This Is My Life After Death | Nonduality Satsang (Q&A) [public version]

NSo in yoga there is a pose called shavasana. The corpse pose. You might be familiar. It's what we do at the end of the practice. You just lie prone, like a corpse. But a couple of years ago while I was in the pose, it occurred to me that yoga is the union of body and mind. So it's not just the posture the body has to take, but the mind has to take that pose too — the corpse pose. So it started to dawn on me: when I'm gone, when this body is a corpse, the mind is gone. What is left? Nothing to do with me. All that is "me" and "mine" — that is gone. And of course, this was at the end of yoga, and the mind is quiet and slow and doesn't actually care much about things. So it was in a very detached way.

And then it occurred to me: okay, I'll be gone, but the sky will still be sky. It will not be me looking at the sky. The sky will still be sky. The birdsong will still be birdsong. It just won't be me listening to the birdsong. But wherever the birdsong is being listened to, it's still birdsong. And there will still be thoughts and feelings, but they will no longer be my thoughts, my feelings.

And so it became clear that actually what the difference between life and death is — it's actually not death, but only that possession of taking something to be mine. Because if it is my thought, then it can cease to be my thought, and I have died. But when there is no "me" or "mine," then that is death. So it suddenly became clear: what is life after death? Life after death is just life without the "me," without the sense of "mine." It's actually just how life is. So right now, this is my life after death. Without taking a thought to be my thought, they are thoughts. Without taking pain to be my pain, there is pain. And the only way... in pain, what you want is for there to be no pain. But when there is pain, you cannot have no pain. They are mutually exclusive. So when there is pain, the only relief is to see it is not my pain — it is pain. And so as this was occurring, there was the sense of me... because the mind has taken the pose of the corpse. With the body, I am dead. Life is as it is.

So what is the actual Self, which is the unborn, the unconditioned? It's quite obvious — that is the Sentience in which there is sky, there are birds, and thoughts and feelings. And it is not owned by any individual entity. And that's what I repeat every time. It's repetitive, but that is a single important point to notice — there is no real death, there is no actual entity. And the only thing, which is so odd, is that single step of possessing something, taking possession of it. And who is there? There's nobody to take possession of it. But just that mental pose, that posture of taking something to be mine, creates in itself the idea of me. And that idea of me then creates the next... it's an intertwined posture. And when the mind takes the correct pose, it's just changing the posture. It's just saying, oh, actually, yes — there's sight, there's sound. Whose is it? And when there's no one to claim ownership, then the Self reveals itself. Sentience, Consciousness — the ground of any experience.

Yes, Mina.

QHi Nabeel, and hi everyone.

Thank you so much, Nabeel. I've been listening to your videos for so long, and there are so many insights. I'm working for years with Ramana Maharshi and with Mooji and with all the masters that we can listen to, when this longing arises to find out what the hell is going on here. And now when you are speaking, so many things come up. Also this saying — you have to die before you die — or this liberation... what does it mean, really, of liberation? What is this liberation, and who is liberated from what? And I see that there is no real liberation, because this real me has not to be liberated, and this false me doesn't even exist. So it's like the rope and the snake — you only have to be liberated from the false belief that it was a snake, but there never was a snake. But all this is so near to me, and when you speak it's so clear. But then I'm staying in my life situations, and then I react — or I act — as a me, and not as this Awareness. And it's a seeing, in the moment of the reactions. It's a seeing. But there's a longing to really be that, and not to only believe that I am that. You know what I want to say?

NYeah, you are that. It is only the body and mind taking different postures. When the mind says, "Oh, we acted wrongly, we should have acted as we are Awareness," that is also a posture, and it's not the correct posture.

It's so... you mentioned Sri Ramana Maharshi. It just goes back to what we began with, because the only time I have seen anybody describe the real meaning of shavasana is Sri Ramana Maharshi's death experience. Yes, that is shavasana — the deepest enactment of what it means. He was overcome with a fear of death. And what did he do? He just lay down prone on the floor and said, "Okay, if death is coming, let it come." And he used it to inquire: what am I? And so that is it. It's a very short, direct inquiry. And then you see. And when you see, then all these questions of believing that you are that, trying to not act certain ways — they just have no basis. What did he see? What did Ramana Maharshi see? So you have to do it. You have to do the inquiry until it is perfectly clear that this is what you are.

QYes. I have to stay with it. I see that so much energy is going outside instead of going within. But I think it will come also. I don't know, I cannot say by itself — I think a little effort must be there, but...

I think the effort is already there — I'm staying with it, and I'm always being with this matter, and I don't let it go.

NOkay. The inquiry must be done. And in the inquiry, when it's taking place, the mind has to be in a certain... I'm just stuck with that language now. It has to be in a certain pose. It cannot be yearning. When you yearn for it, then you are apart from it. And that is the wrong pose.

There must be a certain calm, dedicated inquiry. You are what you are. You can't change what you are. The only question is to see it clearly. This is what I am. Whatever that is doesn't matter. There's no judgment. If I found that I am this man, this person, okay, then that would be the conclusion. You have to look at it carefully. It's like these pictures — you know, these illusory pictures where you see only colors, and then when you look in the right way, you suddenly see a figure in it. And when you see this figure once, then it's clear.

QSometimes I think it's similar, because it's the Reality that is already here, but I always miss it because I look at it in the wrong way.

NThe only wrong thing there is the "my" — the "my x, my y." So that is not a hard thing to actually let go of. It's just that you look at it a certain way, and you just put it aside for a moment.

The wind — is it my wind? No, it's just wind. And it's the same with thought, same with feeling. And this life — is it my life? What makes it my life? It's just life. And then what is in life? What is it that can be called "I," just honestly, directly, without referring to acquired knowledge? It's straightforward.

Yeah. [unclear], you have your hand up.

QThank you so much. Thank you.

NCan't hear you yet. There we go.

QHi. I actually was going to ask you to talk a little bit about something which is kind of on topic. In your video "The Basis of All Worlds," you were basically talking about the fact that Reality doesn't depend on experience, but experience depends on Reality, and the ego — or that conceptual layer — depends entirely on experience. And you were talking about how seeing that clearly explains a lot of things, like existential dread, and also the way the ego looks for a certain kind of perfected state... or even just happiness or peace, or however it sees that as proof of having got it, or being somewhere, or having had that recognition — because it rests entirely, by its nature, on experience. And I just thought that was kind of on topic with Mina's question as well, and that talking about it from that angle might be helpful.

NYeah. Once you see it that way — if ego depends on experience, and there is no entity that is experiencing, but after the fact of experience in thought there is the assumption of an entity — that is ego. So ego is not a thing. It is nothing substantial that could be called ego. Otherwise, when you look for the self you would find the ego and you would say, "Oh, that's me." But actually, when you look, you don't find ego. So you cannot eliminate ego because you can never find it. You have to just see what ego is.

Ego is only... there is no "me." It's just the "my" — the possession — which is a movement in the mind. It is a posture the mind takes. There is an assumption that there is a "me," and this is mind, and the mind feeds the "me," and the "me" creates more mind. And so that is a knot, in a way. And as Mina was saying, there's no one to liberate, and all that — yes. But if the basis is Sentience, and in that you have this annoying knot which is creating ignorance, which is creating unnecessary suffering and pain and the wrong kind of thinking, then we are just pulling the knot apart. Because it is a pointless knot. It does not improve anything or add to anything. The ego is only after the fact that there is experience. There can be the thought that this is my experience, and there is other experience which is not mine — and then immediately you have something that is very dear, which can be lost, and then there is life and death, and so on. But if you let go of the mind, there is no ego. And this is life after death.

QThank you. I thought it might be helpful to have that angle in the discussion as well. Thank you.

N[unclear], hello.

QCan you all hear me?

NYeah.

QOh, good. I'm a bit nervous, because I've actually seen people in this group — it's like famous people now. I do appreciate this group because there's not many people I can talk to about these things, to be honest. It gets pretty heavy when I try and talk to people about it — probably a bit too far for most. And thanks also very much for all your videos and so forth. It's been amazing. I guess one of the things for me is... I kind of understand that there's no me in the small sense. One thing that helps me is I just say to myself constantly, "There is walking, there is sitting," and I find that when I say that, I kind of feel myself disappearing a bit, which is all good. I think where I get a bit caught up is trying to understand the end to end. So what happens is I'm like, "There's no me, okay cool. And I'm just Awareness, okay cool." And then I'm like, "But how am I responsible?" And if there's only one Awareness, then how is that Awareness responsible for everything that appears in the world? And that's where I generally get a bit... I know it's probably better to not think about things like that, but there's an element that's looking for a clear conclusion of some kind.

So I'm like, "Okay, I am just what appears." But then — okay, a little bit of a diversion — there are like two ways to see this, I guess. One is a subtractive system, where you go: I'm not this, I'm not that, I'm not this, I'm not that. And another way is additive, where you go: how am I different from a mountain or a plastic cup? Is it literally just the fact that I see, and what does that actually mean? So yeah, I don't know — that's not really a question. I guess it's just a bunch of things that confuse me. It's a bit hard for me to actually form a question, so I'll leave it there. Thank you.

NYeah. So what you will notice is there will be two — let's say two levels to the inquiry. One level is the more confused level. And at another level, you have recognized — that's why you keep returning back. You have recognized. So what is that level? That is the level at which inquiry actually takes place and can resolve. Whereas the other level, where there's lots of confusion and thinking and so on, can never resolve on its own. So we see that. And that is why I was saying the most productive inquiry is when the mind is in a certain posture — calm, not longing for the truth, not running after the truth. It's quietened down, it's calm. You get it there first. And then — or even let's say you're not in the calm state — there's the thought-based inquiry going: how am I different from the mountain, and so on. There's some kind of logic to that. But as that is going on, look to the other, deeper, direct inquiry: what am I in this moment? And if this is just a thought arising, it is arising to what I am. What am I in this moment? And it's quite clear.

QYeah, that makes a lot of sense. I think something that drives it maybe is an existential dread of the void. And if I can convince myself that I'm something really big, I'm less scared than when I've convinced myself that I don't exist — and yet haven't yet figured out that I'm a bigger thing. Like, for example, "it's just the workings of a dead mind that's convinced you that you're alive." And then the great thing about these teachings is — no, you literally do exist. It's just not in the way that you think. But I think there's a gap there, where it's like a big void — moving from the feeling of "I'm a person" to "I'm nothing." And then it's kind of like a leap of faith, because it feels like you're just taking information from the outside about what you really are. Like you don't really get it. Maybe you feel it eventually. Yeah, I think that's the fear. I think that's what stops me sometimes from actually getting further.

NBut the actual death is a very gentle death. The death before death that we are asked to do — it's a gentle death, because nothing dies. You're only giving up the idea of "my," "mine." There's not even a "me." So it's not a leap into the void. But when that is happening, the sense of "me" is there, and you're trying to jump with it. Instead, just see what can be called "my." Just leave aside the "me" for now. "Me" is justified if there's something that's really mine — that can be called my thought, my feeling. Then there's a me. But then we look at what is your truest possession — that you can never lose, that was there the day the first experience appeared. That is your true possession. And it is closer than a possession, because it is your intrinsic quality — of Self, of what you are.

It took time to learn language, it took time to start to think and know your name and your gender and whatever. So that is not intrinsic to what you are.

QYeah, makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Thank you.

NYes, Neil.

QGood morning, Nabeel. Good morning, everyone. I was watching one of your Ashtavakra videos yesterday, Nabeel, and I wrote down a quote.

If you could read it with your voice — but you'll have to put up with me. It's from, I think it's called "You Are Not a Thing." And it says, "One who knows for certain that birth and death, happiness and misery come and go with destiny sees nothing to accomplish." And the bit that I'm interested in, Nabeel, is this: "he engages in non-action and, in inaction, remains unattached." I've underlined that and put a star next to it. To me that was important, and I'd love it if you could expand a little bit on "he engages in non-action." To me that's the nub of it, because I don't understand — how do you engage in non-action? I know it's reflecting on what we've been saying this morning about the belief that you are this character, this person. And maybe it's that when you are — once again language fails me — when you are fully in Awareness, as Awareness, when you are not the ego, that that would come into play perhaps. I don't know. So I'd be grateful if you could explain a little bit more on that.

NSure. Some of these dialogues — some of them are pointers for the one who's trying to realize, and some of them are a direct description of what is after realization. So that's the standpoint after realization: that I am engaged in non-action. Let's start with that. In my non-action, everything happens. So all of the activities are truly me engaging in non-action. And "me" is the wrong word — but through the Self, the aware presence of the Self, is not an action. You're engaged in non-action. You're just present. You're aware. But through that non-action, activities can take place. Otherwise, what activity? It's just hypothetical, imaginary — and even imagination requires Awareness.

So in your non-action... Everything is happening. And then when you see action, you are detached from it in a way that you are not actually doing it — and you see, okay, yes, it's going on. This whole day I was very absorbed in my work, and that is going on, and I'm absorbed in it. And at the same time, it's not me doing it. That is the engaged in non-action — in action, remaining unattached — because it's not Awareness doing it. And if there's anything... a thought arises that I am doing it, that immediately is an untrue thought, because the "I" in the thought is a misnomer. It's not I.

QYeah. Sorry, go on. Thank you.

NThat's all right. I was just going to say, the first part — the meaning of destiny — also affects the second part. Because it's not the destiny of how most of humanity has imagined destiny: the idea of the divine and someone laying a path and deciding things and so on. That is not the sage's understanding of destiny.

It's just the spontaneous occurrence of everything. Like the clouds are rumbling right now — who did it? Is there an angel? Is there a God that's angry? No. Those were all wrong ideas. And we've seen some of those wrong ideas go. Now nobody thinks God's angry when the clouds rumble. But everybody still thinks there's a me thinking when the thoughts rumble. And even that is destiny. It's just the occurrence — it's the nature, the laws of nature being enacted — because of your presence, through your engagement in non-action, all of this is happening.

QThe beauty of these meetings is that I can, at my leisure, go back and rerun what you said. My absorption rate is limited and there's always so much in it, but I just find I can really listen to that again. That's what I tend to do — it's a beautiful thing. Just another thing: you were talking about Hsin Hsin Ming, and I've been doing that thing you suggested with "the great way is easy for those who have no preference" and been running that. Is that kind of along the same line? My understanding of this action in inaction — and I don't know if I can express this — is the idea of no preference meaning you don't like or dislike, you don't choose. The way you look at the whole unfolding is you're not making choices, you're just observing it, witnessing it, and not trying to control it.

I don't know if I've even picked up a clear meaning from that statement, but is that along those lines?

NYeah, it is along those lines, but it will continue to open up. The meaning of that is... it continues to unfold. You take the first step, and then you see, "Oh, I'm still applying effort, and there's some liking and disliking there." And then you take the next step, and then you see what is the most effortless way — that is the way. And that way is already unfolding, and the liking and disliking is also just things happening along the way. There's even a point where you can stop liking and disliking the happening of liking and disliking. Does that make sense?

QIt does. It does. But it is a difficult thing, because it's almost... something I've always done — that everybody does — is: I like that, I dislike that. I would prefer this, I would prefer not that. It's almost like an automatic response, an automatic thing. And to be not attached to like, action, inaction — I think that's where we came in. Is it... I know it's kind of a step that you have to make, and the acceptance of what you really are, your true Self, and the kind of seeing the character — once again, that I go on about — is that understanding of the whole thing. I guess that would all fall into place when that happens, as that happens, or as the understanding or the clarity descends.

NSo when you're saying everybody has the "I like this" and "I like that" — the detachment from that is only from removing the "I." The like can be there. The dislike can be there. There's no need to like the things you dislike. You only take out that it is your like and your dislike. Those are conditioned reactions, and you are not in charge of changing conditioning for this mind. That is the mind trying to come up with how it should get better and so on. It should do that — fine, get better. However, what is your role?

So the mind, when we perform inquiry for a moment — you go into that "oh, I really want that" — and you can, fine. But who is the "I"? That's not you. And then sure, whatever really wants that can carry out its process. Just, okay, go get it — whatever, or not. However, you are not the one engaged in that activity. You're engaged in the non-action of being aware of the activity. The like is appearing. Why is it appearing? Nobody can change that. The root causes of that are so complex — we can only very simplistically say, "oh, when I was a child this happened," but that's not it. That's not the only reason. For every single thing that happens, the events leading up to that — if you look at it in the conventional way — are all of the events that took place before that. So everything has a root cause in the big bang, and everything that happened after that until that point. And something takes ownership, and I'm saying that is the only problem. The only thing is the taking of ownership. The like and dislike can be there, but once it becomes my like and my dislike, it's very different. The pain can be there, but once it is my pain, my misery — it's very different. And when there's no me, and there is pain and misery, then I also see that all the pain and misery being experienced is not individual little things experiencing that. And that is a great relief — that is the liberation.

QYeah. Okay. Thank you very much.

NThank you, Neil.

QHi. Something that Neil was talking about in regards to action, and then what you were talking about — the great way and not doing the action — reminded me of something that I'm always confused about. I've read this in a couple of different places, but now I can't remember where. There was something about swimming against the stream not being good, being passively just thrown about in the stream — just lying there — is not good, and that we are meant to be swimming along with the current, and that's the correct way. I wish I could remember the different places I've read this and who said it, but I can't. I could sort of see swimming against the current — I can definitely see that being a person fighting against what's happening, not liking their circumstances, and trying to go against it.

But then if we're talking about not being the doer, and the thing that I think I am isn't the one doing the action, then who would be the one swimming along with the current? I sort of don't get how swimming along with the current is meant to be the correct way. I don't know if that makes any sense to you, because I can't tell you where I got it from, but I get super confused by that.

NYeah, it's not the correct analogy. Okay. Who's swimming? Nobody is swimming.

QWell, that's the thing. But then why isn't it correct to just be sort of letting the current take you in the stream either?

NBecause you are not in the stream. So the whole analogy is just wrong — all of the bits are wrong. You're just nowhere near the stream. You're not in the stream. There's no stream. There's no you. The whole analogy is just wrong. What is correct is that you are the riverbed — you are the riverbed in which the stream can even exist.

Okay. So then can there be a stream without you? Just think about it — can there be a stream without you? And if the answer is yes, we have to have that answer first. When I was describing the shavasana experience, initially the answer was yes. Without me, the stream will continue. There will still be rain. There still will be clouds in the sky, and thoughts and feelings. It's just not my thoughts, my feelings. And you let that happen first. Be in that honesty. You're letting go of the idea that you are something in the stream, or that a part of the stream belongs to you.

Yeah. And then you can see the actual Self — the actual you, the original you — is the one without which the stream cannot exist. None of these streams, not just this stream, any stream... they can never be the experience of the smell of grass without what is actually you. And even if it is not a human smelling it, that experience — the smell of grass — what does that depend on?

That is the actual you, the actual Self. And that one is not in the stream, because it is the context for the stream — all streams. And as soon as we say it, the mind has again taken the wrong posture and is describing the Self as a thing. You are the riverbed for the stream.

QOr the river itself. I mean, to be honest, that analogy never made any sense to me. That's why I wanted to ask, because I couldn't make sense of which part of it is which. For me, what makes much more sense is the ocean and being a wave in the ocean. That makes more sense to me if we're talking about water.

NSo if you are a wave, what encompasses the wave? What would you describe as a wave?

QWell, the ocean. It's the ocean. You're not the wave.

NExactly. You're not separating away from the ocean. That's why that one makes more sense.

And that reminds me of the "Ocean in the Drop" video. When the ocean analogy finally made sense to me — because even the ocean analogy, when you first think of it or meditate on it, the visualization will be seeing the ocean from the outside, seeing the waves on top. Then who is looking? The only way the analogy makes sense is how in my videos I show it from under the ocean — you see the waves, and the ocean is aware of the waves as itself. There's no third entity involved in it. No second either.

QThat makes complete sense somehow. Thanks.

N[unclear].

QHi Nabeel. Well, you know, I have been delayed by doubts as to what I should do, how I should do things. This has been back and forth, back and forth. I have been trying to figure out how to be sure, how to reach a level of realization where it is clear — where it is not in doubt anymore. And this has been going on for three years.

I told you last week, you know, reading Nisargadatta, my mind stopped chattering that much. And with that, it became something very clear: there is nothing to really realize. I am already it. There is nothing at all that I need to do — nothing, completely. So there is no posture that I need to take. There is no "oh, what do I need to do?" And even that doesn't matter. If there is any way to do anything, it will be to realize what I am not. If I realize what I am not, then that's it. That's all done. And even that is pretty well insignificant. I am exactly what I am — Reality. Absolutely.

And there is nothing that needs to be accomplished or done in order to realize that. So this is what has come out very clear. I am still, kind of, more or less, let's say processing it — at least my mind is processing something — but this is what I clearly see. There is no sense in actually searching, looking, trying to realize, trying to figure out how I should do this or that. All of that is in the way. It is obscuring what always has been and always will be — that which is what I am. So that's where I am right now. I don't know — this is my status, if you could call it that, of what is happening. There is even less thinking now. Much less. And that's another point I have noticed: perhaps all that thinking was in the way. When there is all this thinking, there is absolutely separation, because there are concepts, all kinds of things — everything is in duality.

And so the cessation of that thinking clears out the whole issue, because then there is no superimposition of all this duality onto what is happening. So that's where I am. I just wanted to tell you and see if you have anything to say about it.

NYeah, good. So what you're saying about effort — yes, that is something you've seen clearly. Whatever takes effort is not your true nature. If it requires effort, that's a sign. It can't be the most natural true nature. All the words being used point you back to your true nature, this intrinsic Awareness — what you are — and it cannot require effort. So as soon as there's effort required, that's not where you need to go. However, seeing clearly requires an inquiry, and that inquiry is actually done by the mind. It starts with the thinking mind, and that goes deeper and cuts through all the layers of the mind, and then the Self is self-evident — it has always been the Self. So what you're saying is, as soon as thinking steps in again, it can be pointed back to the inquiry — which is: what exactly is meant by "I"? What am I? Is there a wrong "I" operating again? And you'll cut through it very quickly.

The thinking is fine as long as it does not have that claim of ownership — as long as it does not have the "me" and "mine" in there. Then the thinking is clear. Even the clarity without thought is just the most obvious Reality. But even the thoughts as they arise can be clear, because they're not making the wrong assumption of what you are.

QYeah, I do agree with that. It's not like there is no thinking at all. The thinking that has subsided is the wrong kind of thinking — the thinking where there is a doer, somebody who needs to accomplish this or needs to do that, and all the worrying I have been doing as to what needs to happen. All of that is essentially gone. But the thinking as to what I am — this is very clear. There is no question about it. I know what I am. There's no doubt. Actually, no. Let me rephrase that. I do not know what I am. But I know that I am not the body, or the mind, or the experience — not even Consciousness. I am Reality, whatever that is. I am Reality beyond Consciousness, beyond being conscious.

So for example, if I am in deepest sleep, I might not be conscious — yet I am Awareness. This is very clear. What has gone away is the identification with any particular thing. And even all that I say about Reality — even that is very poorly expressed. It is not what I really see. It's just words I am throwing out there, but the actual vision is clear — very, very clear. And that is what produces the ability to inquire into whatever is happening when I get misled — when I believe that I need to do something, or that I don't like this or that. That clear vision serves as the touchstone for the inquiry, and immediately it is seen clearly — that situation, whatever I am trying to affect, all of that is just not Reality. It is not what I am. I had already left my seat and was looking around in the wrong places. I need to go back to where I am. I am — that's it. I'm trying to express things that I have very clearly, but when I try to express them the words are not really fitting perfectly. So as I'm talking I keep saying it's not that, it's not that, it's not that. But it will get better — in time I will be able to express it more eloquently. The inquiry continues daily, continually, but it is just a matter of seeing. You see the thing clearly. Right now it's not hard — it is very easy. It's just asking: who are you in this situation? That's it, and immediately it becomes clear. Sometimes it is hard because you forget to ask the question and you get drawn into the thing. But other than that, it is now not really very hard at all. In fact, there is no effort — like you said, it's totally effortless. My main point was that all the seeking, all the searching, all that worrying — all of that was in the way of seeing clearly. That is what I have really seen most clearly through this week.

NSo one thing worth pointing out is that until the moment you saw that this is effortless, there was effort. So effort is fine too. Until clarity dawns, there's the feeling of effort, there's the thirst, and so on. It all took place too.

The effortless part is once you have recognized — and the recognition is not just negation. It is not negation. The recognition is an affirmation. You do know what you are. It is just that you do not know it as knowledge in the form of thought. It's not in the form of experience even. But every single experience is describing Reality. It is a perfect description of Reality. If you just take out the "my" from the moment — the "me" and the "my" — then that moment is a description of Reality. So Reality is not unknowable. The unknowable is knowing. The known is the unknowable taking form. And the only reason Reality seems far away and unknown, or the Self seems unrealized, is the possession of a small part of the stream — or as if you are swimming in the stream, the "me" and the mind. That's the only little concept which is removed.

And so let's go back to Ramana Maharshi's death experience. The negation happened right at the beginning. He was gripped by existential fear, and he lies down. He says, "Okay, I will keep my body still, I will stop breathing. This body is now a corpse." What is dying? And so the negation he goes through — that's the first step. But then the realization is the affirmation. This is what the Self is. Nothing about the body survives death — it is a corpse. So right now, just consider it a corpse.

Nothing about your memories and so on... you can consider that they will survive, but that's just wishful thinking. Let it go. In India they have the funeral pyre. So it's like he's burning all of his identity at the pyre — no "me", no "mine", nothing left. And then what remains is the Self. And it is an affirmation of what Reality is. The universe is not aware. The universe is not even a thing.

Because even when people write these kinds of things, they say, "Oh, you are the universe experiencing itself," and so on. No. When you realize — at Self-realization — the universe ceases to be anything but a concept, because you have seen what is more fundamental. There's no universe without Sentience. What is the universe? All of the streams — which everybody thinks is "my stream, my stream, my stream" — all of them together, that's called the universe. But that universe requires a more fundamental Reality to exist, and that is the Self, Sentience, Awareness. It's a deep and permanent affirmation of what the Self is. So negation is the first step, but then realization is: "Oh yes, this is it. This is what the Self is, ever was." And it does not depend on this life. Who could have thought that this silly little thing — like, it could depend on this body, this corpse body? To him it was forever — and then just a corpse. If it's going to be a corpse a few years later, what's the difference between now and then? It's just like Frankenstein with some lightning passing through. It's a corpse with some lightning passing through. So, is the lightning alive? That's just the activity. Who experiences the activity? Who makes the stream possible? And you get to the riverbed. The riverbed, not the river. The ocean in the drop.

You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the ocean in the drop. In the drop is this whole world. The drop is huge — this whole world with the clouds rumbling, and the feelings and sensations, all of it. That is the drop. And within it, Reality presents itself as I... I... I.

QYeah, you put it so much better than I do. But I do know one thing — what you were talking about, about the negation, is at the beginning. I really don't worry about negating stuff. I don't have to go hunting for what I am not, what I am not, what I am not. Right now it's the opposite way. It's just that there is... I mean, I had a lot of words that I can use to express everything that I am, and I can do it, but I am not familiar with that position of expressing what I am, really. And so therefore it's not... I am too new at expressing these things. So it's not yet fluid, you know, it's not coming out very fluid yet. But it's no longer the need for continually saying "I'm not this, I'm not that." It doesn't bother me anymore. There is not a lot of bother about that. And definitively, the recognition of what I actually am is what is taking center stage right now. That's what is principal right now in my experience.

NOkay, cool. Thank you.

QThank you, Nabeel. Hi. So one of the things that I do anyway is I sometimes pretend — sounds kind of crazy — but I pretend I died like half an hour ago when I meditate. I just try and convince myself that I died like half an hour ago or whatever. It sometimes helps me. I've got a bag of tricks that I do, and I sometimes want to collect tricks from other people. One of the ones I picked up from you the other week was when you said "have no preferences." I think to myself, remove all preferences — and that's another item in my bag of tricks. The other one is pretending I'm dead, or sometimes pretending there's no one else in the world. For some reason that one actually destresses me, for some strange reason. But I was thinking about the theory and the concept of ignorance. I was thinking about it yesterday — is it kind of like... we have a very limited view of Reality, through electromagnetic fluctuations and so on. We don't see that much. I'm thinking maybe the disadvantage is that we don't see everything. It's as if you're looking inside a Swiss watch and all you can see is one cog. So you think that cog is moving on itself, that it has complete self-determinism and free will. But because of the angle we're looking at it, and the restrictions placed on us, our Awareness is constantly forced to look at this limited view of the world.

If we could see through everyone else's eyes, maybe it would all make more sense. And yet we can't. Sometimes I just wonder if that's another bad metaphor. Yeah, that's it really. Just the concept of ignorance. It feels like some of it is because we don't see the whole, and part of our reality is that it does actually appear that everything happens to us — it does appear that way. It's no surprise that people think that there's a me and all this. Anyway, that's it from me. Thank you.

NSo take that inquiry — that you have died and there are no more people in the world — and take it further. So now you have died. There's no you anymore, no me, dead. And there's no people in the world. And this is life after death.

This is what it's like. So when there's the thought that we don't see this the right way, or if we could see through all the other eyes — the "we" is actually wrong. There's a wrong kind of thinking going on. Okay. So this is life after death. No me, no people. Who is the "we"? There's no we. So what is wrong with the thought? It is going back. It's assuming those different separate selves, separate entities which are conscious. They are none. The only thing that happens — which is ignorance — is the wrong thinking arises, which takes possession that there's an entity that can possess Consciousness. It can take a bit of the stream and that is its stream. What can contain Consciousness? Because space and time are contained within Consciousness. So what can contain Consciousness? And then you return — this is life after death. This is what it's like: there is thinking, but it's not my thinking, because there's no me.

QJust one more thing on that. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. Is this process about... because the only thing that can do anything is Consciousness itself — it can't make an effort. Is the effort... it's hard to put into words, and hard to understand, but is it the mind trying to lie down and almost become transparent, so that the greater Consciousness can shine through? Because I feel like the mind is the one doing the work here. Like in this group, everyone's mind is in some ways acting in a way that would allow the greater Consciousness to shine through. Or is that — sorry, we just get twisted up in crazy metaphors sometimes.

NYeah. See if you can look at it without personifying anything — without assuming any conscious entities. Can you explain it? And you'll find there is an explanation, and that's how it really is. It's a conditioned phenomenon. The mind, whatever the mind is, has no access to the world, and it's not conscious of this. So there's a process going on — a very complicated process — and its objective was to help this organism survive. But then, because it's become so intelligent, it starts to question: what is this self which I want to promote and protect, and which will eventually die? And in that Thought process itself, the question can begin. And that is its unraveling — the thought process starts to unravel, because the thing it was trying to protect, the most cherished "me"... you don't even know what that is.

What are we? What is the existential dread about? What are we fighting for? It's that there was an assumption — an evolutionary driver. Protect, spread the genes, whatever.

QThank you. I'm going to listen to that again.

NYeah. It's grown to something really complicated, where a single... because it built on a single assumption. The sage picks apart that one assumption, and all those billions of years of evolution — they fall apart. Because who are we trying to spread? Whose genes are we trying to spread?

Yes, Neil.

QJust once again, I may have actually touched on this with you before in... a meeting some time ago, but I wanted to touch on it again if you wouldn't mind. I hope I haven't taken it out of context, but the line — I'll try and do it briefly — "your lack of interest sets a new course for the mind. Simply by not caring, you are at peace and serenity and contentment." I really like that a lot. Simply by not caring. But maybe it just appeals to a part of me that wants to not care. And maybe I have taken that out of context, which I possibly have, so I apologize for that. But that lack of caring — is that a part of the problem that we have, that we care so much? Or was that talking about caring in a broader context of how the world gets into the trouble it gets into, like religions and wars and all of that? I was wondering — did it apply to how I approach things?

NYeah, it does mean what... there's a mental posture of not caring. It's not uncaring in that you turn into Dr. Jekyll — sorry, Mr. Hyde.

The "uncaring" there means an unconcern. When you say, "I'm not going to care," that's actually the same as saying, "That's not my problem. It's not mine." It's the right move. It's the move of "not me" and "not mine." But it's not apathy. You don't become a teenager again. It's...

Yeah, there was a quote from Nisargadatta that hit me a while ago. He said he was talking about the absolute and so on, and then he says, "I am unconcerned." And then you see from what standpoint he's saying, "I am unconcerned" — because I am not a human being. I'm not a man. I'm not a thing that was born and will die. What you are is that which is Aware, the foundation for the world, the basis for the world. So I am unconcerned with what happens in this world, this life, and so on and so forth. And because I am unconcerned, I have the clarity of mind to do the right thing — because I'm not carrying the baggage of my past opinions and my deluded thinking. We want that. I am unconcerned. I don't care about that old way of thinking. And so it continues to expand. The uncaring continues to expand. It's the unconcern, the peaceful, clear, half-open, half-closed eyes way of looking at the world.

QYeah, it just captured me there, just that little bit. It was the last thing I wrote yesterday, and it was: can I allow myself to not care? But obviously, as you say, in the right way.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Cheers.

NThank you, Neil.

QHi. Thank you for what you're doing. Really appreciate that. So one of the questions I had, Nabeel, is I go back to the Bhagavad Gita, and there is a mention of dharma where Krishna sort of says to Arjuna — and in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, basically Krishna preaches to Arjuna to help him realize who he really is. But when he talks about dharma, there's really no one to follow the dharma. There's nothing. So who does the dharma apply to?

NYeah. So the dharma is just the way — it's just the truth. The truth in itself has value. Ignorance in itself has a kind of lesser value than truth.

QBut can you tell a bit more? Like, what was the...

No, I think I understand what you're saying. The exact words were — Krishna was persuading Arjuna on one hand to carry on the fight, and to realize that he is a warrior and he has a duty of a warrior. But at the same token, he also says that everything is not done by him. There is nothing, basically. So I was struggling to understand where the dharma fitted in that context. But I think what you said makes sense, and we'll have to ponder upon that a little bit.

NBecause if Arjuna at that moment thinks he will change the course of action — that he will not enact the violence, that he will try to stop the war — he again assumes the role of a person. He assumes that he is in charge, that he has to do something that is right, and that there's a way that is wrong. And that goes against the dharma, because the dharma is: Arjuna, you are not this person. Destiny has shaped this event. The war will happen whether one man tries to stop it or not.

QYes.

NAnd then, as he is engaged in combat — if he puts down his sword and gets killed, what good does that do either? So you start to see what Krishna has explained to Arjuna in that moment. Arjuna is actually realizing that even though he has realized the Self, everybody he will fight and who will be killed in this combat — who will experience it is the Self. He will still, with that knowledge, participate and go through it. And that is being engaged in non-action while in action. He remains detached.

QThank you. Thank you.

NMina.

QI have already killed them all. I think Krishna said that to Arjuna, because he was concerned about killing his own brothers or relatives. But I wanted to say something else. I know we are on time, but this saying that the mind is doing the inquiry — it came to me, the saying of Ramana Maharshi: "The I removes the I and remains as the I." And so it's this subtle point where the mind is doing the inquiry, but the realization is not coming from the mind, because the mind can never see it. The realization is coming from the Awareness. Awareness is aware of itself. I think there is, for me, this subtle point where always I want to understand it from the side of the mind, and I want to realize it from the mind's view — but the mind will never realize it.

NWhat the mind realizes — and because the mind is not a single thing, it's actually many chains of thoughts and feelings and memories, and the intelligence altogether — roughly you call it mind, but it is actually not a single thing.

What that process can realize... and actually it cannot realize. That's the wrong word. It can compute it. It can compute that this process was built within it. The knowledge was there that this process is being observed. Why did eyes evolve? Why is there pain? The information is in the system that this whole system has evolved because it is being observed. It uses the fact of that observation in some way to learn. It is a feedback mechanism. Otherwise, you don't need pleasure and pain. Why do you need it? And so the system realizes that it's searching for itself. It thought there was a "me." There was a central authority in the system — that's what I'm serving. And then it realized, oh, there's no central authority. And there's still the knowledge that it is being observed. And finally, at some point, it steps back and bows down just to that knowledge — that it is being observed. And the Self, of course, is the Awareness observing the process. It needed to go through all that, but since it did, it has some value. That is the realization of truth.

QYes. Beautiful. Thank you.

NAll right. Thank you all for joining. I think we'll end there for today. Thank you very much. Thanks everybody.