What is at Zero Distance? | The Self in Nonduality (Satsang) [public version]

NSo you are not a sentient thing. Sentience is what you are. That is the core insight. You're not a sentient thing. You are Sentience itself. There's a key difference there. It's a massive difference. Sentience is a term trying to describe what you are. So you break it up. Of course, it's obvious that you are sentient. That part is self-evident. It's true. It means you have the capacity to sense, to feel, to know. There's no denying that.

Even if you try to lose the self, you can't lose that. So that part is truth. You are sentient. But then the other part — to think that you are a thing — that is a belief. You have to critically examine the belief, because it has been unexamined your whole life. What thing? And then as you examine it, there's nothing to find that you can put your flag in and say, "That is what I am." Neurons are not sentient. Molecules are not sentient.

And the brain is just all of that together. You start to see that difference. If you say "the brain is what I am" versus "Sentience is what you are" — which statement is taking you towards the truth, the direct knowledge, Self-knowledge? So the fact was there, and it gets mixed up with beliefs, and that is the chain, that is the bondage. We are just returning to the fact which was already known, being clear about that, and giving up the belief. And even the strongest belief can be given up. A theist can become an atheist. That was the strongest belief I had in my life, and I gave it up. Actually, it was the second strongest — I later found out — because the strongest belief is what you think you are.

So once you see you're not a thing, then you're not local. It's only that belief that made it feel like you're local. But if you're not a sentient thing but Sentience itself, then you are universal. What makes you local then? Nothing. It's just the experience. Maybe you can say that's local. You get to understand — when the physicists say there are these non-local fields — that was still a concept. But as you sink into this, into what the Self is, that you are Sentience itself, you understand what non-local means. It's not a field. Non-local is that Reality which is beyond space and time, in a way that you cannot conceptualize until you realize what that Reality is. Of course, lifespans come and go, come and go.

Sentience is always present in all of those lifespans. That's still looking through the lens of time — that's the only way we can describe it. But when you see Sentience as the Self, it is just self-evidently universal. It is the fundamental non-local aspect of Reality. And that is the liberation — you're freed of that chain to being a thing, being something in this life. And then what about the things around you right now? There are all these insentient objects. I am Sentience, but now there are all these insentient objects. But are they? Because none of these objects — they do not exist outside of Sentience. The only place they ever exist is as observations, as Sentience. They are also... these are not separate things. These are not insentient objects. These are Sentience itself. And you are not a sentient thing.

You are Sentience itself. All right, let's do Q&A. Yes, Rachel, you're on mute.

QIf Sentience is all there is, what else? So I'm just looking at this and I'm thinking, okay, so everything is sentient. All beings are sentient. All living beings are sentient. Sentience is really everything — or is it not?

NThat's still... see, that's still saying Sentience is everything, or all these beings are sentient.

But actually what you should get to is: there are no beings, and there are no things. There is only Sentience. Because even that word is wrong — it's just a word, it's a term that I'm using because it's already in your vocabulary. You already had a sense of what it meant, and it was tied to that. And so we repurposed the terms which were already there, like Awareness and Consciousness and so on. So the terms are limited. And so I'm trying to get to understanding and comprehension and experience.

QSo when something arises — for example, whenever joy arises in Sentience — it seems my experience seems to be like a bottomless pit of bubbles. And sometimes it's like taking a soda and shaking it up and then opening the can and it just goes.

NSo all of these experiences are occurring within Sentience. There's no difference between this being... there's no individuality of this being anyway. There's no thing you can call "I." Sentience itself — what does it mean to be Sentience itself? It means there's no form, nothing you can say that is I. But that does not negate you, because you are sentient. You are what is. And then when something arises again, when you inspect it, it's not something separate. It's not standing apart.

Because if it were outside of that, it would be nothing. Even if it did exist, it would be unknown. But what you find is you are the unknown. And whatever is known is just the efflorescence of the unknown. Like bubbles, as you were saying — just arising. Exactly. And when it's over, it's over, and then something else arises. So it's like a stream of experiences of arising and ending, arising and ending. It's like the sound waves that the ear seems to process. If I'm listening to music, the sound rises, the orchestra plays, then the melody is over, then silence. So in some of my videos, I like to use the sound of drops in a cave.

QYes. What is that about?

NBecause of what the nature of Reality is, what you are — it is not obvious what you are, because you are just silence. You're just the capacity. So until, in that capacity, there's an experience — which is those drops of water — then you realize the depth. "Oh, I didn't know there was such a big space."

That's what you feel in a cave. How deep is it? And that's what experiences help you realize — what you are — because the experience is not actually separate. It is... Because each being processes information or experiences differently and uniquely, each individual experiencing the same thing has a different experience — because of the diversity of Sentience itself. It isn't like every being experiences the same thing the same way.

QBut there are no beings... but beings are right there. You see, it makes it so hard to talk about this stuff.

NEvery experience is like a drop in a cave, and that resonance — the echoes — we are calling them experience, but actually they are Sentience itself. You cannot split it.

That's the thing. We are using all these different terms, but you can't... The Self is Sentience. And experience is Sentience itself.

QIt's quite joyful to be in your presence and experience your expression — the words chosen to express the teaching. If I just absorb what's being said without passing it through the filter of intellect, this one gets it. But when this one starts creating a question — that is where grappling with words makes it so awkward.

But for me it's all joy. So thank you very much.

NThank you. Yes, Neil.

QHello.

NHello.

QI've been enjoying your videos again and once again revisiting a couple of them. And in line with what you started with this evening, I had this line. It says — liberation, from your video but from the Gita I believe — says liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone, the unmanifest, unconditioned fullness, Reality, and that on which even Consciousness depends. And it's the bit that... it says to know yourself as Awareness alone. Is there a way that — Awareness, everything that you are, that it is Awareness — can that be encapsulated? I know it can't be contained because it's infinite, but to know yourself as that alone — it says that is liberation. And I'm interested in liberation. That's the hook. That's the thing that inspires me, that makes me want to do this, and that's what I love about this. But is there a point that you can know yourself as liberation, as Awareness alone, without all of this other stuff — without all this apparent... all of this stuff, you know, the dreams, or what we call the world, and all our problems and stuff? At what point — or is that what we're talking about?

NSo the key word there is "alone."

But that alone does not mean that all this needs to disappear. It only means that you know yourself as only Awareness, with none of the other beliefs. Because there is the belief that you are a separate thing. The thing might get very subtle, but the belief in being a separate thing is there. And "Awareness alone" — when you know yourself as Awareness alone, all those beliefs are gone. There's not a shred of anything else that you could be. And then whether all this is around — what is it? It's also Awareness alone. It's not talking about that point we sometimes discuss where, from nothing to something, an experience appears. You don't need to get to that. This is the more basic, fundamental thing — you see that you are only the Awareness and nothing else, and there's no possibility of you being anything else. And so we are separating the fact from the beliefs, the concepts.

The fact is you are aware right now. If you could remove all the other ideas of self, what is left? What would you call yourself?

QThen this fascinates me — this idea of removing everything else, the superfluous stuff, or the imaginary self, or the thought... whatever all of that stuff is. And what would I be? Obviously my conclusion would be, well, then I would be Awareness if I could do that. But it seems to... I do feel like...

NSo the meaning of the word is going to change now. So — you all know you're aware?

QYeah. No doubt.

NNo doubt. So now, if you forget everything else just for a second — a few seconds — and give yourself a name. What is that name?

QAwareness.

NDo it slower.

QAwareness. But what I don't get — what are you saying?

NWhat are you saying? You feel it like... what? This is what I am. That is the answer. It should resonate in your heart: this is what I am. "Awareness" — it's just turning into... you know, the main quality you have, the only quality you have, using it to describe yourself. I am conscious. What am I? I don't know. Blah blah blah. You keep going on and on forever.

And the answer is only that you are conscious — which you know. So you are the Consciousness, and that's what I mean. You're not a sentient thing. You are Sentience itself. You are the capacity for sensing, feeling, knowing — all of that. You know that you have that capacity. So you are that. So how do we get rid of the beliefs? It's actually not hard. You just... you focus on what is true. So what else do you think you are right now?

QIt's just — maybe not obvious. I'm sure it is obvious, but it's just all these years of going around thinking I am Neil and I am this person with this history, blah blah, all of that stuff. It still lingers.

And I think we've been here before — that maybe it's not like nothing to be destroyed, nothing to be eradicated. This enables me to function in the world and do what I've got to do and deal with people. I understand that. But it's kind of that... that character, that person, that ego, that framework — it doesn't want to let go. Or there's still that thing: "No, this is me." This is because everybody — as they talk to you and say, "Hi, how are you doing?" — there's still that residual thinking or belief in that character. Even though I do hear you, and I do understand — in my heart I understand, yeah, I am Awareness and that is what I am. But it's the alone thing. It's like maybe I just want a pure, unadulterated... you know, like a glass of water. Just a pure glass of water. Pure glass of Awareness with no added — no tea, no squash, no nothing in it. Just water. Do you know what I mean?

NBut then this is that pure Awareness. This, right now, this is the pure Awareness. So once you establish identity — that this is what I am — then if someone on the road says, "Oh no, you're a monkey," it doesn't matter. You know what you are. They don't do that.

So you have to go to how fundamental this is — that you are the Awareness, right now, any moment. And then when the thought comes, this or that, they're like strangers on the road. What they say does not matter, in the way that they cannot penetrate your fundamental Self-knowledge. You are the Awareness, and in that light you can see what that thought is. Oh, it's just the brain working. Oh, what is it? It's actually just a tiny spark of you taking shape. Everything is just sparks of Awareness. It's Awareness taking form, and the form can be a thought form, and the thought form is words and meanings and images.

And then as you look at it from your identity of being Awareness alone, it's a thought form. It's a form. It's Awareness taking shape. And it will... the belief cannot come back. The thinking will change in ways, because it cannot progress down the old rutted paths. And just seeing even the most mundane thought that way — it's amazing. Whoa. It's a spark of Reality taking shape. A thought form. Where is it? A thought you can't even see.

And in the same moment there will be the things you can see and can hear, and those are more substantial forms — and they are also pure Awareness.

QCircle back. I'm getting it. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

NBindu.

QHi Nabeel, thank you. I was recently listening to your talk on the sky, and how we are just like the sky — the Awareness — and in that you mentioned to focus between two breaths and see what exists between those two breaths. When I do that, I get a sense of emptiness, and I know that's probably an impression of the mind. I wanted to ask you if that's what you meant. I still don't — although I do understand that Awareness is prior to everything — I still don't feel like that's me, you know. I don't get that that's me. So I wanted to ask you, in the context of that talk on YouTube: is that initial impression of emptiness between the two breaths — is that me, or is that just a mental image that I'm creating of emptiness?

NEmptiness is not... it's probably a mental attempt to see a gap. But what I'm trying to show you is: without thinking, the answer to "what am I?" is there. The answer is there without thinking — in between the breaths, in between the thoughts — because you're always there. So it's just shortening the time span, so that you don't resort to thinking. The answer is there if you ask, "What am I?" and before the next thought arises — in between that question and the thought-based answer — is the actual answer. And the actual answer is: what is there in the gap?

It's not Emptiness. It's You. You are the Awareness in that moment. In that gap, there is only you — until the next form grabs attention. So it's thought form to thought form, thought moment to thought moment. We say: look, what are you? Look between the thought moments and the thought forms. You are still there. Because the next thought moment comes, and you are there to receive it. So in between the thought moments, what are you? What would you call that?

And when I say, "What would you call that?" — again, it seems like you have to resort to the thinking mind. But no — it's the direct recognition of Self. So what are you?

QI get that I'm present. I'm present between the thoughts. I'm present between the breaths. And then there's this continuous presence. But I don't get the sense of Awareness — that I am Awareness — in that moment. When I do that, I do understand that there's a continuous presence there, and that I call "I" — that's always there in between. But I don't get that that's Awareness.

NOkay. Discard the word Awareness. Maybe it doesn't work for you. Forget it. But that is I. The undefined, unknowable I.

But you know — because you know — that is I. See, you know it. You know that is I. What would you call that?

QI... Presence.

NOkay. Presence. The Presence of Reality. Because that is what is most real. Everything else is building on top of that I. That is the foundation.

QSo — you said that when you started off this video, you had said that Reality is simple. So finding it is also very simple. And I love that. But shouldn't that be on the forefront? Because it feels like it's in the background. I have to try so hard — like, okay, I'm taking a breath, and another breath, and then in between the breaths or my thought: who am I? And then all of this — the body-mind image of who I think I am — that comes to the forefront, and then this presence is lost. Shouldn't it be in the forefront? Or does that change with time?

NWell, yes. So then "presence" is again the wrong word. It's again maybe looking at the wrong aspect, because as all of that is happening, what is at the forefront? What are all of those forms dependent on, and what quality of you are they very clearly describing? You don't need to be remembering what you are or who you are, but as long as there's some experience, what is it describing about you?

QSay that again.

NSo the question is, if there is an experience, what is that describing about me? Don't think of it as about you personally — just you at the fundamental level.

What is it describing about You?

QThe Awareness. Only if I'm aware am I able to experience. So every experience is showing and pointing back at that.

NAbility to perceive. That's right. And it's doing it in a very... it's not a subtle way. Experience is — I don't know the word to use — it's in your face. It's undeniable. And that undeniableness of experience is describing your undeniable quality of being aware. It's at the forefront and it is fundamental.

QAnd now you've used the word "aware" again. So I'm going to call you Awareness again.

NSo you can come up with a better way to see it for yourself. For me, when it clicked, it was because I squeezed dry all the words except "Sentience" that came up to me. I'm not a sentient thing.

Because the "thing" can be subtle. Maybe I'm a field. I'm a field of Awareness. That field is also a thing.

QI understand that aspect. However, when I'm asleep — like when the body and mind is asleep — perception doesn't... so thinking of it as ability to perceive doesn't cut it for me, because when the body and mind is asleep, there is no perception.

NSo then, is the ability — the quality of you being able to — is that gone? No. The ability to perceive always exists. So we're not talking about perceptions and what specific experiences are there or not, present or absent. We're talking about what you are — the fundamental quality that defines what you are. And that does not go.

And then you have to question the "me" part, because when we say "me," it is always bringing back the thing part, an individual part, and that has to be thoroughly seen through. Then it's Awareness alone — otherwise it's Awareness mixed with squash and whatever.

QRight. So when I question the "me," I have to negate — I have to know within myself that that "me" is untrue, that there isn't one like that.

NIt's just examination — critically examining: if I am a thing, what is the thing? So that part, use the intellect, use everything you have. And then between the two thoughts, between the breaths, even when you sleep — what is the quality that is? That is what I consider "I." That one, you don't need intellect or anything. So it's separating fact from belief, fiction.

QOkay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Nabeel.

NThank you. Mark.

QCan't hear you yet. Is that better?

NYeah.

QOkay. I've watched a lot of your podcast, but I haven't watched a lot of these group events. Is there any room... is it basically just questions you're looking for? I recently had an experience that I think could be helpful, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes as far as trying to take the position of teacher or anything like that. Does that make sense?

NNo, that's all right. You can share your insights.

QOkay. What seemed to help me recently, just a few days ago, was basically just closing the eyes and then... it's hard to put into words. However, there's this... I know we're talking about words and what words might work, what words don't, and we overuse words. But for me I think it's the knowing. So with the eyes closed, there seems to be, before any thoughts arise, a knowing. And I guess the key part of it for me was going back to the five-year-old me. The knowing I experience now was the knowing I experienced at five years old, and I've experienced every day of my life. And it's something that doesn't change. As I pondered that which has been with me always and is unchanging, with the eyes closed, I seemed to arrive at pure knowing. It's a sense of what has always been there, but it's before the mind. It's just that knowing. Thinking can come along after that, but there's a base state of knowing that I now view myself as — and I could be totally off, I could be way off. But trying to view it as the constant thing that has been me all along — five years old, ten years old, thirty years old — that seemed to make something click for me personally.

Now I just... I try to see... I'm sure there's an integration process or an embodiment process where you can kind of get lost in the content of experience again. So I guess I just try to slow down, close my eyes even, and see: what is that which is there always, and has always been there, and has never changed, and I don't think ever will change. I don't know if that is helpful on any level to anyone, or if what I have experienced is what we're looking for. But I've gone back to different podcasts that you've done, Nabeel, and as I listen I'm like, oh yeah, that's exactly what I believe I have stumbled across — the shoreless ocean. You've provided so many pointers. I wish I could come up with all of them, but it seems that not only your pointers, but pointers I've been studying from other teachers — they all seem to fit now. And I think to myself, why didn't I see this earlier? Why did I make it so difficult? I think it was because I was trying to use the mind — I was using words and mental... maybe just using mental... I wish I were more eloquent. But I go back to the things that used to make me say, what exactly am I looking for? And now it's like, oh, that's what I have finally found. So going back to watch prior episodes, as opposed to making me wonder whether I've found what we've been pointing to all along, it seems to say yes — the pointers seem to be pointing to the same thing I believe I have stumbled upon. If that makes any sense at all.

NThat's great. So what you've recognized is really very simple.

And then what happens is the mind might still be confused, because it has not seen it. It cannot see. It can't see it. So you recognized that this knowledge — "I am" — has always been there. That's the constant thing. That's why you can string it as one life, because that knowledge does not flicker. And so that knowledge is there in any life, any experience — that knowledge is there, and you recognize it. And now when you're saying "knowing," you're not even talking about that knowledge — you're talking about what precedes that knowledge. So the Knowing is there. I know what you mean. I just want to clarify, because when some minds hear "knowing," they think there must be something being known — there must be some experience, something being known. But what Mark has said is: a Knowing is there, though nothing might be known.

Nothing might be known, but that quality of knowing is going on. It's all the time.

QAs soon as what has been the baseline of experience my entire life — once thought appears to be out of the way...

NSo that's the simple recognition of what has remained constant. If we approach it as knowledge first — the knowledge "I am" has always been there. And what did that knowledge build upon? That is what we're looking at. Your Original Face.

QYes. Not this face. That face is always at a distance. Thank you for the time.

NThank you. Another way to consider it, as you're still questioning, still wanting to be clearer — what is at zero distance? Because everything you observe, there's a bit of distance. There's a bird singing outside right now. There's a distance.

When there's a thought in what seems to be your own mind, there's a distance. And what is at zero distance? Of course, that would be you. You go closer and closer until no distance. And you can apply it to your face. Whenever I see my face, it's over there. There's a distance — in a mirror, in any reflection, there's a distance. So that is not my true face, or your true face.

QAnd to me — I'm sorry — it just seems to be closer and more intimate than... and this isn't my idea. I've heard it from someone, or perhaps even you. What truly is you is closer and more intimate than the illusory self that we think we are. Much closer. I mean, it's immediate.

NYeah, it's always been like that. When you find it — the search resolves — it's not finding something new. It's the same that has always been there. I'll get you Lesley in a minute.

I just wanted to finish this one. So, you can look at your own face. And we often go back to this. At zero distance there is no face — there's just capacity to perceive. It's a very visual pointer as well. You can see it like... there's my face there, the physical one, and here is just a capacity to perceive. What would you call that? That is you.

QYeah, for right now the eyes closed, focusing on the back of the eyelids, helps me to perceive it. And once I open my eyes it seems to be like... okay, I know that that baseline experience, that intimate me, is still there, but it's easier to see with the eyes closed for me at this point.

I think there's going to be, hopefully, some integration where I can have the eyes open and still... well, I guess there's always going to be that knowledge of the me that is the baseline. That's the intimate.

NSo try this, Mark. At night, if you sleep in a really dark room, close your eyes and you go where you're saying you go, and then you open them and see what is the difference. Just keep blinking in the dark. And see if you can find a difference. And then when it's daytime, do the same.

QGotcha.

NAll right, Lesley.

QSo, when you... it just made me think, when you said when you look at yourself in the mirror you're at a distance. People that report a near-death experience — most of them say that they can see their body, but they know that they're not their body. Then they go on to describe whatever happens to them in their perceived near-death experience. But associated with that, there always appears to be a localized sense of self still — like they don't just become Awareness, even though they know they're no longer their body. So they're not thinking through the brain, and perceptions seem to be held, but still as if they were a person. That just confuses the hell out of me, because if they haven't got a body and a brain busy thinking that they're a person, what is thinking that they're a person?

NThat's the problem of how strong the belief of being a thing is. You can see your body there, and everything's gone, and you find, "Oh, I have no form — I'm a ghost now," but you still think you are a ghost.

So the thing can be very subtle. There are beliefs in souls and all that, and all of that has to be examined and cut through, and then you see what you are as you are. Otherwise, no matter what wonderful experience, or how outlandish — there is a speck left, and that is "me." And the "me" is the problem, and it's not even there. The problem is there is no me. But there's an assumption of me. So you can take away the physical parts — the body is gone, no reflection, the physical parts are gone — but the assumption is not gone. The assumption of being an individual, and that is actually very dear to most of humanity. If you talk to them about nonduality, they'll get angry, and all that. It's actually very precious — "my little life," "me" — it's deeply tied to identity, to all you love, and so on.

I sometimes say it's easy, but the easy part is that the fact is straightforward. It's self-evident that you are aware. The difficult part is seeing through this belief. And those near-death experiences are still experiences. At some level they're still tied to the conditioning of that mind. They're still human experiences — not completely nonhuman. They're just permutations of what that mind had absorbed in that life.

QBut what is doing the experiencing, if there is no body?

NWell, seeing the body over there doesn't mean it's not the body that's still doing the functioning. It's still... when we say brain dead, there's still some activity left. There might be completely no activity, but you can't pinpoint — scientifically it's hard to say, "okay, that was the point when the brain was dead and you were still experiencing." I don't think we've proven that yet. I'd have to check the literature again. But look — experience does not require a human brain. It requires certain thresholds to be met, but it's just the same fields — electromagnetism and all that. Many processes in nature can cause experience. We only know that brains can cause experience, but we don't know what else — we being humans. But all that is beside the point, because that's all investigation into what experience is, what causes experience, and all that. What Self-inquiry is about is: what are you at that point when you're seeing your dead body? Or right now, when you're seeing this — same you. What is that you?

QMute again. There we go. I've taken enough time already. However, where does... so an out-of-body experience is supposed to be similar to a near-death experience, and there are lots of people who talk about astral travel. Astral travel is considered a superpower by some traditions. My understanding is there are multiple bodies other than the physical body.

I haven't astral traveled, but just theoretically — is that the case that you're aware of? I think of some of these bodies. There's supposed to be a causal body, and I don't know the relation to experience that they point to or that they represent. But what are your thoughts on astral travel, as far as being able to leave the body and explore whatever... the levels of the astral world, for example, which is supposed to be the place where people go after they die — maybe those who haven't reached realization?

NMy specialty is cutting through belief, so I have cut through all my beliefs which cannot be corroborated. Yeah, many things are possible.

QI'm so sorry to interrupt — one of the authors that kind of put me on the path, he called astral travel an "astral circus," where it's a distraction from enlightenment. Therefore I've tried to focus on enlightenment first, and whatever happens later, you know, whatever. But it does seem to be something that maybe shouldn't be our focus.

NYeah, I mean, once your mind is freed of the usual kind of thinking, you notice many aspects of the most normal experiences that were missed. It's just a clarity to perception, because now you are perceiving as Awareness. But I go by what is direct — just fact. And that is what you stay with. Otherwise you get drawn into all kinds of beliefs again. And beliefs always go away from the truth. And nothing is more beautiful and amazing than the truth, which is simple.

QI agree.

NAnd the idea of people going somewhere after they die is just totally cut through once you don't see any people.

QYeah, exactly. Thank you.

QHi Nabeel. I wanted to tell you about this last week. Throughout this last week, I discovered "I Am That" by Nisargadatta Maharaj, and I was absolutely floored by it. Because I had read before... I think it was "I Am Not the Body," or something like that, and I did not like it. I thought it was — let's say — too Indian, too many Indian concepts, and I was lost. I had this feeling of it being too esoteric. And then I discovered it — a friend had told me about it — so I started listening and reading it, and oh my god, it has been absolutely amazing. Totally amazing. And practically everything that he says is absolute recognition.

I don't have to make any effort. It's like I am just seeing it very clearly. But as a consequence, I have noticed a change in my experience. There has been like a slowdown of thinking, of the inner chatter. I had a lot of chatter going on in my head from daylight to dark, and it's — I will not say completely gone, no, there is still some — but it is barely anything in comparison. I mean, it's silent sometimes. It's a scary silence. And instead, well, I don't know... it's just a tranquility of sorts. I don't even know what it's all about, because it's not that I'm trying to do anything. This just happened, and I'm not particularly concerned about it. I just wanted to tell you about it, because it's surprising that it happens — maybe as a coincidence — after reading so much of "I Am That." Because it has such an impact. Even though everything he was saying I was essentially recognizing — it wasn't like, "oh, that's so new" — but the impact is how he put it, how he said it.

Did anything like that happen with you? I know that Nisargadatta Maharaj was a big influence on you. Did you get any feeling like that? Any sense of anything that happened to you?

NYeah, that is like the stunned silence of realizing. I try to play it down because often people make it a goal to stop thinking. You can't do that. However, whenever realization hits you — and it hits you more and more as it becomes more and more obvious — there's the stunned silence. The mind is stunned into silence. Why? Because it realizes, "Oh, this is beyond my domain. And the one I'm looking for is right here, observing this moment and me." And there's no me. And so the thoughts which could form and build into lots of trees, forests — how can they grow? Until you have to do something, work or whatever, then they'll blossom and grow. You need the thinking then. But there are many points where the usual thinking just can't take root. Because the root was individuality, and that root is cut.

QYou know, every so often one of these... basically, thoughts arise. It's not like they don't come home every so often. But they come home and they flag themselves — they show themselves to be without foundation, and so very quickly they subside. They don't continue like it used to, where one would bring another one, another one, another, and there was a chain that lasted half an hour. Now it's just — I look at what's appeared, and it collapses. The majority of the thinking is just as to what to do, what not to do, what needs to be accomplished or not accomplished. And it is totally boring — it doesn't have any drama or anything like that. But I have not done anything. I thought I would have to make an effort to understand, but it's not an effort to understand anything. In fact, the good thing is, when I'm quiet, when I am not trying to understand anything — that is when it is all clear. Is it that way for you?

NYeah. So now you know what it means — what effortlessness means. As soon as you make an effort, you cannot get here. But what has happened is, even the earlier book you read of Nisargadatta — the power was there, the wisdom was there. Even now, in this book, they will use those Indian terms, but this time they will hit you differently. What has happened is, as Nisargadatta would say, the fruit has ripened. Everything that has gone in and hit you along the way has primed you, so that now when you read this, it's just so obvious. It's just so clear.

And now it hits you, and now it's effortless. And so that is what is meant by effortlessness.

It's not you trying to be effortless — it's that the whole process has already taken place and reached the point where it just works. The fruit has ripened.

QIt just happened. It just happened without doing absolutely anything, or even attempting to make any changes. I have not done anything. The only thing I was, was interested. I had a great interest in it. That's about it. I have been reading him non-stop, and it has been like — I mean, it's like food. When you're hungry and you need to eat — that's it. And now even that is no longer... right now even that has subsided a little bit. It still is great, but it's not — I don't have the urgency. It's okay. I just wanted to pass it through you to where you thought. Thank you.

NThank you. Yes, Neil.

QYeah, that's fascinating what Cisco was saying there, because I've had a similar experience myself this week, funnily enough, through reading "I Am That."

But my question — maybe help me overcome this, because it's something I've dragged along with me from my previous life — about the guru and the teacher. In my previous life, the guru was it. He was the focus. He was a person, a physical person on a stage, or in a video. And then I came across the idea that actually — I think the Indian term is Satguru, the true guru — is actually inside. Or... there's a better word than that. It's something within yourself. And that it's not this person, or this external character, or even the person who wrote a book that you really admire. That actually, the guru is perhaps there to show you the guru inside of yourself. And if that is the case — if you see it that way, and if I've understood it correctly — what would you say that guru is? Or is this exactly what we're talking about here? That the guru is actually the Awareness, the Sentience, that Being, the Self — whatever label you want to put on it. Am I following my nose in the right direction here?

NSo actually, the Satguru is... putting the Self in a certain role, so that the one who is trying to find has a... it's recasting the Self as your Satguru. So instead of you going around looking from guru to guru — "who will teach me, where do I find the Satguru?" — when you find the Satguru, you are no more. The Satguru is revealed as the Self, as you. And the one who was searching is revealed to be just... whatever thought process there was, just something going on — but it was not you. It was experiencing happening. A search took place, and you thought you were the one seeking. But when you arrive, you find your Satguru. It is Sentience itself, Awareness. And who is that? That cannot be something else. Because who is knowing the Satguru? Nisargadatta often talks about — he calls it the Satguru.

He says, "You are that."

But it's just giving roles. Like in Rumi, he gives the Satguru the role of the Beloved, and now he can turn it into: "I'm going to find my Beloved — go find your Beloved."

QYeah. Okay. Yeah, no, it's great. That's wonderful. Because that figure — that character, I can't think of a better word — of the guru was so important. And it has cropped up all the way along, all these years, in books I've read, and just stuff and people: "Find the guru, find the guru. You can't move on, or you can't find liberation, without the guru." And I guess that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it — that that is actually you. But I always felt like it was a relationship, and obviously with nonduality you don't want a relationship... if you want — you know, you want to — I can't even put it into words. You need to be that.

NIt's not an instruction you would give to anyone, but you see that if they have that — especially in India, where there's a lot of guru devotion and all that — then you can point it in the right way. Use it this way. Don't look outside. Don't try to find the perfect guru and somehow sit there and become enlightened. That's not the way. So you repurpose that same concept, that same way of thinking, and guide it in the right direction, so that the search can conclude.

QYeah, I'm going to do that. I'm doing that. Thank you for that. Really, thank you for that. That was just an answer I've been waiting for for years. Brilliant. Thank you.

NThank you. Yes, Rachel.

QThe process of Self-inquiry about just continuously asking "Who am I? Who's asking?" — it's an interesting one to fall asleep to, because to be able to observe the process of falling asleep... I have a lot of difficulty doing that. It's like I'm asleep and that happens so quickly. The process itself is just so difficult to observe. But I would like to spend more time doing that. I was wondering if you have any guidance or tips to be able to proceed with just the observation of falling asleep, to the point where you don't actually fall asleep. How to be able to stay in that point just before sleep? Is there a process for that?

NBut why do you want to stay in that point?

QWell, because what happens is — what I've been able to do that once or twice, and I don't know how I did it. It just kind of happens. And it's in that place where there's an experience of a very deep calm. And an even deeper silence. And that is where the questions are answered. Apparently the answers arise in that space somehow, and I don't have to verify these answers with anybody, because I know it to be the answer I'm seeking. So I was just wondering — does it just happen? Because I wasn't following a process and it just kind of happened. So is that what it is? It all just kind of happens without trying?

NSo if you're trying to do it while going to sleep, it's a bit harder — and plus it's a bit dangerous, because it can be horrifying if it goes a certain way. You can see your mind being destroyed, going into the void, completely annihilated, and so on. But coming out of sleep is what I would focus on. You know that poem — I did a video on Rumi, and he says, "Don't go back to sleep." It's not about actually catching the point where you go to sleep. But as you flutter out of sleep, you're already in that calm place, the place where wisdom can appear, like you're saying. But instead of then deciding, "Oh, let's go back to sleep" — you don't go back to sleep, and you hover in that state. So as you're going to sleep, fine — just go to sleep. Don't try to observe the mind as it gets destroyed. But instead, as the mind stirs back up, you're not interested in the mind and you're not interested in sleep. And then you are in that space. But yes, it's not — again, it's not — if you start to apply effort, it won't work. It's interest. I used to be very interested in that, and it worked. Now I'm not as interested in that, so sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. It's interest.

So before sleeping, you would put it to your mind that this is what you're interested in — you're seeking this point. And it will actually feel like a very intuitive decision being made as the mind stirs and starts to wake up. There'll be a very intuitive decision: "Oh, actually no — I'm not interested in that." Also, you're not interested in going into deep sleep and forgetting everything and getting rid of experience. And then you are at the Door — the door where two worlds meet. That's the place. So these... doing this upon waking from sleep versus going to sleep.

QI'll shift my focus. Thank you.

NThe door is round and open. Don't go back to sleep. But when you do wake up, the same applies right now. The door is round and open. Don't go back to sleep. Don't forget what you are. That's the deeper meaning. Right now, the door is round and open. This is the door. There's no face here. This is the door where the two worlds meet. The unknown and the known are meeting here.

QAnd in my understanding, there is no door. There's no door to open or close.

NYeah. It's round and open. There's no actual closing thingy.

QExactly.

NBut it's round and open. I mean, it's a direct description of what you are observing right now.

This is the door where the two worlds meet. On one side — your side — is the unknowable unknown, the nothing, the void. And on the other side is everything possible to be known: the knowing. This is the door where the two worlds meet. That is a description of the Self as well. The Open Door. Thank you. All right, we're on time. Any last questions or comments? All right, let's end here today. Thank you very much for joining.

QThank you, Nabeel. Thank you.