My Words Are Only to Set Your Heart Free

[music]

My Words Are Only to Set Your Heart Free
07-04-2019

(with subtitles)

[Mooji] Om. Namaste.
Welcome everyone to satsang this morning.

Thank you for coming.

There are a number of new faces also,
so it's quite a mix.

I was hoping that, unplanned of course,

that we are going to have
the most advanced satsang today.

We will see how it comes,
depending on who comes up.

I may at some point ask for a shallow cushion,
just for my back.

Thank you.

Please, you come.

[Questioner 1] Thank you, Babaji.
[Mooji] Thank you.

[Q.1] Thank you for this opportunity to be here.

[Q.1] There has been a line of inquiry,

which, at a certain point,
is seen to be no longer relevant,

but at one level of consciousness
has been serving a fairly clear function.

And I want to bring it to you,

just to see if you could bring
some more light to it.

It is, 'Can the perceiver be perceived?'

And looking in this way,

sometimes it is immediately clear.

[Mooji] Before we go on, we will take a moment.
You hold your point,

so that others who may not understand
the root of this question,

can join in. Is it fair enough?

Because this
is one of the most important questions,

that has been put to those
who are making use of self-inquiry.

Self-inquiry was, and is, a kind of a method,

we can say a method,
or an exercise, or a practice,

that really is very, very sharp at exposing
what is unreal in us.

So this is a question that I raised a while ago,

and it is still burning away,

like a meteorite falling to the earth,
for many people.

And what I mean by this is that

if we can accept this premise,

that whatever constitutes your life so far,

is something that
you have either experienced in your body-mind,

or that you believe,

or that you have perceived in some way,

you have accepted, or you have rejected.

Whatever it is that is on this side of the eyes,

the earth, the world,

let's say the world of names,
forms, people and things,

the sense of time also, and change,

whatever it is that you can perceive or conceive.

And on the inside, behind the eyes,

in the realm of feelings,
thoughts, memory and desire,

all these things;
all of them, something is perceiving them.

Would you understand that?

It is an obvious thing.
It happens also for a child,

they may not be able to put it
in the language I am putting it,

but if you perceive anything,
you must be there first.

You must be there first,
before the perceiving of the world,

or the sense of 'other-ness' is perceived.

The sense of 'I' must be present first.

Are you with me on this?

It is a very basic thing.

But although it is basic,

probably many people
have never really thought about it.

Here we think about these things,

because in seeing them cleanly,
even simple things,

in seeing things clearly,

we find that a lot of misconceptions fall away,
and this is one of them.

We are looking at the most important thing.

All that you conceive or you perceive,

must be from the perspective of the one

who is experiencing all these things.
Fair enough?

You can speak about someone else's experience,

you can say, 'This person told me'.

It is not your experience directly,

but you might absorb those impressions,

and feel, 'That is true enough for me'.

So that joins your family or your content,

of what you believe is your world.

Fair enough? OK.
So it is like everything is funnelling back

towards some point, which is the 'I' point.

'I'. 'I see. I think. I believe. I do. I know.

I go. I stay. I meditate. I sleep. I wake up.
I live. I die.'

Is it fair enough, or not?

Now we come to, 'What is this 'I'?'

Because it is upon and towards this 'I',

that everything else is relevant,
to this 'I', this sense of 'I'.

So, I am calling this 'I', in this context,

the one who perceives, the perceiver.

What makes the perceiver perceive?

Well, the perceiver perceives
through the senses and the mind.

What is heard, what is smelt,
what is tasted,

what is seen, what is felt,

these are the sensors
that bring in the information.

The sense objects can be many.

The eyes are two,
but what they can see are billions.

The ears are two, they come to one point,

but what they can hear are many, many things.

The mouth is one,
but it speaks many, many, many things,

good and bad!

The body is one, but it can feel so many things.

Where do all these things come to?

The mind interprets them as sensations,

and then something records them as experience.

The 'I' is behind them.

The 'I' is even capable of watching
the mind itself.

Have I gone too far, or too fast?

Behind it all is the feeling of 'I',
the 'I' itself.

We must come then ...
If the 'I' is the perceiver of all things,

including even the idea of God,

the feeling of 'I',

if the 'I' is removed, nothing is perceived.

Can the 'I' be removed,
the 'I' who perceives also?

Well, that 'I', what about in deep sleep?

Is anything being perceived in deep sleep now?

All that the sense of 'I' used to perceive
in the waking state,

because most of our act of perceiving

is occurring in our waking state,
the phenomenal waking state,

that is the functioning of this 'I'.

It sees everything, people, places,
things and time,

and the sense of future, past and present,

everything is perceived through this 'I'.

But in deep sleep we are not speaking,

the senses are not operating also.

The body is there to be touched.

The eyes are there, but they cannot see.

The ears are here, but no hearing is happening.

The mouth is there, but not speaking.
Nothing is there.

And the 'I' who perceives,
is the 'I' who perceives there?

Well, it seems not!

But what would perceive
the absence of this cognitive 'I'?

I am sorry, if I leave some of you behind here,

I am not going to turn back for a moment.

What is perceiving the cognitive 'I'?

Meaning the 'I' that is perceiving ordinarily,

the 'I' who creates a history,

and the memory which holds
the information of history,

is not functioning.

Is there something beyond even this 'I',

that perceives the presence
and the absence of 'I'?

Now, how many people are still left
on the swinging bridge?

Thank you.

So, my point now is that
we are speaking about deep sleep,

I am not speaking about dreams,
because in a dream

you can be going across the Sahara Desert
on the back of a camel.

But in deep sleep, in dead sleep,

there is no cognitive functioning,
no diverse perceiving.

Is there something there?
Is any form of consciousness there?

Do you enjoy sleep?

Do you enjoy deep sleep?
I'm not talking about dreaming.

I don't know how many people enjoy going to bed,

looking forward to dreaming.
[laughter]

So here we don't tell people
when they go to bed, 'Sweet dreams'.

Enough dreaming, actually!

'Dead sleep', meaning that,
when you wake up in the morning,

you are refreshed, you are ready for today.

Dead sleep. Is there an enjoyer of dead sleep?
Maybe you don't know.

Do you only have to study your sheets to say,

'Oh yes, it looks like it was a good night'?

So, I would say that
there is consciousness even in the deep sleep.

If you refer to yourself
as the cognitive consciousness,

meaning the one who is always seeing something,

but in deep sleep,
you are not seeing anything at all,

you say, 'Well, I was not'.

The shopper for experience,

the one who is experiencing in the daytime,

is not present in deep sleep.

Is there nothing there in deep sleep?

Can there be a break in your reality?

Is there a break in what you are?

Or is it just that we are entering
a different phase,

different states that rotate?

Are you there in deep sleep, or not?

So, let's push it a little bit.
I am going to stretch it a little bit.

Let's say that something enjoys deep sleep,

so it means that it is even aware,

there is no debate,
there is nobody talking to this one,

but there is an awareness of

the absence and the presence
of the functioning 'I'.

[Mooji] Is that stretching it too far?
[Sangha] No.

[Mooji] I will come back and say why.

That 'I' which is up and about,
and is present even now,

who is able to understand,
to feel, to think, to know,

to remember and to project,
this sense of 'I' is present now.

In deep sleep it is not present.

Is there awareness of this absence,

of the functioning of this personal 'I'?

Is there awareness of that in deep sleep,
or is it just total blank,

and no one to recognise the blank?
Is the blank only assumed?

Is a blank also experienced or perceived?

I am not going to push you too much,
it is not necessary for the moment.

Let's say as far as we know,

that the one who is perceiving everything
is here, somehow,

whatever it is, whatever it is,

but all the senses, the mind, the sense of time,

and the past and present are reporting
to some conscious field.

Are we together on this one?

That centralised consciousness,

which is the sense of the knower,
or the experiencer,

or the perceiver, that which is there,

can that itself be perceived?

This is his question.

I gave him and a few of you this question,
to contemplate,

'Can the perceiver, that ultimate perceiver,

established somewhere in this body,

can this one be perceived?'

Meaning what? Can it be seen?

Can it be touched? Can it be tasted?

Can it be identified? Is it an object?

Is it tangible? Does it have a form?

Does it have a beginning?
Does it have an end?

Does it have any quality?

[Mooji] Is this too mental for you?
[Sangha] No.

[Mooji] So, now you speak!

[Q.1] So, there are times when,
engaging in this inquiry, it is clear,

the formless recognition comes,

and it is clear that this formlessness is ...

[Mooji] 'The formless recognition' comes to who?

Slow down now,

because we are burning up words very quickly.

'The formless recognition' happens
or occurs to who, or to what?

And the recognition of what?

'The formless recognition',
is it about the thing recognised,

or the one who recognises?

When you say, 'The formless recognition comes',

to whom does it come?

To the formless recogniser,
or the thing recognised, or both?

Can the form recognise the formless?

So establish who, or what, is recognising what.

[Q.1] It is recognising itself.

[Mooji] How?

[Mooji] What happens if it recognises itself?

Don't speculate!

Speak from your experience.

What happens if or when it recognises itself?

First, we must get to the point,

that, again the question,

'Can the perceiver, can the seer,
can the knower know itself,

perceive itself, or see itself,
or can it be recognised?'

That would take us one step earlier.

Can it be recognised, that which sees everything?

And remember,
there are some sensations which are so subtle

that there are no names for them.

They are not registered in the book of man,

they have no name, and yet, they are perceived.

Certain waves are so subtle that
there are no names for them,

yet, they are also perceived.

By what are they perceived?

And why is this question asked,
'Can the perceiver be perceived?'

To find out if the perceiver itself is an object.

Do you follow?
Is it meaningful for you, this kind of question,

or should we talk about something else?

The only reason why I came here

is to solve this, experientially.

I only come here,
in the first place to the last place,

for freedom.

I don't really have any other connection with you,

except love.

So it is time, somebody has reached this point,

this maturity of looking.

And we are not finding out something
about out there,

'The answer is out there'.
No, it has to be here.

You must be the answer!

It must come from you. You, being what?

Is the perceiver material or immaterial?

Is it tangible or intangible?

Is it form or formless?

Does it exist?

[Voice in sangha] Yes.

[Mooji] As what does it exist?

Certain questions are being asked here,

that are not asked anywhere on the planet,
to be honest with you.

Not with this intensity, and this requirement that

you must be where the answer is arising from,

because you must be there
before even the answer comes!

You must be there to recognise even an answer,
actually.

As what are you here?

[silence]

Who are you?

We want to learn about everything else,
'What is that? What is this?

Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?'
But who am I?

What is the 'I' arising here?

And if the 'I' itself is arising here,

what watches even its arising?

Is that one arising?

Is it male or female?

What religion does it come from?

What is its practice?

And can the answer survive?

Can the answer to these questions survive
by itself?

Who is pleased or displeased with any answer?

[silence]

In the past anybody could come to Monte Sahaja,

but who could stay here?

Who could stay with me here,

until the one who stays vanishes?

And who will witness this vanishing?

Papaji said these words to me also,

'If you must wake up,
if you would find the Truth,

you must disappear!'

What kind of instruction is that,

to give to a poor little student?
[laughter]

How to disappear?
'Abracadabra.'

How do you disappear?

What kind of sadhana is that?

The instruction was not given to a person.

It was uttered,
and the person could not survive it.

Can we stay at this level?

Should we drop down a little bit,
so that we can bring in everybody?

Who survives this inquiry?

As I said before, The one who starts this inquiry

will not finish the inquiry,

but will be finished by the inquiry.

Does that bring fear?

[Mooji] Does that bring fear?
[Sangha] No.

[Mooji] Does it excite you, divinely?

[emotional laughter in sangha]

Are we waiting for that moment,
in the vanishing queue?

[laughter]

Because only pure intelligence
can appreciate this thing,

that knows what 'vanishing' means.

The vanishing of what?

Of that which is not real,
but which is taken to be real.

And we can live in the so-called reality
of this personhood sense,

which though it is a limitation,
it is also consciousness.

The person is also a form of consciousness.

And perhaps because of that, it perpetuates,

because underneath it is consciousness.

And it is conscious,

but it is very restricted, very limited,
selfish also,

prone to fear, insecurity, desire, attachments,

projections and dreaming.

Behind this person is largely

the undiscovered potential of the human being

to awaken to our true state, our true nature

as imperishable consciousness.

What does it mean?

I want to say this,
because some people feel that,

'Yes, it may be higher, but is it as satisfying?

Is it as adventurous as personhood?'

When you are in your truer state,

do you regret your former state?

[Q.1] No.

[Mooji] The more we lose of our self,
the more we become our Self.

Does anybody get that one?

The more we lose of the idea we have
of who we are,

the more we are awakening
to the fullness of what we are.

Is it spiritual fantasy?

Because you people who are here,

you should be the testifier of the Truth,

when I say, Blessed is the one whose life,

whose presence is the evidence of Truth.

Not just whose words, words are easy,
but whose life!

Do you realise that each one
is emitting some energy field,

either a kind of noisiness,
even if you don't speak ...

If you have come to a deep place
of awakening within you,

that itself is communicating and corresponding

with other intelligent or sensitive beings
on the planet.

Do you realise this, or does it sound like
something you find in a book?

Very often we smell like a person.

We have a psychic smell of a person,

when we have indulged too much
in ideas about personhood.

We are too much in the field of complaining
and projecting,

desiring, attachment, fear, insecurity,

comparing and competing,

rather than loving, sharing and supporting,

uplifting, meditating, resting in your own Self.

It is a different fragrance.

One is a perfume, the other one is an odour!

You discern which it is.

And what is satsang?

To be in the environment
where the perfume itself is satchitananda,

where the perfume is love, peace and joy,

wisdom and purity.

Are these outside of you?

So all of this that I am speaking

is sprouting out of this question also.

Because once you recognise, experientially,
the Truth of your Self,

you are not into the perfume business,

you are not in the wisdom business,

you are not in the faith business,

you are not in religious business,

you are the Self in harmony with the God-field.

The question, 'Can the perceiver be perceived?',

don't try it if it doesn't appeal to you!

If it appeals to you,
then grace will assist your introspection,

and it is very direct.

What we are sharing now,
for me is a very simple thing.

So therefore, it is a joy to try and impart,

or to guide this type of meeting.

If I felt it was just hardship,

then I don't want to give you hardship.

Why should I want to give you hardship?

The hardship comes from the mind
in the first place, not from the heart!

The heart is not struggling
with what I am speaking, by the way,

but the mind, the person,
that is thinking what it might lose,

or thinking of other things.

Largely, for many of you,
that state is tranquillised very much.

Now and again, something flares up,

and you see the difference.

Something feels disturbed,
and attention can go there,

but your powers of discerning,
your establishment in yourself,

should be able to put out this fire by yourself.

[Mooji] Is it true or not?
[Q.1] Yes.

[Mooji] But if you need some help,

be swift about it and cut it quickly!

You should not be going into
a second day of mourning,

and a third day of complaining.
No! You should cut it!

It does not deserve such loyalty of our attention,

to be trying to get rid of
'Some stuff that is in my mind'.

I perceive you much higher than that.

Can the perceiver be perceived?
And if so, by what?

Another perceiver? A deeper perceiver?

First of all, I just want to say that

these are the type of questions that can come up

in an advanced session of satsang.

It is not generally ...

Generally we talk about lots of different things,

but for me it is the same thing.

We can talk about lots of things,
look at lots of things,

but with the same 'I',
from the same place of Truth.

And what does that mean?
It brings Truth to them,

it sees them in the highest way.

We are not sitting there all day,
'Can the perceiver be perceived?'

Those for whom that happens,
they tend to go off by themselves anyway,

they don't need any company.

Not everyone is going to be like that.

And we are at different stages
in spiritual maturity,

meaning, the sense of being separated,

or separate from the goal of pure Being,
is still alive to some extent.

We still feel that we are separated,

and we are on a journey towards something.

And it is quite a natural experience or feeling,
for a while,

because we are still carrying
the virus of personhood.

And it will feel like that.
You will feel not fully established.

In fact, when you have recognised the Self,

you will still not feel fully established,

you don't make any claim about anything.

Just some questions begin to dry up.

You are not so focused
on your own well-being personally.

Your life is more about the well-being
of all beings,

including this being, also.

OK, I am going to stop
and let you breathe a little bit.

[laughter]

But we can go further,
if you have something to say now.

I talked a lot. What do you say?

[Q.1] The original question,
which at this point ...

When it has been used in the inquiry,
it has been to come to this point,

so I don't know if there is a value to speak it,

just to have some light brought on it,

or if you feel that this is sufficient as it is.

Because where you have brought us to is ...

[Mooji] Well,
there is a kind of finality about it.

Why ask the question,
if the answer cannot be received?

And is this kind of question satisfied
with an answer?

Maybe it is satisfied by a revelation

more than an answer.

Because with an answer,
maybe it is the mind that gets the answer,

and we have bypassed the mind a bit earlier.

So what remains then?

What is able to perceive
the functioning of the mind,

and even perceive the one who suffers the mind?

Am I moving too fast?

Is there something that is aware of

both the mind-play
and even the one who suffers it?

Or is that too intimate to include
as the thing seen?

Your time here with me is for this,

to solve

or dissolve this mystery.

But the mind aspect of personhood

is in resistance to this discovery also,

because as I say,
there are two energies or forces working inside.

I am keeping it very simple now.

An energy that works to perpetuate
personhood in our self,

meaning, to encourage and to continue
the life of being a person,

with the usual worries and the aspirations,

'I am worried about the children.
What am I going to do?'

This type of way.
And being worried about the world.

And there is another side to it,

which is about elevation of consciousness,
rising in awareness,

becoming more clear, more united,

more unified in the field of consciousness,

unbroken happiness and peace.

When I say, Unbroken happiness and peace,

I am talking about a universal peace

which can have shadows of sorrow arising in it,

but it is not overwhelmed by sorrow.
Do you understand this?

I am not saying that you are so peaceful,
there is no space for anything.

No! It is not rigid.
In the infiniteness of our Self,

everything can have its momentary play,
but nothing sticks.

Like, if I draw a face in space,
[mimes drawing a face]

put some hair on,

nothing sticks.

And yet, at the same time,
it is not that it does not care!

This is the mystery, that from it all love comes,

and joy, peace, and all our creativity.

The mind is an instrument,
it is not the source of creativity.

It is only because it poses
as though it is the creative source,

then we are attached to it.

But the creative source is the Self.

What is it that remains?

In the final analysis, the final seeing,
what remains here?

Is it an object?

Is it a form, or is it formless?

Is it other than you?

Is it personal or impersonal?

That is to be experienced and verified.

There is no further afterthought about it,

it has resolved itself.

It is not an enemy to the world,

it is not in conflict with activity,

it is the root and the womb of the manifest world.

It does not go on researching, researching,

questions and questions about itself.

It cannot be seen with the eyes in your head,

and yet, it is perceived.

But it is not a dualistic perceiving.

We can speak more about it, but not for now,
if it comes.

Who is over here? You come.

[Questioner 2] Hello.
[Mooji] Hi.

[Q.2] When I am alone with myself
and I am at home,

I can watch my self or watch my person,
very well.

I am becoming good at this.

It came up also, the question,
'Is the receiver receivable?'

And I felt very good in it.

But for example,
when my children are coming home,

when I have some action outside,

all this goes, all that training with my mind.

Then I am really the person,

I am the mum of my children,

and I don't think for one little moment,

or I don't remember my self,
'Be the watcher'.

[Mooji] We all hear this or not?
[Sangha] Yes.

[Mooji] It is a very important point!

At what stage can you stay being neutral,
uninvolved?

Because there are things ...
Actually, before they came into your life,

there was no attachment to them.

Then they came in,
and there became an attachment,

and now they became unavoidable, some things. No?

Is it necessarily so?

Is it a forever thing?

Or is it that somehow that is also transcendable?

And is there the will to transcend,

not the love, but the attachment?

Not the love, but the attachment,
is there the will to transcend it?

And is it perceived that to transcend it
is an unloving thing to do?

And also, is there even an urge to do that?

Is there a sense that,
'Wait a second, life could be much more broad'?

Is it necessarily so, that by living,
we become more tight,

and more attached, unavoidably?

Or does it go more that way?

Or does it go this way?

These are things over which
we don't have to spend too much time,

but they do pass through.

We have some really good friends
in our contemplative field,

some good things come to contemplate a little bit.
[imitates interest]

We have some pretty good things
that come to help us,

this is one of them, and it is a very strong one.

It is a good thing, that when you are by yourself,

you say, 'I can observe myself'.
'Can the receiver be received?'

Can the perceiver be perceived?

There is a joy, detachment,
there is a space in that.

But as soon as the family comes,

then the mother role,
[makes sound of role arising]

the mother role just covers the universe,
basically.

'Universal consciousness, where are you?

Because mom is here!'
[laughter]

And that is it!

We laugh, but is it a funny thing, really?
Because we suffer this also.

Or do we feel, 'Good, I've got things to do'?

And does it matter? Does it matter?

Does it matter,
if we leave our attachments in place,

and we just don't trouble about that,

we just do the best we can in between?

Or is it good that we look?
Not just at attachment to children,

but all kinds of things,
ideas, concepts and beliefs,

and some are seemingly so tailored to our life,

that we don't even think that
they are worth looking at.

Do we have to go around scratching to find

what other attachments there are?
Life brings them up, actually.

Life is your secretary,
it brings them in right on time!

So how does it work then?
Because we feel [imitates involvement].

Or do you feel that, largely,
through your satsang,

some of these get addressed anyway,

without actually going there
with your medical kit?

That actually, in some things
there is more space happening inside?

Do some people experience this,

that somehow the attachments are less and less?

Or it functions in a different way,
'I am still able to function.

I am still parenting, but I am not kind of ... '

The role does not replace the consciousness.

The role even happens in the consciousness.

Because I feel it is a very open
and a very fair statement you make,

that as a mum, or as a dad also,

like, 'I am fine. I am Mr. Universe,

until my kids show up. Then I am Dad.'
[sings music from Superman films]

We have to get into the role.

Or has it changed
since you have been deepening in your satsang?

Are there some no-go areas?

That we can speak about consciousness,

super-consciousness and Brahman and Parabrahman,

but when it comes to mum, or to dad,
it is like, 'Don't go there.

That is kind of an untouchable area.'

Let's spread it open, it's not just mum and dad:

career, attachments, whatever it is.

Don't they themselves also appear
inside the broader,

immeasurable consciousness field?

Doesn't the role, let's say in your case,

when the kids come and the mother role comes up,

is that not observable?

[Q.2] I forget about it.

When I am alone with myself again later,

then I am asking myself, 'Why can't I do it?

Why can't I watch my self when I am a mother,

or when I am interacting with other people?'

It is totally off. It is totally away.

[Mooji] You know what it is?
It is occurring now that

it is not that you are watching your self,
necessarily,

but you are being your Self!

It is as though the consciousness
has a certain vibrational field,

and you are that field.

It is not necessarily
that you are on duty watching,

it is not watching, in that way,

but it is as though something is vaccinated

against getting too attached to anything.

It is like the consciousness vibration

is always present at some point,
it's always present.

It is as though that is your strongest perception,

the consciousness field, the vibration field,
if you want to say.

And because that is,
it is sitting in the lap of the immeasurable one.

Can I speak like this? That it is just what is!

What has changed since you started satsang?

Is your person still the same person,

or is it just some kind of a shadow

inside a deeper field
that is almost indescribable,

of a sort of joy and peace?

I have not really
checked in with you guys enough!

[Q.2] What I can feel is that,
my mind gets more quiet

since I am using the watcher.

And now the question is starting to come up,

'Can the watcher be watched?'

I am getting more comfort, that is right.

And also with my children,

I don't have the strong fights so much any more.

[Mooji] I have it that
your mothering becomes even better.

Whatever your function,
if it is not dominated ...

If ego is not the prime minister in your country,

your country being that this is your land,
[indicates body-mind]

if it is not the one that is governing,

then all your roles get better,
everything that you are doing,

because it is not just to please the person,

with all the person's idiosyncrasies
and strangenesses.

It is functioning for the joy of consciousness.

So it is much more intelligent

than an ego-mother, or an ego-father, isn't it?

It doesn't over-sweeten things,

it doesn't spoil children;

it is a wise mothering.

But it doesn't limit itself to mothering.

It is a universal quality,
there is a universality about you,

that means that
you are equally yourself in all situations,

you apply it, and you are effective.

[M.] Am I wrong in saying this?
[Q.2] No.

[Mooji] Do we not find that
our interactions with beings,

even ones who are not in satsang,
are at a higher vibration?

Do you always feel like you have to step down
and step lower?

Don't you feel that you can be with people,

without requiring of them
that they should be like you?

You can be there, and you can still

get the best out of what is possible
for the moment.

Not because you are recruiting.
You are not recruiting!

But you are coming from a higher place
within yourself.

It is worth talking about this,

because sometimes people go out
and talk with the local people,

and try to, maybe,
say things which are not appropriate.

But are you really present?

Whereas, one time you would say,
'Yes?' 'And?' 'Wow!',

and do this type of thing,

you say, 'Really? Do you really think like that?'

'Not all the time.'

'As I find that when these kinds of thoughts come,
if I go with them,

I just go into a much darker place. Don't you?'

You are helping, you are not just,
'ping-pong, ping-pong'.

Your existence is elevating
the field of consciousness around you,

you cannot help it.

You are not just wanting to be one of the team.

You are your own galaxy, in a sense.

You can't help it.

You will come from truth,

you aren't just
always trying to make things look nice,

and, 'Don't rock the boat',
but you speak from your truth.

You have a respect that is true self-respect.

You can speak with beings,

and you also have a greater capacity to evaluate,

whether this conversation
is going anywhere or not.

And do we not honour that in our self?

So this thing,

though it may be like this for a while,
it is changing.

As you say, you are more calm with them.
That is a big thing!

If the mother is more calm,

the children will be more calm also.

They may not say,
'Oh Mum, you are being more calm',

but they just function in that field.

You are making a better environment for them,

and gradually, you can think that, what I said,

your calmness means
you are still being true to here.

So for the moment, there is a transitioning,

but it is gradual, it's in its own time.

I think it is good.

[Q.2] Thank you. Because I thought
I need to use it every time,

the receiver, but you explained it.

[Mooji] Yes, not forcefully.
[Q.2] It's very important for me.

[Mooji] I was speaking with someone yesterday.

This person has come recently,
and has spent some time here.

He was also following and reading books
on self-inquiry and this stuff ...

He came to Monte Sahaja just for a short time,

and something exploded inside,

and now he is going back with all this enthusiasm,

like, 'Things have to change in my family'.

I said, Oh no, don't. They'll change with you.

And don't go and start to be too strong with them,

because I made that mistake already,
on your behalf.

Really, it doesn't work like that.
[laughter]

And just slow down a little bit,

and there's more change,
and don't speak about it.

You can say,
'Listen, this thing is happening with me,

and things happen like that.

You may find me being a little bit like this,
but really, I am cool.'

As much as you can,
rather than try to change the world,

and put your flag and say,
'Hey, the second coming', and all this.

So there is something in that,
that I feel, be gentle,

and the more you relax with this,

you'll find that it is coming in much more nicely.

What a beautiful thing!
It would be a great offering to your family,

rather than, 'They must change!'

You change, and then they integrate in your field.

It is beautiful.

[Q.2] Thank you.
[Mooji] Good. Good.

[Mooji] Good satsang today?
[Sangha] Yes!

[Voice in sangha] Amazing!
[Voice in sangha] Always!

[Mooji] From now on we are going to have to

be looking with this intensity.

At some point in your sadhana, in your looking,

you can reach a certain stage where it feels good.

Remember, I spoke about this in India.

I was talking with Rohini,
and we were talking about this thing.

That in the beginning,
when you are on the journey,

and the ego is snapping at your heels,
[imitates ego snapping]

or it is feeling that you are not clear
as to where you truly are,

you have to fight,
you have to use your discernment!

You have to pray, fight and use your discernment.

And it is hot, things are burning.

But at a certain point, we reach a certain stage,

or a level of maturity,
and we can start to plateau off.

Things start to feel good.

You have good spiritual friends,

you think of something and it happens.

You have your favourite chanting and bhajans.

You sit for meditation,
you can sit for an hour, it feels good.

'Spiritual life is good.'

But you are falling asleep.

The fire doesn't feel strong.

You start to wear all the paraphernalia
of spirituality.

You are in your Vishnu phase,

[laughter]

but we're here for Shiva.

What does Shiva mean? To burn what is not true.

Don't build your house
outside the gates of nirvana.

What does it mean?
That we should get all worried? No, no, no!

A deeper resolve, deepening in your stillness.

Not just concentrated on yourself, personally.
No, no, no!

Inwardly and outwardly there is an evenness.

What you have grasped deeply,

your presence and being is radiating,
spiritual influence.

Your understanding is not dry.

It is alive!

You don't talk so much.

Sometimes we talk a lot
to try and convince people of our spirituality.

But I speak also of a tongue-less realisation,

that even if you could not speak,

it would ooze through your pores.

It is our time!

It is our chance.

Don't miss it!

[Mooji] OK. Thank you.
[Sangha] Thank you, Guruji.

[long silence]

[Mooji] Very good.
I think we are going to have a bit of music.

Very good.

[Musician] Thank you, Guruji.

[Musician] This song came through

on the first day we arrived back on the land,

and it is a song to revere the Light in you,

and the Light that you point to in us.

Thank you.

[music and singing]

[Mooji] I have just opened this here.

From the Ribhu Gita,

a few words that may be deeply joyous to hear.

'I am indeed of the nature
of the imperishable mass of knowledge.

I am indeed of the nature
devoid of creation or destruction.

I am indeed of the nature
that is the imperishable bliss.

I am indeed of the nature
that has not an atom of egoity.

I am indeed of the nature
of the defectless supreme Brahman.

I am indeed of the nature
of the divisionless supreme Shiva.

I am of the nature of the undivided Absolute,

which has nothing low about it.

Be rid of the doubts, imagination and notions

with such uninterrupted conviction.

I am ever of such conviction or bhava alone

about the one Absolute in your heart.

And being rid of all traces of vikalpa,

that is doubts, imagination and notions
of the mind and bondage,

and immersed undifferentiated
in the ocean of the Brahman bliss,

enjoying the ineffable bliss,

and thus cutting asunder
the endless bondage of mundane misery,

be ever established as the undivided existence.'

Very beautiful! Thank you everyone.

[Sangha] Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 Mooji Media Ltd.
All Rights Reserved.

No part of this recording may be reproduced

without Mooji Media Ltd.'s express consent.