids, one way or another, say we are individual souls. You're not this body. You are a soul that resides in the body, and you continue one way or another. So we get to that point. Okay, good. We are not the body. We are that soul that remains conscious and goes through life to life, karma and reincarnation. And that's still the idea of individuality and duality. So you get to that gateway. I think it will help everyone to break that view. To me, that idea of a soul that resides in the body is a thought in the mind. I think it will help if you kind of rake that a little bit, dig through that belief — that Awareness is bottled up, not in bodies, but in these individual souls, and those souls come in and out of bodies, and those are the ones that are Sentient. I think it will help if you break that down for us.

NYeah, sure. Has anybody ever seen a soul? It's just that conversation between atheists and theists. It just gets stuck because it's just a belief. You can believe in a soul, but it is really just a belief in being a separate self — which even atheists have. Everybody thinks they're separate.

So it's just a different word for "I," the separate "I." What is a soul? You can investigate. These are the thoughts, memories, the sight, sound — none of that is the soul. What's left? It's just an imaginary concept. The separation is again based on taking the sensory perceptions, the memories, the thoughts of this body and saying, "Because I have only access to this, I must be separate."

But it's putting experience first and building identity from there, rather than going to what actually is "I." The Self does not need any proof. That's the thing, because we start from the logical or intellectual side — maybe reasoning — which is important in the process, but we're not going from the subjective to what is real. How can you go from subjective to real? You go straight to what is real.

Because if you only take what is subjective and you build your identity around it, then yes, one day all that will go. All the memories will be lost. The body will die off and all the experience will stop. So one way or another, that identity has to go.

Give it up before that point. If you give it up before the point of death, you can live life with the realization of what the Self is — what you really are. The reason people hold on to the idea of the soul is they still don't want to die. They don't want to let go of these memories.

"These are my relationships, my property — I want it in the next life. I want rewards. I want mansions and all that." So the idea of the soul is just something to keep the fears at bay. Maybe something survives — I survive. But nonduality is quite brutal in many ways, because you want to look truth in the face, and looking truth in the face does require you to look into the abyss.

Look deep into the abyss. That's where the terror comes for the mind. So there is a notion of karma too, and this is again completely within what you call the natural processes. These bodies that come and so forth — in a local view there is a continuity across the different incarnations and so forth, and there's a notion of a karma that goes beyond one lifetime, beyond one body. So I think that's there, but the mistake is thinking that is kind of final — that's just a process, nature's process, and it does not have to be limited to one body or one lifetime.

There is something that continues, but that's still part of nature. Karma is just a description of cause and effect. What you do in this life will affect many other lives — is affecting many other lives. So karma is not to be seen as my karma, and only my karma, coming in the next life.

If a leader starts a war, the effect of that is what the sage is trying to describe — so that maybe the next leader will not start the war. Because if they think in terms of karma, they think of the effect of what they're doing. They may not have realised nonduality, but if they think in terms of karma, that alone can restrain them. It is a simple way to turn the thinking a bit more, make it a bit more expansive.

Don't just have this myopic view of what you can get in this life for yourself. Expand it. It is the ego or the mind holding on to the idea of karma and saying, "No, no, no — I continue. I come back one way or another, me, the individual, and all that."

So that's an error.

QThat's something I... you know, you wake up one morning and you're completely blank, and then this comes to your mind: "Oh, how come yesterday it was all clear to me and today it's not?" This question comes up — how do I deal with it? It's kind of like I'm subjectively struggling with the last few steps of climbing a mountain.

You go a few steps and you slide back there. But then inch by inch, overall you're moving up a little bit, to get to that clarity, that point of no return, I guess you'd call it. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

NThe clarity is always there, because the truth is simple. The recognition must also be simple. You must see for yourself: how do you want to look at this? It must be a simple recognition.

You are always aware. It's always there as a fact. So you start from there every time. To whom is all this arising? To whom is this perception arising?

Do I...? And you just stop there. The mind stops there. If it accepts that truth — yes, that is I. That is an I beyond trying to describe I.

To whom does this voice arise? It's obvious to I. There's no other candidate. Yes, that is I.

And also, if the mind stops there, there's no other candidate. The truth is clear. There is the Awareness in which the voice arises, and that is I. It's not like there's Awareness and then another entity that possesses the Awareness and that is to whom the voice arises.

The entity is just a supposition. It's imaginary. In the commentary on the Mumonkan, there is a phrase Master Mumon uses. He says, "The phantom in the weeds." The phantom in the weeds. And I have to go back and look at the passage, but just that phrase — it's just perfect.

The phantom in the weeds. That is what the whole struggle is about. That phantom. The weeds are just the thoughts and all that. It's just weeds. There seems to be a phantom there. You're hunting it down, and you think you are it most of the time. How are you going to find a phantom? It's just the weeds.

Come on, look around. Look at the sky. Look at the trees. That is the basic recognition — oh, there's no... that phantom is not there. It doesn't exist. It's just smoke and mirrors. And the actual "I" is just hard fact. To whom is this experience arising? Yes.

QHi everyone. So my question is, intellectually, if I inquire — as in, one by one: this is my hand, this is not me; these are my ears, my eyes, my face, but this is not me. Eventually I arrive at a point where, yes, I have these things, but these are not me. Then I must be the Awareness that has this kind of thing — a body. But from the experiential point of view, I see that my experience of being is localized in this body. And then immediately my imagination goes: okay, the thing we call awakening, for example... What would my experience of being be if I'm not the body? Yeah, so it's a tiny thing that makes it hard.

NIt's still the idea "I have this body." The have or have-not is what separates. So if you let that go — it's not "I have a body." There is a body, and when it functions it produces experiences, and I become aware of them. So now we have a little more separation. We first separate before we go to nonduality. So the body is producing experiences. You are aware of them.

What are you? Don't look at what the experience is saying. The experiences are local because the body is local, but you are aware of the experiences. Is that "you" local? If that "you" is local, then you have to find a point in space where that "you" exists. And you find there is no point in space, because all experience appears — like space itself is part of the experience.

When you dream, there's space there, and all the stuff happening in it. And that whole space in which a dream appears has appeared to you. And the same when you wake up.

QAnd this is quite interesting, the analogy you gave of a dream, for example. Within a dream it's all happening inside my mind. The dream stuff is made up of my own Consciousness. But nevertheless, in the dream I identify with the dream character, and then I'm not aware of the experience of another dream character, although that dream character is within my own Consciousness. Likewise, in the waking state I'm identified or localized in this body, but I'm not aware of the experiences of another person. So eventually I fall back to the separation mode, the default mode.

NSo when you say the dream happened in my mind, inquire into that — what does "my mind" mean at that point? Because that "my" which says "my mind" did not exist in the dream. You forgot about it. Or maybe that was part of the dream.

In the dream it was still me. So it wasn't my mind in which "me" was appearing as a dream world. It's not my mind when the dream appears. You think from deep sleep, where there was no experience, to the dream.

That place — let's call it the place where the dream appears — that is not my mind. That is not even mind. If we take the general use of the word "mind," when there is a mind there must be some experience, some thought, something, and some persona there. That's the usual idea of mind.

If you take the Zen mind, then yes, that is the mind — but it is not my mind. It is the One Mind in which any experience can appear.

QYeah, makes sense. When I'm saying "my mind," it's like after waking up from that dream to this dream kind of a thing. So again using this identity, and that's saying, "Oh, I was conscious" — like an entity was conscious, and in that entity's mind the dream appeared.

NBut actually there's no entity to find that is conscious. What you are is the Consciousness. Anything else — even when we say Consciousness, we've turned it into a word and concept. Anything else, like saying I'm a body or a soul, is much further — it's just completely conceptual. What is the body? It's so many parts. What exactly is the body? It's like a car. In Buddhism they talk about the chariot — what is the chariot? Take away the wheels and all that, and there's nothing there. There's no particular thing that is me. There's no particular thing that's the body or the mind either. It's just parts, interdependent parts. And the only thing at the end is you turn back to what is fundamental — fundamental to you.

QYeah, I mean, like the coin, it's a good pointer. When you say "the mind," for example... Again, I'm just telling my kind of imagination — we can say [unclear] would say that if I disidentify with my body, I think I'll identify with the mind. And then I immediately kind of think, what would be the experience?

NThe experience is the same because the experience is always related to some process taking place. If the process is taking place here and there's another process taking place here, they both produce experiences. This process doesn't have any information about the other process until they connect. Then there would be one common experience.

Otherwise, there are two separate streams of experience — separate in the sense that they're like coherent, experiential worlds. But where they pair, that one cannot be said to be separate.

Thank you. Thank you, Christina. You're still on mute.

QFor me it's very difficult to understand with other persons. It's quite easy to understand that it's not my body, it's not my mind, it's Consciousness. But I get stuck. For example, when you lose someone who was really important to you — nobody died. That's my question.

NYeah. Nobody died. See, to understand that, I like to go back to before birth, because that levels the field. It's not so much about sorrow and grief that you can try to understand.

Because once there is loss, it's very hard to see clearly, actually. But grief also has a way to make you see clearly right after that stunned initial pain. And so then there's this silence. But anyway, so if we ask, "What was I before I was born?" — that is exactly the same as what it seems like if you were to lose everything related to this life.

No experience, no "I," no — even no knowledge that you exist. That is the state in which life begins.

When any experience begins, just go one moment before that. No experience, no sense of existence. And suddenly experience pops up. To whom could it appear? It could only appear to that one who was in that prior state.

Because experience does not create something new. It's not creating a conscious entity. It can only appear if already there is the possibility for experience to appear. And that is the quality of being aware.

So this quality of being aware is there, and then there's some threshold. And I say that's for the scientists to tell us — what is that threshold at which experience appears? Whatever these bodies cause it, we know that for sure. So in that capacity of being aware, which was just empty capacity ready to create any experience, some spark creates experience — and in this case the spark is amazing.

It's not just creating one kind of experience. It's creating many experiences, stitching them together into a whole world, and that is called a life. And you go through that, and you meet others. But what are the others?

It started exactly the same way. And when it ends — sometime it ends too abruptly. There's sadness, there's grief. In life there is companionship, there is community.

But you must recognise who was that? That was the Self. The Self cannot die, because that was what was there when the life began. And then when people say, "Will we meet each other again? Will I meet the other person again?" — there is only one, only one Consciousness.

And this is really difficult for me to explain. Look, when you love someone, what is the actual desire? Even when you're with them as a person, there's something — you want to get a bit closer. Love takes you deeper than being with someone as a person.

You want to know them as they are. You want to merge with them. That is Rumi's love. He seeks union. I don't want to know the beloved as a thing.

I don't want to see your face — I want to be with you. And to be with you means I will give myself up, so that I am in you, so that we are one. So when we die and we meet, we will meet, but the meeting will be the perfect union. I call it the perfect union because that is what love desires — to not be two separate things, to be whole again.

And in that wholeness there's no need to talk and experience and so on, because we are whole.

QYeah. Thank you. Thank you.

NHannah.

QYou almost made me cry before I was about to talk. That's very beautiful.

Sorry, finding it hard to know where to start with that. Okay. So you've brought a lot of clarity to experiences. I have had experiences where I'm absolutely no longer identified as Hannah at all, but was quite clearly that which was appearing as myself and the things around me.

And the thing that struck me as really strange at that time — afterwards, after the experience — was that it was still possible to say "I," that "I" was still a relevant thing to say. So obviously there was still very much an identification with the body. And it's like, wow, how could I still be, you know, a thing that is felt, with no person whatsoever. And I'm just very grateful for the clearing up of that.

But what has become more apparent in the last few months is that really that question of what am I, who am I, is not really the burning question. And it's just hard to formulate this without it seeming a bit misleading. Because most simply I would just say... so you've also answered what I would say, but that's clear as well now — but not why. And I don't mean why as in...

It's kind of like having to merge all of those questions somehow into one sense, one feeling, to try to point to this — because it is so mysterious and astonishing. I am gobsmacked by it. Not only why is there experience arising and falling, or no experience — why anything at all? And again, that sounds like me talking about purpose or meaning, and I don't mean that. That is the "why something rather than nothing" question.

Because to me, something and nothing kind of go together. I don't know whether nothing... I don't even feel like you can really call nothing "nothing" or something "something." They're not — that makes no sense whatsoever. But I could just as easily — the question would stand just as easily for nothing as for something. Why? Why that whole Emptiness? Why that empty thingness? It's bizarre.

Can anybody even answer that? It seems to me, from a couple of things that you said, that even that becomes clear somehow. That's astonishing to me, because I have had zero experiences — zero understandings — that would even begin to go there.

NIt's not an experience. It's not experience.

The question is — if you break down the question — your question is: why is there Reality at all? Why is there Reality? Why is there... but what the hell does that question even mean? Why is there Reality, and why is it like this? And the answer you arrive at is that of course there must be Reality, and Reality must be like this.

And let me try to explain why. So look — there's no "because"... How could there not be Reality? I've got to question the mind — what do you mean by "no Reality"?

That would be saying it's denying not just existence but the possibility of inexistence. It's just hypothetical to say there might possibly have been no Reality. Is the mind trying to deal in concepts with something that is real, and saying, "Oh, maybe this would not have been there"? What do you mean? It doesn't work.

But then — yeah, sorry. Go ahead.

QNo, I'm sorry. I knew that you were going to say that. That's conceptual, and the realm of... I knew that you were going to say that, and it still doesn't somehow seem to even get close to the heart of that particular thing.

Somehow it's the only thing I've never heard anybody even approach. I'm sorry. I know that you are trying to, and you're probably doing it perfectly, but I'm like...

NOkay, so the first step is that there must be Reality — what it is, you could maybe question initially. Okay, Reality might be like this or like that — again, that's crazy.

What do you mean Reality could be like that? Because then that's just imagination. That's not Reality.

But okay, so let's say in science they also think in terms of possibilities and so on. Now, if Reality — if the basis of Reality — was not Awareness... there would be no Reality. That is the fundamental — how fundamental you get with it. That answers the question.

If there was... Reality and Awareness are synonymous in that understanding. So if you say there is possibly a reality where there's no Consciousness, and there are zombies who behave exactly like we behave, and they even have talks about Consciousness but they're zombies — they're not experiencing anything — in philosophy they think like that's possible. But to the sage's understanding, no, that is not possible, because if there's no Awareness, there's no Reality. Those zombies you're talking about — they don't exist.

There's nothing possible, because Awareness is that Reality in which space and time appear. There's nothing else that you know of in Reality in which space and time can appear, but they do in Awareness. So that is the basis. It is the basis. So even when we talk of the universe — the objective universe according to science, we call it the objective universe — take away humans, the planet never existed.

Even that space in which the universe exists, that exists in Awareness. That is the base Reality.

QYeah, that in itself has become really clear in the last couple of months. It's so beautiful.

NIt's not just that... See, I think it goes back to the question of why I'm not experiencing your experience. No, there are many experiences going on at the same time. And they're all in the same Awareness. And I talk about this life as a dream inside a dream. A dream at night is a dream. In a dream, within a dream — these three levels.

This life is a dream within a dream. What is that higher level dream? That higher level dream — what is it? When we use our telescopes and our instruments and we try to describe the rules, those are the rules of that higher level dream.

The universe is a dream. Space and time cannot appear anywhere but in Awareness.

QAgain, briefly — six or seven months ago I had a dream that I went up into space further than I'd ever dreamt before.

And normally I go up and I can see stars and stars and stars. But I went so far, and I knew that I'd gone in a way that I hadn't before. And I couldn't understand what I was seeing because it was so different. And then I realized it was galaxies — not stars, but just galaxies. Galaxies. Galaxies.

And I realized you didn't just go up — that it's impossible for this to be a spatial thing, to contain all that, that I wasn't outside looking at it, that I was it, containing it. And I sort of went in and out of it.

NBut the experience of the universe will not be like that. The dream that is the universe — there's no eyes and ears and all that in it.

So what is the experience of being the universe? It's not like that. It's just the base experience, and that's what Nisargadatta used to talk about — is that sense-feeling "I am." That is the base experience. That's just the experience. That's the base. If you don't have eyes and ears and all that, and there's no brain stitching all those things together, that's the base experience.

There's just "I am," and within it then you can have all these other varieties of experience, which are these lives. But anyway, so going back — the basis is Awareness. What the mind is questioning is why should there be Awareness at all? It's questioning the existence of Reality.

But Reality does not exist in that way in which the mind thinks of things as being able to exist or not exist. Reality exists in a fundamental, real way where it cannot possibly be non-existent.

QThat makes so much sense. At one level, it's kind of obvious.

NYou can't deny or even argue the inexistence of what does not exist in space and time. Only things in space and time could exist and not exist. Could be created and stop at some point.

There's just no experience to go along with that. The experience is just the observation that Awareness is fundamental. It is most real. It is in fact Reality, and there's no additional experience to be had to get all this stuff. That's just the way it is.

Oh, why? What do you mean why? Because you have to give an alternate then. What is the alternate? If there's a "why," then there has to be an alternate — like some other possibility. But not this... it could have been some other way. And that's why I'm saying it's not possible. There's no other possibility. And therefore, this is why...

QI've got a lot of help out of the logic across your...

NIt's not just logic, because the basis of that logic is a self-evident fact — it's a known fact. Because if you ask why, then we have to talk and use logic and such, but what that logic builds on... that is, you know... Anyway, I think we'll circle back to that. Let's let another... maybe it's related. You have your hand up?

QYeah, it is related. I'm like Hannah — my mind goes to all kinds of weird places. So on this one, I think, like you said, step one is accept Reality. You cannot deny that, because you are — you can't. And then after that, your mind kind of says, "Okay, well, why is Reality like this? Why is it so amazing?" I mean, everything is amazing. The depth of it is infinite.

And at that point, it's your mind trying to make sense of infinity, of God. Even if you want to use your mind to kind of go further, you say, "How would infinity manifest itself?" I mean, infinity is infinity in all dimensions that you can possibly think of. So how would it manifest itself? And there's also one piece in there — that infinity, that Absolute, has love with it.

The love creates all this stuff. Your mind is based on that, and that's how you feel so stricken when you get to the depth of this. And you try — how, why — like, why is it like this? It could have been a different way. I mean, it's all a level of mind trying to describe something that... but mind is a manifestation of this Absolute.

And you say, why? Why is this mind here? Why do we — why is it this way, that I am like you are, Hannah — I am not another — and we're trying... why are we experiencing all this? It's love, and it's infinity. The combination of those two things, I think, could give you... I'm Persian and I read Farsi, so I grew up with Rumi and all that. There is another one — one of these Sufis that wrote poems. For some reason, Persians loved writing poetry, and they don't say anything straight. Everything is in the form of a story.

I have to think about it, but one of them was talking about the same thing — why? And there's a story of... It's called "The Conference of Birds." I don't know if you've heard of that. That's interesting to look at. It's about birds trying to find their origin and all that. They go through these stages and a funnel and all that, and at the end one of them says something that I remember vaguely — it's for the Absolute to see its own beauty.

Because it's love. It's like the "why" that you're saying — your mind is a manifestation of the Absolute, and if you want to really conceptualize it at the mind level, you say: so it can see its own beauty. So I have these feelings... I know it's all at the level of mind, but this helps. Even at the level of mind it makes sense to me. If I was infinite, how would I manifest? If I was infinite with love as my nature, how would I manifest? And you see, like — okay, what could it not have been? Could it have been any other way? It's very subjective, but I thought I would share that.

NYeah, I like that. Definitely. It's trying to comprehend infinity. It can make you mad. But in the madness, you see that it is driven by love and interest. Interest is driven by love. When the first experience appears, you can see why it snowballs from there, because that first experience is...

It pulls you in. It pulls you in because the first experience is love, in a way. It's the essence of love. It's before me and you. In that first experience there's the knowledge of existence and love of existence — but as a whole, not my existence or your existence. And life uses that. That's how life begins, because if you cannot get the engine started, you can't get going. That first experience must appear and be held on to, and it's held on to because of that love.

If the person appeared and it was terrible and you just rejected it, then you'd go back to sleep, and life cannot begin.

QYeah, a lot better. Thank you. Thank you for asking. My little thing here that I'd like to talk with you about relates, I think, quite nicely with what you were all talking about before I arrived. Once again, apologies for being late, but in connection with Ajata and the video that you put together, and a related thing — I believe you mentioned it to Nadia last time I was here. If I kind of just read it as I read it in that particular little article, it would be easier than me trying to bumble my way through it.

So it's about: what is Reality? What is the base, the standard of Reality? And I think this is taken from Indian philosophy, so that is the standpoint from which I want to talk about it or ask about it. It says — it was what somebody was asking Nisargadatta: what is the standard of Reality? He said that alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself, and which is eternal and unchanging. There it is. Another bit says: Reality is not determined by perceptibility, but by permanence, unchangeability, and self-luminosity. There's a lot more but I'll stop there because it's getting late.

And my point, or my question as it is, is... Where is that? Where is that? To me it is entirely — when you do your videos, the "be with the eyes closing and opening and see the world" — it's most definitely not in the world, the stuff out here. It's not there. That isn't it. But when I close my eyes, that is it. To me — like I said, I'm asking — I guess I'm asking you: do you see it like that? Do you feel it is like that for you too? That description of permanence, unchangeability and self-luminosity — to me, that's it. That's how I perceive whatever this is. That's the real, but not the external thing. But is that the same for you?

NNo. The eye thing is to show you that there is no internal or external — that they're both the same. When the eye opens, that is the self-luminosity of the permanent. When it closes, yes, that is the permanent. When it opens, that is the self-luminosity of the permanent revealing itself. The Truth revealing itself. So that again does tie into our conversation just now, in that it's proving itself. It's showing how real and how fundamental it is, and that it cannot be any other way — because both something and nothing are that. So it's not just eyes closed, eyes open — it's both. The self-emanated light, this luminosity, is what we see externally as well as internally. That's the thing.

QI know you're trying to say there is an internal and external. Maybe that's my stumbling block.

NYeah. Part of the reason for closing and opening the eyes is to show you that what is changing is only that now there's light and there's colors. The difference between experience and no experience is just those kinds of aspects. So what is there in the absence of experience already contains the capacity to have any of those experiences. Every dimension of every sense — this sound, this taste, this sight, and all of that. All the dimensions of emotion are intrinsic. They are already there as a possibility in Awareness.

Awareness can contain them. It can give birth to them. And so when the eyes are open and the mind says "external," that is the manifestation of Awareness. As they were saying, that is the infinity taking form. It is the shape that infinity is appearing as in this moment. But it's not just appearing in this moment — this moment contains all of the moments, because it's infinity. But even in the one experience that you have access to... and the thing you raised, I wanted to go back to that — Ajata.

It's like any confusion, any trying to understand infinity, it's still... I'm reading the book, and that is in the book. The character may be really confused about, "Oh, who is this? What is this Awareness? What is this infinity?" and so on. But I, as the one reading the book, I'm perfectly clear about what I am. So all the beautiful descriptions and so on — in one sense, from one standpoint, they are true.

And from another, Awareness is most ordinary. So as Awareness, you don't feel beautiful, you don't feel this and that. It is in the book — it's either describing you in beautiful ways, poetry about you, or the book is very confused and so on. There are all kinds of stories.

But look at to whom all this is appearing — the permanent, self-luminous, ageless, fundamental, undeniably real. And yes, that is the standard of Reality in any moment. At any level of the dream — if you're in an Inception, a thousand dreams deep — Reality must still be what is most real. That is the standard of Reality. You cannot hide it. Yet somehow... you can be confused about it. Not you, but in thinking.

QYeah, but Reality must always be what is most real. I think it links to... this was Nisargadatta, and I may have actually even said this to you before, but I'll say it again. He always goes back to: all you have to do is to be with, abide in, the I Am. That's all you have to do, until it dissolves, until the doorway — you know, you cross that threshold. And then I guess... that just seems to me such a fundamental thing. And maybe I'm just happy to rest there, because when I am, when it's... it just seems such a completion.

But we always think in stages and levels, don't we? I know it's probably totally wrong and totally confused, but that to me feels like the nearest I can get to absolute Reality. Absolute, like that unchanging, simple, uncomplicated, beautiful thing. And it's almost like there's the answer. If there is a question, then there's the answer. How do you feel about that?

NYeah, so I Am is the answer? That is the pure knowledge. The absolute, though, is more fundamental in the sense that even if the knowledge is not there, the absolute is still the absolute — that is the absolute Self, the absolute you. When you're residing in the knowledge "I am," there's still the knowledge, which can dissipate. It can come back. That is the first seed from which Consciousness grows. And when you... the question of external and internal — that's separate. But once you are there, just residing in the "I am," just being what you are, and all there is is the knowledge that you are — then yes, that is as close to Reality as... you are Reality, and now you know that you are. That fact is real and telling you the truth.

That is as deep as you could go. What's deeper than that? You would lose the knowledge "I am" and just remain as the absolute, which you wouldn't know of — which you do anyway. So in life, getting to that point is good enough.

QThat's good to know. I'll keep... thank you. Thank you.

NThe reason Nisargadatta kept pulling at the thread and even discarded the "I am" is he wants to just be clear on what Reality is. It has no dependencies. That is his standard of Reality. It has no requirement for anything to exist or not exist, or to be in this state or that — it's always what is most real. So now that life is here, or thoughts are here, or even identification with the body is here — it is still what is most real.

That is what can be called Reality, and if you look back, that is what can be called I. There's no other I. All right, let's end there. Thank you all for joining. Thank you for your time.