You cannot count to one | What Awareness actually is (Live Satsang) [public version]

NSo, today we're going to start by learning to count. Just like Sesame Street. So, if we start with how many people are on the call. It's not a trick question yet.

You can look at... you can start counting the faces. So, it says 11 or 12, but two of them are AI chatbots. So that's nine or 10, sorry. 10 people on the call. That's the normal way of thinking. 10 people on the call.

When we're children, you put a face on anything and that represents Consciousness. And that's quite ingrained. That's how we think of Consciousness. Face represents Consciousness. But if you start to count how many "Awarenesses" are on the call...

Does each face represent a separate Awareness? But then that leads to the kind of thinking that's again wrong. You will think... the mind will say, "Well, I know I am aware, but the rest are just faces. I don't know."

But that means you're counting to one. The question is: can you even count to one? Because when we usually count things there are defined boundaries we are using to put things in boxes.

You can count apples. Even if it's not visual you can count, let's say, the times a bird sings. It sings, it stops, it sings, it stops. There's a boundary where the sound stops.

That's what you're using to count. So, how do you count Awareness? Because every boundary conceivable is in Awareness. See? What you should start to realize is you cannot even count to one.

And it's definitely not zero. Advaita means not two. But it's not even one. There's the ajanma and then ajata... you know, and it continues.

It's not two. It's not even one. And yet so obvious, so real. Here you are. Now, so what are the 10 faces? What do they represent; the 10 people? They just represent streams of experience in Awareness.

The variety can be there. Even in one stream of experience, there's all kinds of experience. So there is a boundary which is being drawn by taking one stream of experience saying this is representing one Awareness. It's not like that.

All these streams of experience they must appear in the same kind of Awareness. How can there be two kinds of Awareness when you can't define dimensions which are necessary for Awareness except the quality of being aware? So, there are multiple streams of experience right now and this call is being experienced through all those different standpoints. But when we question what is I? What does it mean to say I am?

Does that refer to the stream of experience, or does that refer to the fact of being aware? That is the crucial question. Because all lives are being lived identified with that stream of experience and everything you think of as an identity is tied into that stream. But by asking this question, you can step away from that stream and see the fact of what the Self is.

Because when you say I, it's actually not referring to any special thing in the stream or even the face that you see over there, which seemingly is your face. It refers to the fact of being aware. And so when the sage says there's the one Awareness, they are not even actually saying there's one. Because you can't count to one.

And when they say there's the one Self, it does not mean that there's one. The same Self is here and there. It is actually — the Self is fundamental. It's just the fundamental basis of all experience.

And all the ways that you can think of to draw the lines and differentiate and so on, it's all based on experience. All the questions keep circling around experience. Whereas what's being pointed out is not a particular experience or even a stream of experience but what is most fundamental. All right, let's go to Q&A.

Yes, Neil. Good morning.

QExcuse me. Good morning. Good morning. Morning. Very early here. Just got up. I love the video yesterday that you brought out by the way because obviously that kind of links in with what you're talking about this morning. I think — but the one question that I had, the one difficulty that I had with Awareness was that it was that it's non-personal, that it's not mine, and that was my biggest stumbling block completely. And I get Awareness — that I feel that I experienced that — that it's not mine. It doesn't belong to me. It's not just mine. It's like, well if it's universal, why can't I just see it? What — why is that — means everybody, we're all the same. We're all part of the same thing. I guess that's the way I perceive it at this time. And one little description I stumbled upon which seemed to help me was that it's like space.

I don't know if you would agree with this, Nabeel, in terms of if you can describe it as having a nature or qualities, but then it's like space — that it's like the space in this room is the same space that's in your room in Melbourne and in America or wherever anybody else is. That space is identical. There's no boundary to it. Even though the walls and the ceiling give it a container. It's a little bit like us thinking that's — because that's where I was seeing it — I feel like I contain that space and obviously that's a misconception. But I felt like that's the best description or explanation of how Awareness is. It's just like, well, even though I can't — I'm not experiencing what you or anybody else — and it feels like it's just because it is, isn't it? It's just the one experience. It isn't one. It isn't two. It may not sound very clear what I'm saying, but it's like that's the best I've come across into accepting or understanding how Awareness is universal — that it's because it's borderless. You can't describe it. You can't pick it up. You can't put it down, but it's just there. It's just that's it. Yeah, that's it. That's what I'm looking for. I feel like that in all of this stuff, in all of your videos. I think you kind of see — yeah, that's what you're pointing. That's what you're actually pointing at in all that you're saying — is that's the Self. But it's understanding. It's that understanding. I say the sage is in a condition — is your condition. I mean that really shone out to me in your video — that understanding I guess. So is that — do you feel like — am I on the right track?

NYes. When we say space-like it starts to point you in the right direction. Otherwise it's still the sense of my Awareness or some other Awareness and so on. It is like space — it's not personal — but when we say it then we have gone wrong. So space-like — that was my second or third video. After that we've gone past that. Yeah, we are way beyond that because space is contained in Awareness. There's no space without you noticing space — then there's space. Awareness is more fundamental. So we want to get to that more fundamental non-conceptual realization. Because space-like — we say that to point and start to guide — but that still then leads to, like when you said we are all one, that's like a common theme in spirituality. We are all one. But that's again counting the wrong way. Because when you say — I don't mean you say it because you've gone past that — but when someone says we are all one, they're counting like what we started with. They count to 12 and then they're reducing it to one somehow. So there's some sameness but there's still all the separate individual entities and then they share this thing which could be space. But what you want to direct to is: what do you mean by I? Because to count "we" — many "we"s — you have to first count what is meant by I. And when you see I actually doesn't point to any of the experiences — it points to Awareness. Again I don't want to say "itself," but that's the word that English makes me say. Awareness itself is the Self. You cannot then think of first person, second person, third person. As soon as those kind of thoughts come up they are wrong because you have found the first person was not real. How can there be a second person? The second person is automatically then resolved — must be the same as what happened to the first person, which was it was not real. It was just a stream of experience which is fine because even in one stream you see how many different experiences and how many different dreams in that same stream. And all kinds of characters you can play in the same dream, the same stream with all those dreams. But the Awareness is fundamental where you cannot even count to one.

And by not being personal, it's actually initially a bit of a struggle. But that is also the liberation in this teaching, in this understanding. If it is personal you're still stuck with that chain — the ball and the chain. You still have to try to save it and save you and yours and all that. The Self is impersonal Absolute. When that is your core identity, that is where you can say there are no problems for me to resolve.

QIt still kind of makes you — I think maybe I look at it and just feel like not quite there yet. But maybe that's the problem in itself. It's that thing of like, well I'm trying to figure it out — and it's like, well it's not trying to figure it out because you're not there. You're not real. You're in a — that was a thought that occurred to me about the dream and that this is a dream and you're still wrapped up in that. And that is — is this what you're pointing to with Awareness and the not even one — is that that's the liberation, if liberation is really what we're looking for here — that we're in a dream — but I can't even put it into words. I get lost trying to—

NLiberation is to not see yourself as a person. There not even a first person. So whoever you loved is immediately resolved into being the Absolute fundamental Reality. What more could you want for them? All that humankind has imagined is some nice heaven. You know, in my religion, I used to believe there would be rivers of milk and so on. I'm allergic to milk. It never appealed to me. Thankfully, I don't need that. I don't need x number of wives and so on. But when you realize this, this is what you wish for for everyone you love. That they could be at peace, that they would escape death, that they would find, you know, all of that. That in love we could be one. And what you realize is what love wanted was the starting condition. It's also the ending condition and it is the current condition. So you start to dance like Rumi because now you're drinking from the same wine. The wine of not even one but being annihilated in the Absolute.

But you know the latest video — what it's trying to say, and you got that when you started talking earlier — the sage's inner condition, that is the thing that keeps the search going. You will continuously — the mind will bring up: okay but look I'm still having all these nasty thoughts, I can't be the same state as my guru, the one I look up to, and they must be in some perfect state. But then what are they saying? They are telling: what is the perfect state? Because again the human mind is imagining a kind of cheap heaven and that's its perfect state. But heaven is not cheap. It's not a human imaginary creation. And the perfect state is the state of being aware. Whatever state you imagine other than being aware is not the perfect state because it is conditional.

It can be arrived upon and lost. It only appears at certain points in time to certain people. And so it is not the perfect state according to the sage's criteria. And then if you think of: well does this criteria apply to the state of being aware? It is true. It applies to every point in time and space — before time and space. Because when the first experience appears, there must be Awareness to perceive it. And it just levels it and it shows you what the sage's innermost condition must be, the fundamental innermost condition. And the only reason they are apparently a bit more at peace than everyone else is they are not looking at the stream of experience but only standing firm at that one fact and they have stopped building their identity around what happens or doesn't happen.

QYeah. Yeah. I love that. I really — that little point that you just raised there when I heard that on your video. I must watch it about three or four times now. I just like — yes, there it is. It's just — I guess we're all looking for an absolute one-liner answer, you know, which yes, that's going to solve all the problems. That's going to answer everything. Just that — that's that. And that one to me, I've grabbed it in the hope and vain of the craziness of thinking that that's going to be that's it. But it is — that's a fabulous pointer.

NOkay. All right. Thank you so much.

QThank you. You always get me warmed up in these conversations because when I start it's a bit unnatural and get me going. It's such a pleasure. Thank you.

QHi, can you hear me? Sorry, I didn't know how to signal that I wanted to say something.

Very conceptual, but I wonder if thinking of this universal mind as — you know this idea of oneness I suppose — as sort of like the life force, for want of other words to use, that flows through all of us and all animals and trees and grasses. I guess it only accounts for things that are alive, but it seems to be where I can find common ground at a conceptual level for how we might all be the same. I don't know what you think of that.

NYeah. So, you got to go back to counting. See, what you're seeing is what you could do is in a dream, you could start to take observations and you could start to measure things and try to understand them and run experiments and you'll start to find the laws that govern the dream. So when we talk about the oneness that is by observing the dream — we're already seeing fractal patterns and oneness and so on. But that is the empirical method of taking experiences and observations and using them to think of Reality, to try to propose this is our best theory of Reality and so on. But the way of this path, the inner path, is to turn inwards. You're not looking outwards for understanding Reality because the best way to understand Reality is to find out what is real about yourself because that is the purest sample of Reality at hand. Everything else is a phenomena. It comes and goes. It's changing and you start defining it. Oh, this one has shape, that one has color, but that one doesn't have it. It's only sound. So, you know how humans try to understand things. We knock two things together and we break them and see what's inside. And even after thousands of years, the best we're doing is particle accelerators, but they're still doing the same thing. You split things and you try to see what's in there and you find out, oh, there's smaller things and you split them and smaller things and in the end there's nothing much. And all those laws that we come up with, they're the laws defining this universe. But the universe itself is not an object. As you physicists — they talk about wave functions and probability distributions and so on. It's not a thing and all our explanations have described the laws for this dream. To me, this universe is a dream. In that dream, there are another level of dreams which is each of these lives. In a subjective universe, it's not objective. It's probabilistic. It's subjective. It's relative. From the standpoint of Awareness being fundamental, the universe is itself a subjective dream. So there's a dream of the universe. Within the universe, things have started up and led to more dreams which are all these people as we call them, animals and so on. And all that is already pointing to the oneness. The Big Bang is pointing to oneness. You see how the clouds bring the rain to the rivers goes to the sea. Everything points to the nonduality of it.

But those few who are going to take the next step have to then look at going beyond oneness and one and see: really, can you even count to one? And to do that you question what am I? To count to one I must begin with myself. Then there's the other and the third person and the animals and so on. But what am I really? And if you can't find the first person, what you find is what is most real. And you found Reality — again have to say "itself." But that is so wrong because Reality cannot be arrived at as an it, as a thing, as a separate entity, as an observable thing. Reality can only be arrived at by consuming what you thought of as I and signifying that I — conceptual ideas around all of this.

QAnd I get a sense of it, but yeah, that there's no felt — well, I was going to say experience, but I guess that's not what one is to expect anyway, a felt experience of Awareness.

NYeah. Because it's not about oneness. The oneness is what is experienced. Sometimes you have the high spiritual high. You feel oneness. But the Awareness is just simply the fact of being aware. There's no special experience to it. It's what people call the banal experience — the most ordinary experience. But it's not an experience. It's actually a knowledge. It is Self-knowledge. The knowledge of being aware — that you and Awareness cannot be two separate things.

QYeah. If you are what is aware when I say Awareness that means you and then — sorry.

NYeah. So you mentioned a knowing or an understanding. Is that sort of — is there a sense of knowing this? So one part is already known. The core actual fundamental part is already known. When you say I am, even if you don't say it and you know you exist, that is the core Self-knowledge. Because when there's that knowledge, it is the knowledge of being aware because who can the experience appear to except to the one that is aware. So that knowledge is there. But then there is the mental identity or persona which is tied to this life, all the experiences in this life and all that, and each thought that comes up speaks as if it is I. That is "it." That is not I. That is where the "it" is correct.

QThank you.

NMhm. So all we drive towards is clearing up those wrong concepts of I and always asking the same boring question. Who is it that's aware? Because that's actually saying the truth. You are what is aware. But you are not aware as a person, as a thing and so on. As it clears up, the same ordinary experiences are all explaining that. So when you say you know that I'm not having a special experience about all this — one of the most common ones I sometimes point to is when we were counting people, we were counting faces. People have faces. But right now, do you have a face? You don't. From your standpoint, you don't have a face right now. It's over there. You know the picture there. It's at a distance from what you are. Whatever is at a distance from what you are cannot be you. That's already built into the mind. Whenever you have ever seen your face in this life, it was at a distance — in a mirror, reflection, video.

And as you have experienced life, you have never had a face or a head for that matter. We're going back to the headless way we talked about once. It's actually very powerful because it's describing the firsthand view — and the firsthand view is not a first-person view because when we think of first-person view we have the face in it. If you try to remember — you've got a memory — the mind tries to put you in there as you as a person as an entity. But if you really focus on the memory and you inspect it, all that's there is images and feelings. But your face is not in there. It cannot be in there. So the memories are of the experience, not of you.

QNabeel, I was listening to Bernardo Kastrup. I'm not sure if you're aware of him, philosopher. And he was saying — he talked about how when we look in the mirror, we project — or our mind projects or our brain projects — into the mirror and the image bounces back at us. And how Awareness perhaps is projecting itself and only through us can it have a reflection of itself and what it is.

I don't know if that sounds—

NYeah. I think long ago I listened to him a few times. And it was interesting at that time but it's not quite — like he says it himself I think — that he's thinking more from philosophy, from theoretical, and trying to explain it. But what we are going into is the realization that the sages have had, which is more direct. It's not theoretical anymore. And he describes it in terms of a universal mind which to me does not work. It's not a universal mind. Awareness is not a mind. Because I have examined the mind and I found only what I like to call experience. What is mind? It's just the seeing, the feeling, the thinking, all of that. And then you look at that — are these really separate things because they come tied together often. They're just experiencing. And for there to be a mind, what a human thought process adds into that is intention, some kind of ability to do things and all that. I don't find that in the mind. That is — something happens and then someone comes in and claims credit: I did.

Yeah, that's what happens with thought. That's my great — you know — that all my plan, just as I planned. But no, it's not like that.

So when there's a mirror, even the mirror is not a good analogy for Awareness because there's a substrate, there's the light, there's the actual object, the reflection and then the perception. But how Awareness can be understood is what actually happens in that whole process. When light enters the eyes and all that brain activity takes place, it is experienced without any additional mirror, any additional organ or anything. So then what Awareness is is not an observer but the fundamental Reality in which that whole process took place. Because there's no external thing. There's no other thing that could experience it.

It is Reality itself. Because that process has taken place — and the way we are talking about the process is actually wrong because that's from the observable third-person kind of description of it. In Reality what the process is is the experiencing.

QYes, that's helpful. Thank you.

NNot sure that's helpful. So let's go back to — we counted faces as people. So that's the outside view.

When someone sees you, they see a face, person. Your own view, there's no head, no person. What is there? What is there from your standpoint? Now, stop calling it the first-person view. It's the firsthand view. First view. The first view. And in the first view, it's as described in the Bahiya Sutta. We've covered a few times. In the seen there's just the seeing and no separate object and no separate seer. That's the experience. When you see something actually what's there is just the seeing. A separate object is assumed. A separate seer is assumed. When something is heard it's just the hearing. When something is thought of there's just a thinking — no thinker and no thought either. There's no — when you try to pin down what is a thought. It's just a momentary illusory experience which can be quite powerful. It can be visual. It can be a hallucination where it really feels like the person in front of you is real. So all of that is the firsthand view — in the seeing just the seeing and in the hearing just the hearing, the feeling just the feeling. And then you are not with that. You're not something in addition to that. You're neither in that nor are you somewhere hiding behind that. Now you're out of space and time. That's what the Buddha did to Bahiya — just plucked him out of space and time. Not with that. You're not in that. You're not beyond that. Then — Bahiya — there's no you there. There's no you there as an entity, as a person, as a thing. And then what is all this? Of course, it's not a person. The lamp is not a person. The light is not a person. But it is whatever we want to name Reality — it is that taking form. It's taking form. It is that innate Buddha-nature, the unconditioned. Because whenever you condition it you get a transient phenomena. You get the sight. You get the sound. You condition it. But the unconditioned is there before. And that is what is appearing then as that conditional form. Then you're neither here nor there or between the two. It really eliminates all of the things that are considered the first person and there's just the first view and the first view is explaining in every moment, every instance, what the nature of Reality is — that intrinsic Buddha-nature is that intrinsic Awareness because of which all of that seeing, hearing and so on is happening. Without it it's not possible.

QYes. Hi Nabeel. Hi everyone. So it's a practical question. When I meditate and just going with what you said — like seeing, hearing and all that — you just focus on that and your mind slows down quite a bit and it's nothing. And then I get to a point where it's like just that — just the seeing, just the vision that comes to you while your eyes are closed — and then it becomes peaceful. But then when I go somewhere — and then my body jerks really violently and it brings me back. So it's been happening for years. Do you know what's going on there?

NSure. So I mean the meditative aspect of it when we want to go deeper and realize — but actually what the Buddha is saying is just about any experience. Right now I can — I'm hearing you, I'm hearing my daughter talking to my wife and so on. All of that — what is it? You just inspect it in a second or less than a second and you apply that knowledge. What the Buddha is saying — is it true? Am I hearing something or is it just the hearing? Am I seeing something or is it just the seeing? It's just an explanation. It's a description. It's not something to arrive at. It's a description of this very same moment in truer terms without the you and the me and the her and all that. It's true to what is actually happening — that in the seen there's only the seeing. Can you give me an actual object that I'm seeing which is not the seeing?

QYeah, it is like that. It's just the seeing. I don't find myself anywhere. But the inquiry is what am I? Okay. Yeah. The seeing is happening but what am I? I mean along those lines you go somewhere but then you get that body reaction. Is going in that direction — I feel like it's going in the direction that it's only seeing, it's only hearing — but at the same time you have the inquiry of what am I? I'm looking for me still. I'm looking for I while I keep that in mind and then it gets to that point.

NSo you will never find a me. That's how — will you conclude that there is no me? At what point and how? So one of the ways I say is: okay, like what you're getting to is — make sure your body is in a position where you can stay without that nodding-off thing. You can do it sitting but maybe try lying down. Whatever — it must not nod off because when you nod that's kind of dropping into sleep and then it jerks back up. We don't — we're trying to go into that samadhi where experience ends but you're not going to sleep.

Well, I don't want to set those kind of targets anymore. In some of my videos, I've talked about that. But now I find it's not necessary because what the Buddha described is pretty basic. It's how it is — in the seeing is just the seeing. You're never finding a seer. You cannot find a seer. So what are you looking for? And then he's giving you the conclusion at the end and that's what you should apply. Okay. So there's no me here as a physical thing. At some point in space I can locate — because in the seeing there's only the seeing. There's no seer. So how can I see myself? How can I hear myself? How can I feel myself? All the dimensions of experience cannot apply to you.

QYeah I was going to say — like Buddha meditated for years to be able to say that and so have you. And my point is the mind still needs to be — you're still getting there. You are along the path when you say it is so. Of course it is. You know it's like — because you've gone through a journey. Journey is the wrong word but you've been — when you're at the phase where the mind is still at some level you think it's calm and quiet but at some level it's still — the curiosity's there. But what am I still looking for? That high in a way. Maybe it's trying to get to that Absolute standpoint — where is the void?

NAnd so there are a couple of things there. So you said I meditated for many years. From the point my inquiry became serious when I said that's it, no more — it was three and a half years. That's it. And that's quite long. It shouldn't take three and a half years. It should take instant. When it actually hits you it takes instant. Nisargadatta said the moment he met his guru, from that to the point he realized was around three. Okay, Ramana Maharshi had that one single seizure where his body was paralyzed. That was it. He didn't go on a long journey. He was 16 years old. And what Bahiya got was in the instant. He didn't go back and say, "I'm going to go and meditate again on this and then I would realize it instantly."

QHow long have you meditated, Nabeel? I mean — I had a surgery two years ago and that was the event and it got me to this point but yeah I would say two years. Two years that I'm more or less serious about.

NOkay so two years is enough. You've got to set your own. If you set — the mind is creating the journey. When I say that it's not quite accurate because there's no actual entity creating the journey. But it's like the story writes itself like in a dream. Sometimes in the dream you think of ice cream, suddenly the ice cream appears. It's like that — the journey can be as arduous and as filled with dragons and so on or we can make it very simple.

QYeah. And let me say one thing. In the examples you gave — you know when it hits you or when Ramana Maharshi went to that seizure — there is — you're talking about an event. I mean that is by itself an experience. It's something — when the act of hitting you, the act of getting it — that is something that happens. And then it becomes — your mind basically completely gets convinced. You accept. So I'm talking about getting to that event. Like how does that come about? It's not that you just sit and rationalize and then you say oh my god. It's not like that. There is something that has to happen. Maybe it's a miracle. Maybe something at some point that hits you. That act of hitting. Talk about that a little bit. Like how does it come about? Like how do you—

NSo every time you hear a pointer that is coming from someone who realized — that is the opportunity if you're reading it, whatever. Every time you think of the Bahiya Sutta, it can happen in that instant. What can happen? What is supposed to happen? Again, we go back to what we're counting. We're not counting faces. We're not counting the streams of experience. And the criteria is not a change in the stream. It is just a clearing up of what is meant by I. All the time there is the sense I am. If you're awake, if you're living life, there's the sense I am. And it's just a clarification of what that means. And can it happen in any moment? Yes. Actually it's always clear what that means. But on top of there, there's lots of layers of stuff. And as soon as all that stuff gets swept away for a second, that's it. Done. So every time — like this conversation — it could happen. But again to think of it could happen is to add another layer of nonsense on top. Whereas what Bahiya understood without meditating, without having a special experience at that point — maybe he was filled with a bit of love or admiration for the Buddha — so some of that can maybe help. So pick a text you really love or pick whatever — meditate. And that can help because the mind is in a state of — it's ready to surrender, ready to say, okay, my concepts were wrong. My model of the world is wrong. Now you tell me. When I started recording these videos, I would sit in the chair and my mind would say, "Now you speak." Who is it talking to? It's like, you know, you hand the microphone — like this is the microphone.

You hand the microphone to Reality. You speak. I've said enough. So there's that surrender. But anyway, so that's the attitude that that's cultivated through this kind of wisdom teachings and being involved in all this meditating. But then what happened to Bahiya is exactly — and that story might not even be true. It's just the text. But in that instant, he recognizes that what the Buddha said is true. That's all — that what he said is true — that in the seeing there's no seen and no seer, that's just the seeing. And all the rest. And then — so who am I worried about? Because Bahiya was also asking this question: am I an arahant? Have I attained? Am I enlightened? So who is that question for? Who will achieve that? That's counting to one again. Who will achieve that? And then he realized yes I'm not even here as a thing. Who am I worried about? And immediately he sees all of that seeing, hearing, feeling at that point and all of the points in that life — they're not something else — they are. Yeah. When we look at someone we can bottle them up. We can box them into face and object. What they are is all of that stream of experience. First of all, let's go to that level. That's the intermediate level. That entire universe of experience, that is what they actually are, if you're going to talk about people. And then Bahiya sees, I'm not even in that. I'm not even in that whole universe of experience as an object. Nor am I something beyond it. I'm intimately what all this is. What is all this in essence? That is you.

Yeah. Not all this in particular, not the specifics of it, but the essence of it, the general fact, the actual fact of it. That is I and you.

QThank you.

NThank you. So the Bahiya Sutta in my own words was when I revisited it in the Unity of Subject and Object video — in the happening you are the happening of it. You know whatever is happening. The seeing, hearing is happening. When we say something is happening, it's an experiencing. That is the happening. You cannot separate the experience from the happening. Otherwise, the happening is hypothetical. It's conceptual. Hasn't actually happened. Only when it is experienced then something has happened. And that experiencing — just take this one stream — whatever is that experiencing is inseparable from you. So whatever is happening you are the happening of it. You're not something in the happening or someone to whom it is happening. You're the actual fact, the happening of it. And then when nothing is happening, because that's the only question left: what about when nothing is happening? Have I ceased to exist? No. Because whenever something happens, it requires some Reality to be there first. You are that what the mind sees as nothing. You are that nothing in which anything can happen. All possibilities — until you wake up in the morning. There's infinite possibility of what might come next. Get it? And then the stream of experience, whatever it is, it appears.

Yes, Chris.

QI just want to ask about faith and surrender. I mean even Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi talk about God sometimes and by that token I think they're referring to not some idea of what God is but God as just a name for Awareness. Unfortunately, I have a concept of God which is a little old man, you know, moralizing about what we shouldn't be doing. Very unfortunate. And many years ago in my teens, I did get involved with the church and did experience, you know, what I thought could be God at that time. But again, I think it was a little old man. I feel like I'm at a place where — and some of the old sages talk about surrender — and I sort of feel I'm at a stage where I want to kind of have a sense of faith and surrender to what I'm not sure — and maybe I don't know what you think about this. But also, there's a part of me that's afraid to do that because of what my friends would think of me. Should I change in that manner as I don't know what? Certainly, some were very critical when I for a period became a Christian and have since been a long-term atheist. But I have fear of what people will think of me and I have fear of believing in something that is misguided. But there is a sense of wanting to surrender and have faith in that surrender. Can you speak to that at all?

NYeah. So there's — in India there's of course they were talking to all kinds of people. So if someone has that natural affinity of that path, you can use that path to point them back. If someone does not have a natural affinity to that, it's unlikely that will help them. Because can you surrender to a concept of God, to a belief in God? And that is in Christianity to me the ultimate test of that is: give me a good explanation of the book of Job. You can go to the Pope and he will give you a terrible answer. No. None of the actual Christian theology can answer the book of Job. You know the one where God has a wager with Satan and then Job who is a very pious, very nice man goes through hell — like he loses 10 of his children and all his property, cattle and so on — and he gets ill and all because God took a wager with Satan. And at the end God appears to Job in a whirlwind and it's a very long book and most of it is filled with talk about suffering. So his friends come to him and say, "Oh, you must have done something wrong for God to punish you." And one guy says, "Oh, actually it's a test. You must pass it." And so on. And Job denies all that — that I don't accept these answers.

And at the end, God appears to him in a whirlwind. And the answer he gives apparently, if you look at it from the standard point of view, is terrible. He just says, "Were you there when I created the heavens and earth" and things like that. It's besides the point. He's just making Job feel little and useless and there's no answer for his suffering. Well, God, if you're so wonderful, why did you put me through all this? And God does not admit that all this began with a wager. And then he goes, and then he repays Job — Job gets well, and he gets more, 100 children or whatever — as if you can replace the grief of losing a child by 10 new children. Come on. So that's the book of Job. If you understand it from the standpoint of the sages, it is actually a beautiful pointer and I might go into that. I don't know if today we have time. But from any human standpoint, and you can bring it to any preacher, however passionate they are, they will struggle with it if they're honest, that this is a good answer to the problem of misery. It is not.

And what that book is actually doing is exposing that all these concepts of God which you must pray to and beg for forgiveness and if he gives you a test, you must pass it — they do not meet the requirements that we are putting on God to be the most merciful, most powerful, and so forth. Doesn't work. So for me the surrender can only come once you actually see what is meant by God. Then the surrender is natural. It's just that is what I was saying — like the mind will say okay you speak — and even though it knows God cannot speak, God is just the Awareness — but that is a feeling of — the feeling bursting out like the shift from head to heart and now the heart is outpouring — that is surrender. And yeah I mean there can be — if the sage sees in who they're talking to they have that affinity for that path — bhakti, devotion — they point them down that path, lead them there. But it can go wrong in so many ways. Like where I was born people would just — they would have as many kids — they don't care — oh God will take care of it — and it doesn't work that way because the kids have terrible lives. You have to take care of them, not God. What kind of surrender is that though?

QI mean, not that it really affects what you're saying, but you know, I really dislike the word God, and I certainly have an aversion to the idea of a Christian God. And I tried to think of it more in terms of nature or energy or the impersonal Awareness. But the very act of having some faith and surrender to that almost seems like a next step which you're saying is maybe — I think not necessarily misguided but that some people do find that path useful — bearing in mind what their concept of that God is.

NYeah. If your understanding of God expands to encompass everything — Reality itself — then you're getting close to what surrender should be about. Because otherwise like when Maharshi would say like that — surrender even the concept of I'm doing this or I will do that and achieve that. Surrender that. And what you're describing actually — since we're talking about it, let's go there. The book of Job when Job finally sees God, it appears as a force of nature. God appears as in the whirlwind. So what is being described in the book actually from my point of view is an awakening experience from the standpoint of Job. It's not a traditional explanation and debate on the problem of misery because as that it's a terrible text. But as a description of this man who went through such a terrible life even though he was a good man — he met all the conditions — he went through that and then he realizes what God actually is — that is the end of his suffering. Because if he imagines God as someone who's punishing him or someone who's performing such a terrible test on him. Or if he knew about that wager which is supposed to make the listener — you know, they primed them for rejecting that stupid idea of God. He arrives upon that in the whirlwind. So when God describes, "Were you there when I created the heavens" and all that — he's realizing nature does not work on the willpower and the actions of individual things. That's just not how it works. When you have a thought, it's not you having a thought. There is just the thinking. There's no architect behind it. It's a distributed network. There's no central CEO. And so Job sees it in the whirlwind. To me, you might actually have seen a whirlwind. And in those — when you see the force of nature that can destroy you or diminish your sense of self enough that it hits you. Oh God is nature itself. And then complete surrender is to even let go the idea I am conscious. I am not conscious.

God is Consciousness. The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me — that is this destroying the God and me. Actually I is that eye. So that's the epic conclusion to me of the book of Job which I have never heard in Christian discourse and all this. The wisdom is often in all the different traditions, but it's being missed completely.

QThank you.

NThank you, Sierra. Sorry to keep you waiting. You unmute if you're speaking.

QNope.

NMarina.

QHi, Nabeel. Good morning, everyone. Hi. I have a quick question which I struggle to understand. I'm reading a book from Robert Adams and he often says ask to whom this thought is coming. I don't get it. I just wish to understand this phrase — to whom does this thought come — if you can help me to understand please.

NYeah, that's very the core of Self-inquiry. And it just — not just thought — anything — any to whom is this sight appearing, to whom is this sound appearing — it's there to break down. It's actually you're not supposed to find a whom. You're supposed to find that there cannot be an individual thing to which this is arising. There's no specific thing that can be called a thinker. What is a thinker? And in your experience of the thought arising, there's just the thinking. It's just there. And then the thinking cannot be separated from the Awareness of it. The thinking is actually just like a flicker in the Awareness. To whom does that Awareness belong? No one. Who can claim ownership of Awareness? It's getting you to that — because whoever says the thoughts arise to me — if something says that that is again another thought — and to whom did that thought arise — and you continue, break down until all of it is arising within Awareness. And who can lay claim to owning Awareness?

Do you see that? Who can claim to own Awareness?

QThis is so frustrating because even when I say I, I do, I think, I work. What — there is always this I word in every moment. So it's for me very confusing because it looks like this — I'm seeing the thought — I am aware of the thought. So when I read this sentence to whom is this thought arising? It looks like for me that I am aware — I'm becoming aware of this thought even though I know this I is a fake, is something added. It's itself a thought but it looks like anything appears to this fake I. I don't know if I'm clear enough but for me the experience of having a thought appearing in the mind — it looks like it's appearing to me, to this—

NSo the whom is the question: what do you mean by me? What is meant by me? It's a sensation. It's really just a sensation. Or I'm convinced I am. Okay. So just go from there. So if me is a sensation — to whom does that sensation arise? It cannot be another sensation. So there's two sides to it. One is the actual I which is aware and yes you could frame it that the sensation appears to that I. But we can go further after that and say actually there is no separate separation between the sensation and Awareness. The sensation is the Awareness and the Awareness is — so it's nondual. But that I is not wrong when you say I am aware — that is the correct I. However, when that I is associated with anything other than being aware, that is the wrong I. So when someone says the thought arises to me, that me is very strongly associated with not just being aware but being all the identities of being this, having this name, this body, this mind, blah blah blah. So the whom is breaking that down. It's breaking down to the actual essential fact of Self.

QYes. Awareness. Okay. So when there is a thought appearing in mind, Awareness is aware of the thought. So the thought is arising — is coming to this Awareness — is appearing because there is something I can perceive and there is an experience and the experience is appearing in that field of Awareness.

NThe experience is itself the Awareness. That's the next step. Like we were talking about — in the seeing there's only the seeing which also means there's no separate Awareness of the seeing. The seeing itself — you can't separate it. You can't have Awareness and seeing. The seeing is Awareness in action. And the thinking is Awareness in action.

QYes. Okay.

NThe driven conclusion — it's all driving you towards and it can't be answered in thought — is that final: I can't even count to one. I can't even count to one. And then there's none but it's not zero. Then Awareness is the Absolute. It's just whatever is arising — it's just an expression of the same Reality. Same Reality is popping up.

QYes. So the question — my original question — I'm still confused.

Who is it? Who is it?

NThe who cannot be answered. The who is there to dissolve the who. It's answered through the fact of giving up that old identity. It's just — the thought is just an appearance. It's just a thinking. Yeah. It's just a thinking. And the thinking — and in the same moment as there's thinking there will be seeing and feeling and sensing. All of that together is what can be called Marina. But all of that together is one stream of experiencing. And that one stream of experiencing, who does it appear to? No one. Because whoever you can imagine would be in the stream. It would be a thing in the stream. That stream appears within Awareness. And any stream of experience of course must appear in Awareness. And so you realize the actual meaning of I — the I that is aware.

QYeah. Okay. It's just mind — I cannot — I cannot figure this I. Anyway, it's okay. Thank you.

NThank you. Sierra.

QOkay. Can you hear me now?

NYes, we can.

QAwesome. I figured it out. Okay. All right. So my comment kind of has to do a little bit with what Chris was saying earlier. I do feel like I don't have the language to express what I believe now. And believe of course is also not a sufficient enough word. But there is a video that you did and I don't remember exactly what it's titled, but it's about lose yourself and it's talking about love. And so sometimes — and even a little bit with what Marina was saying now — I do really relate to that video and just sort of like untangling my mind through the use of that video. I think of my experience more like the interplay — you know the Lila — and I think of understanding where I am sort of like sat-chit-ananda, you know, which is our natural state of being. But when I am with my friends and family and their context is I'll pray for you, I'm thinking of you — I do struggle because even though I'm in the being and the experience that I'm having, I can see their oneness, you know, but it's not like I can tell them that. They're going to be like, "Okay, what does that mean?"

So yeah, sometimes I wish we had like a glossary or context, you know, where we could like Google Translate the language to the language that like say my family, which is like a traditional Christian, I'm praying for you — that then I could express my concern that I have for them. And so I guess I just wanted to say that — do we ever get to that place where — and I don't feel like I struggle personally with my experience or even my acceptance of it, but I do feel like somewhat disconnected from them. But I'm wondering why you picked that video or how does that video — what applied to what we were talking about here like even just the last two, Chris and Marina — because I feel like it does.

NYeah, it definitely does. So I often return to Rumi because — I was saying in the last conversation — this side of the path of wisdom we might call it and the path of love and they must converge. You cannot understand only as a wisdom insight. What you're talking about — language cannot express it. But at the same time even someone who has never taught nonduality and all this crap — when they love they are speaking the same language. That is the language of nonduality. If a fireman runs into the fire to save a child — why are they doing that? That is the language of nonduality. They're not saying oh my — like I will sacrifice my life for that child. It's actually that's the thought that might express it later. The feeling is love. Pure love. You know I will take that risk. I will do it. And in love what Rumi is expressing when you lose yourself in this love — it's that — that's it, done. You'll rise from the earth and embrace the endless heavens because you have accepted all of it as you. It's — the oneness is just — it's still at a — it's almost just smelling the perfume and then there's the actual realization of how this is not even one but a whole you can never divide into parts. And only by talking and trying to explain it and try concepts and so on we can break it into pieces. But when love speaks there's no parts. When you love someone, there's a feeling of beyond oneness.

QI like that. Maybe it'll just be like, I love you instead of I'll pray for you or I'm thinking of you. I'll figure out some other version of that. Thank you. I really enjoy that.

NYeah. And I think because of all the other sides to identity, it becomes hard for in social circumstances for people to open up. But privately, you know what someone might feel for you in their hearts if their mind was empty — that is an expression of the truth. So to me this is just like a sideshow, a hobby I do. The truth is expressed whether anybody ever talks about it or not. Can you express nonduality to the birds? But they know what love is. It's being expressed in every moment. The confusion is only in terms of thought. Sorry, there was a Yoges — you had a question but I don't know if you still want to ask it.

QYes, master. Thank you so much for this opportunity. At the start of this session it was very helpful to understand what am I and it was very clear. Looking at — I was able to understand this thing as you explained. I thought maybe it was because maybe right now I'm in the state of mind which is able to understand this. And I have faced this since last three, four years — that for a few weeks I'm in a state of mind where I get to see things clearly, get to understand things very clearly and see the thoughts that are rising in my mind. But once these few weeks or couple of months go away it's not fixed. But sometimes there's a switch maybe there is — and further I got the answer. What is the reason behind it? Probably I'm right or wrong. But I'm trying to express that maybe there is one identity or one kind of most important thing that triggers this switch where I lose all the sense of looking at the thought that was arising. Maybe it's a negative thought about something or maybe it's a positive thought about my future. All these things I'm not able to then recognize that these are just thoughts but they keep on driving me. Is the answer to resolve it is to even further clearly see what are these identities like time, money, work that are attached so closely to me that I'm unable to control that switch — or maybe is controlling itself a game of mind that I'm playing?

NYeah. So as you're describing that, it reminds me like that is the way this unfolds. It's like a spiral. So at one point you'll be like, "Oh, this is so obvious. There's nothing to do. This is the truth. I get it." And then the spiral — you're getting further and then the mind is going, "Oh, what was I doing right now? I'm doing it wrong. What? I have to fix this. I have to do this and that." And then you're back in the spiral. Actually, there's nothing to do. Blah blah blah. Every time you're getting closer and closer, it's clearing up the mess.

And to me that is the mind being — that's the name of the channel — the mind is being untangled, disentangled because there's so much baggage which was built over the years. That process happening at one level — at the other level you already know the truth. Doesn't change. Reality does not change. What you are cannot change moment to moment. In your clearest moments that's just so obvious and then again some parts of their old process are remaining and they're trying to figure it out. So let it happen but at the same time you are trying to stand firm at that what is actually I. And so we distill the inquiry into something so simple, so obvious which does not depend on any special experience being there. I don't have to feel blissful. If depression is there fine — depression is there. What is it and what am I? And so then you feel this cycle shorten. So I would go through long phases of happy, sad, depression, you know, just through life anyway before I did all this — like manic depressive kind of feelings, not too extreme. And then you start to see oh why is the cycle shortening — just purely by not identifying with the wrong idea of self. Because how all that builds up is you get stuck with yes I did that wrong. How do I fix it? Blah blah blah and snowballs and it's growing and it's stuck there and it's very hard to get out now. But if you just pull the plug at the bottom of the bath and go. So your clearest moments are the gift — you already understand, you realize — in that you distill, you have your own words, your own way of realizing like no face, no head, whatever works for you. And then the next time you feel like you've drifted further, actually you haven't. You start to see you haven't. It's just the body has to go through its cycles. You know, sometime if there's fever, you can't expect to feel thrilled. It just feels bad, you know.

QGot it. Thank you. Thank you.

NAnd whenever we find that we're trying too hard in terms of thinking or doing then go down Rumi's way. That's why my channel is split between the wisdom, the felt feeling, the inquiry. Like all of these are tools. And when you find you're too stuck in the head, you turn to the heart. And from there, it's always much easier to get it. You get it. All the questions are thought-based because if you ask the heart to count, it knows already. Only the mind counts from one, two, three.

QSo there was a project that I'm in midway of right now and I started it out of love and I can see the light at the end of the tunnel and it wants me to walk a bit more further. But right now at this standpoint I see that all the factors are standing against me. Now I'm at a position where I have to decide either I continue or should I quit. And this is where my struggle is since last couple of days. But I see that whatever has got me so far, the love for work and the love for craft, I believe I would choose that and still move forward with whatever consequences I face. So probably yeah that is I think what the answer is in this direction I think.

NYeah. Well, yeah, because love — our love pulls us in many different directions. Like your love for that art might be split with the love for providing to your family and all that. So yeah, that's where you follow — that's where the paths converge, the wisdom and the love. And there's the practical side to life which is well known what the good ways to live it are. And there's the inner realization which no matter what's happening it's actually just happening. It's just the stream of experience and it depends on you. All these things happening they depend on you in a different way than the mind or how in human thought is thought of — like I'm doing it, it's my failure, my achievement and so on. Actually the Self is just fundamental to the happening but the Self does not plan, does not do. It's the Awareness, the factor which makes it possible. And when there is love that is this — whatever this is — the body-mind instrument — it's playing the music for love of the Awareness and there are different instruments and different ways of playing. All right, any last questions? Let me see. There's something in the chat. Just the AI stuff.

All right, let's end there. Thank you all for joining.

QThank you. Thank you. Thank you, dear. Thank you so much.

NSee you next time. Thank you.