Speaker: Virah wo aag hai jise parmaatma swayam fuunkta hai. Parmaatmaa ke liye hai, aur use phuunkta bhee wahi hai. (Longing is the fire which is stoked by God Himeslf. It is for God, and is stoked by God.) Read more
Anatma-rupam cha katham samadhih
Atma-swarupam cha katham samadhih
Astiti nastiti katham samadhih
Moksha-swarupam yadi sarvam ekam.
~ The Avadhuta Gita of Dattatreya (1.23)
Translation: How can a man attain Samadhi as long as he thinks of himself as something other than the Aatman? But on the other hand, Samadhi is not possible for a man who thinks of himself as the Aatman. How can Samadhi be attained as long as a man thinks that the Aatman exists and yet does not exist, and what need is there to attain Samadhi if all are one and by nature free?
Speaker: Rohit has quoted from the Avadhuta Gita: Chapter 1, Verse 23. He has been asking this question since three weeks now, and I had been unable to take it up. But it seems his enquiry is quite insistent.
Dattatreya says that if you think of yourself as anything other than Aatman, where is the question of Samadhi for you? This first sentence is just a first sentence. It introduces the reader into thinking that probably taking oneself, thinking of oneself, as the Aatman is necessary to enter Samadhi. In the very next line, Dattatreya strings a surprise; he says, “When you think of yourself as Aatman, how is Samadhi possible for you?” He starts of by saying, “If you think of yourself as anything other than Aatman, Samadhi will elude you.” He proceeds by saying, “If you think of yourself as the Aatman, Samadhi will elude you.” He now knows, that it is evident that he is out to attack the notions of the mind, so quite brazenly, in the next line he says, “For those who think that there is, and for those who think that there is not, where is the question of Samadhi?” Till this point he has only said what will not lead to Samadhi, but in the last line, he totally destroys even the remnants of mental support. He says, “What is the need for Samadhi? Who needs Samadhi? What is the point in Samadhi if all is but one?”
Let’s take it again from the beginning. A man thinks of himself as something other than the Aatman, and another man thinks of himself as (Stressing on the ‘as’) the Aatman. What is common between these two men? They both think of themselves ‘as something’. They both have a self-concept. The mind is active in the case of both of them. The mind is looking at itself and sizing itself up. A man insists that an ultimate Truth does exist, and another man insists that nothing of that sort exists. What is common amongst them? Both are talking of the Truth within the plane of existence that the mind is familiar with. After all the word ‘existence’ whether we say Asti or whether we say Naasti, the word, ‘is’, or the word, ‘exists’, has definite meanings for us. It refers to something in the time-space plane. Somebody says, “It is there in it”, somebody says, “No! It is not there in it”, but both are referring to the same plane. It’s like two ignorant people who come across something that is beyond their knowledge, their experience and their intellect. None has any idea of what he is seeing, there can be no idea of what they are seeing. What they have come across is beyond ideation. But one of them start insisting: I know what it is. And the other one start insisting: Well, I do not think there is anything to be known and what you are insisting as existent, simply does not exist. This second one simply denies the existence of what he is seeing. Is either of them any better than the other? What is common amongst them is their ignorance. One says, “God exists”, and the other says, “God does not exist.” The question is, have you any understanding of what you are saying? What does not exist and what are you claiming as existent? What exactly? What are you affirming and what exactly are you denying? What exactly are you denying? And in confirming or denying you have stirred a mental agitation which has taken the mind away from its fundamental peace. So it doesn’t matter, whether the Truth exists or does not exist, but what is certain is that in the process of asserting your opinions about the Truth, you have entered into opinions. That much is pretty much certain, that right now it is the opinions that are ruling. And where there are opinions, there can be no Truth. Your opinions about the Truth have ironically pulled you away from the Truth, but that is mind, it is more interested in having opinions, knowledge, and experience about something, than being with the thing itself. It is more interested in talking about peace than being peaceful. It is more interested in lecturing about love than being loving. It is more interested in theories about meditation than meditativeness itself. Theories sustain the mind, knowledge inflates the mind, but the Real, about which all theories and knowledge is purportedly there, that punctures the mind. So the mind has great interest in talking about it, but great resistance to approaching it. And you will find that happening at many stages of your life. It might even be a routine experience. News about something might excite you, but closeness to the thing makes you nervous. Take for example a teacher, words from a teacher appear nice, knowledge gathered from a teacher appears valuable, but the teacher himself appears a little bit of a crackpot, a little eccentric, even a little scary. So let me read his books, let me follow his methods, but I won’t go close to him, because that’s dangerous, that threatens me. Now what is this ‘me’ that is threatened? This ‘me’ is probably what Dattatreya is referring to. This ‘me’ is the thinker. This ‘me’ is the one who likes to declare: This exists, that does not exists, I know, I do not know. This ‘me’ is that. Dattatreya is the head of Avadhutas. See how peacefully we have taken his words and are discussing them. See how composed we all look. Everything is alright as long as what we have with us the words of the Avadhuta. Now what if an Avadhuta, a real one, in all his wild, natural and beautiful nakedness, comes right over here, what would happen to your composure? And chances are, he won’t be interested in lecturing. His life is his teaching. His methods are spontaneous.
He has no great regards for etiquette or politeness. Most of us might not be comfortable. That’s actually an understatement. Most of us would actually, actively avoid him. As long as it is a cosy and convenient environment, where his words are being taken up in a setting orchestrated by you, you are alright. But when the real one enters and smashes all settings, obviously not as violence, but a statement, that real one does not appear very likeable. The words in Avadhuta Gita represent some of the purest utterings on Advait. As pure as the verses of Upanishads, if not more, and I am tempted to say, actually purer than that. Most strict and uncompromising in their rejection of duality than Ashtavakra and Krishna. Such is the worth of the Dattatreya’s words. Such is the worth of Avadhuta Gita. But please see that the Avadhuta Gita never became as famous and as popular as the Gita of Krishna or even the Gita of Ashtavakra. Much lesser scriptures have been liked much more by us. The reason is obvious. The Truth is alright for the ego only from a distance. Proximity to the Truth is life threatening for us. So all kinds of miscellaneous scriptures are all right. Those others scriptures too have their worth, some value, but none comes close to matching the naked staunchness of the Avadhuta. Nobody. And that is why we have not been able to really accept and appreciate this one.
And ultimately, Dattatreya dissolves the final concepted ‘Self’. He dissolves the very concept of dissolution. He says, “When the Truth is one, where is the question of reaching the Truth?” That is how Samadhi has been classically defined – Reaching the center, settling down into the Truth. I can actually see him laughing to a fellow Avadhuta and saying, “How will you reach that from which it is impossible to escape?” “How will you reach that which you can never leave, even if you want to?” He is saying, “What rubbish is this, all this talk of Samadhi? As if you are in any other state, at any other point of time. You are already in Samadhi. There is no other Truth. If you think you are in some other state, you are dreaming. So wake up. You do not need to reach Samadhi.” There is a difference between reaching somewhere and simply waking up. You are already there, you are just dreaming that you are somewhere else. Wake up. You are already there, nowhere else to go. You are already at the pinnacle of your life. This is the climax. It can’t get any better than this. And what are you searching for? Had you been so unfamiliar with that which you are searching for, how would you have searched for it? To make matters complicated for yourself, you say, “The Truth is distant, the Truth is unknowable, the Truth is unapproachable, mind cannot think of It, man cannot reach It.” If that is so, then how is it that you are incessantly on the lookout for the Truth?
If Truth is such an unknown entity to you, why are you so restless? One doesn’t desire for something one is very unfamiliar with. Does he? And you are desiring for that one, all the time. In your various desires, in your various movements, ultimately all you want is Peace. Whatever you may say that you are chasing, at the end of the chase lies the promise of Peace. The promise is what gives the chase its energy. Right? And you are chasing all the time. You are convinced of the promise. From where does this conviction come? This conviction comes from the fact that you know Peace. You know that the promise is real. You know that Peace is your natural state. And that is why in whatever you do every moment, and whosoever you meet, all you look for is peace.
Seen anybody who wants anything except Peace? Even when you are chasing excitement, you are chasing Peace through excitement. Even when you are being violent, you want Peace through violence. Ultimately you want nothing except Peace. Would it not be then foolish to say that you do not know peace? Had you not known it, how could it have been echoing inside you constantly? Not only do you know it, you remember it without break. It is a continuous music, an incessant resonance within you. You don’t even need reminders. If you are going in some direction, you are going in the direction of Peace. If you are trying out something, you are trying to get Peace. If you are entering something new, the objective is Peace. Even in taking a position against Peace, ultimately you want to feel Peaceful. Dare we say that we do not know Peace? That which is the central attraction of our lives, we want to fane unfamiliarity with it? Seriously? Dattatreya is saying that you are just pretending, you already are there. If you know it so clearly and intimately, it is impossible that anything can stand between you and it. You see, the first thing is to realize and see clearly, that you know it clearly. The first thing is to see that peace, which you may also call as Truth or God, is the center of all mental activity. The mind may be going in miscellaneous directions, but it wants to reach that particular center, even in going hither and thither and randomly flying around.
An Indian sage has given a very apt image for it. He says that it is just like a bird on the ship. A ship sailing in the seas, the bird is on that ship. The bird flies from the ship and goes in various directions, but ultimately it returns to the ship. The ship is where the bird starts from. The ship is where the bird has to return to. Now can the bird fane ignorance of the ship? Without the ship, there is no bird. The bird’s very own existence is a proof of the ship. Otherwise, what are you doing in the middle of the seas? The very fact that you, the bird, is to be seen here – Where? In the middle of these turbulent seas, is the proof of the ship. Had there been no ship, how would you have been here? You hence are the Truth. No need to search for it, you are it. The search assumes a separation and in assuming a separation, the search actually creates a separation. Dattatreya is saying that see that this is it and there is really nowhere to be reached. All talk of Samadhi is just talk. Stop talking and there is just Samadhi. There is just Samadhi either way, but you can either talk about it or straightaway enter it. Even in talking, you are ultimately talking about Samadhi. So it’s Samadhi either way. But it depends upon you.
Talk about it and if you are talking about it, then too, the center is Samadhi, because all talk ultimately is about Samadhi. But you have an option, you can either keep talking about it, and it’s nice to talk about it. It’s so nice to talk about it that Kabir says that he can even reject the invitation of Ram. There is a great pleasure in talking about Ram. In listening to Ram’s story. Such a great pleasure that I can even reject the invitation of Ram.
राम बुलावा भेजिया, दिया कबीरा रोए |
जो सुख साधू संग में, सो बैकुंठ न होए ||
(Ram is calling Kabir. Kabir is weeping. For he says, the Joy that I find in the company of this Truth and in the company of the seekers of the Truth. That joy is greater than the Joy of heaven.)
Do you see what this is? Samadhi runs in your veins. Just talking about it brings joy to you, does it not? That is the attraction of Satsang. Samadhi is so close and so dear to you that when somebody talks about it, your heart just opens up. You feel a depth of pleasure that no other occupation can give you.
जो सुख साधू संग में |
And then there are others who say, “Well we have had enough of talking now, let me just enter it.” There is not much difference between these two. Samadhi is complete Freedom. On one hand Samadhi is choiceless-ness, because there is nothing but Samadhi. On the other hand, it is the power of absolute choice. You can decide to talk about it and that’s wonderful. In Samadhi, you can decide to sing, talk, act, run, and work. Or in Samadhi you can dissolve. In either case it is Samadhi.
Listener 1: Sir, how has Satsang become so dear?
Speaker: There is no reason. It’s just that one has unlimited freedom in Samadhi. You have never gone away from it. Your freedom is so absolute that you are free to even forget your freedom, and then start clamoring, “I am not free! I am not free!” Your freedom is so absolute that you even have the freedom to forget your freedom and then like a madman start yelling, “I am in bondage! I am in bondage!” Even in your yelling that, it is a proof of your freedom.
Listener 1: Can this become a barrier itself? The last barrier?
Speaker: A barrier towards what? You have decided something and you are not accountable to anybody for the decision that you made. You have decided something in your absolutely free will, where is the question of a barrier? The moment you will really want, you will change your decision. Where is the question of a barrier? Barriers are external. Here all decisions are internal, there is no barrier. You have made a decision to forget. It’s your decision, it’s your sovereign expression of your absolute power. Remember, you never forget anything. As long as you are, that remembrance is there. Do you ever forget yourself? So there is no question of forgetting, reminders and remembrance. You anyway always remember. You just have to decide to proclaim that you remember. You don’t have to be reminded. You have to make a decision, and that decision will be your decision, a sovereign decision. Nobody else can be a participant in it. You are the ultimate authority. Yes of course depending on the situations you have chosen, somebody might push you a little, prod you a little, nudge you a little, but all of that is of no value. What are you reminding him of? Yes? The student is sitting in front of you, what are you reminding the student of? The student already knows. When I talk to you, there are only two kinds of faces. One that are exclaiming “Yes! We know what you are saying and we’ll go with it.” And the other “Yes! We know what you are saying but we won’t go with it.”
There is no third face. There is nobody here who doesn’t understand what I am saying. Everybody does. In fact you understand what I am saying even before I say it. You already know everything, it’s just that, ‘your decision’. Nobody here is ignorant. There are only two kinds of faces. How else can you resist me? And you know how deeply you resist. How can you resist me without knowing what I stand for? Your very resistance is the proof that you understand. You very well know what I am saying and that is why you so stubbornly raise your armors and defend yourself. You know from where the arrow is coming and you know it is aimed towards your heart. That’s why you are able to place your armor so accurately. “Place it nowhere else. He aims only the heart. Defend that and you are safe.”
Listener 2: Sir you say that ‘you’ have the absolute power of freedom. Who is this ‘you’ here?
Speaker: This ‘you’ is the same Peace that we are continuously referring to. The Peace that manifests itself sometimes as itself and at other times as the mind. What is mind? Mind is the power of the Self to manifest itself, nothing else. Or do you think that the mind is something separate from the Self, from the Truth? Then mind is the Truth itself, expressed in space-time. They are one.
Listener 3: Sir, suppose there are a number of birds who have floated away from the ship, then why are only a few number of birds able to return back to the ship? Why only some of us are able to remember? To go back to the ship?
Speaker: No bird can float around in the sea for too long. It has to be perched somewhere. It has to go back to the ship. ‘ जैसे उड़े जहाज़ को पंछी, फ़िर जहाज़ पे आवे | ‘
Listener 3: Right, but that duration is too long?
Speaker: Even in the duration of the flight, where is the bird coming from? Where is the bird going to? Who brought the bird here? Are we saying that the bird has forgotten the ship? You are coming from the ship, you will go back to the ship. You have no other resting place. Yes, it is a part of your freedom to fly around a little. Go and fly around. Depends on your mood.
Listener 4: Sir you say that by our every action we are seeking Peace. But I made out that this Peace is very temporary. So do we keep on looking or is there any continuous flow of Peace which exists?
Speaker: See, you can either have Peace or you can have seeking. A child is with the mother and they decide to play hide and seek. In playing hide and seek, what have they done? They have become invisible to each other, they have become hidden from each other; but even in playing hide and seek they know very well that they are with each other. When you are so intimately with each other, you feel like playing hide and seek. That’s Maya. A loving expression of the Truth. We are so close together, we can anyway never be separated, so let’s be separated. (Chuckles) Otherwise what’s the fun in always being together? Now that we know that we are destined to be together, we are one, we may appear like infinite varieties and diversities but we know, we are one, there is only that One, let’s play a little bit of hide and seek. Deliberately we blindfold each other for the sake of some ‘divine’ entertainment. That’s it. So sometimes you have peace and other times you have the seeking. ‘Seeking peace’.
~ Excerpt from a Shabd-Yog session. Edited for clarity.
Watch the session at: Seated already on the mountain top,why suffer dreams of climbing
Read more articles on this topic:
Question: Sir, what is happiness? And what is the relation between happiness and Joy?
Speaker: Whatever pleases the mind, whatever the mind likes, is called happiness for the mind. Simple, whatever pleases the mind is happiness. Whatever means whatever, could be anything. There are no complexities in this. Whatever the mind likes, is its happiness.
Obviously the question of liking something, being attracted towards something, arises only when there is a feeling of incompletion. The greater is the feeling of incompletion the stronger is the like. The stronger is the like, the more happy we are. That is the entire game of liking and disliking. The more is your suffering, the deeper is your incompletion and the greater is the intensity of your likes. You will be a very passionate man. Eager to achieve happiness. Let us just call that as the ‘plane of duality’ in which the mind usually operates. Read more
They kept coming, they kept coming, now they’ve got to go.
They’ve got to keep moving, day or night,
and where they came from, there they’ve got to go.
From nothing to nothing to nothing and why?
There is nothing called the ‘world’. What you call as the ‘world’, what you call as the ‘objects’ that constitute the world are actually nothing, because they are all in a flux. If there is something, it must be unchanging, at least for the briefest possible period of time. For something to be, it must be there at least for the tiniest fraction of a second. It must have some stability, only then you can say there is something. But in the world there is nothing because whatever there is, is not stable even for the millionth part of a second. The world is just a flux, a movement, a constant movement in which there is nothing but just the movement.
He may be here, and he may call her.
But like many others she may not hear.
Question: Why can’t he hear? What stops him from hearing?
Acharya Prashant: He is asking, “When there is the Call and the Caller, why can’t the Caller himself make the Call heard?”
How do you know that you are not hearing?
Is it possible that the Truth calls and the sons of Truth refuse to hear? Is it possible?
How are you so sure that you do not hear the call of Truth?
I am asking you, “How do you know that you are not hearing his call?”
Question: Tired of thinking about love, my mind still wants to make concepts about it. I know I cannot understand, howsoever much I try. Sir, I want to be in it; whatever it will take, I am ready to surrender. But I don’t know how to? I heard you say that one needs to kill himself. I want to know what is there to kill and I need to know where do I stand and who am I?
Speaker: You started by saying that you are just tired of thinking about love. One cannot be tired of thinking about any one subject in particular. When one is tired of thinking, one is tired of thinking itself. Otherwise, thoughts just run from one topic to another topic which does not appear like the first one. But the second topic have a characteristic that it is not the first topic. So, the second object of thought is related to the first one in the sense that it is not the first one. The mind thinks that in this way, it has avoided a particular topic, a particular object. It does not see that nothing has been avoided. The second is but a shadow of the first. The second exists only because one wanted to avoid the first. So, in rushing to another thought, you are still in a way present with the first thought.
“Pleasure is a freedom song,
But it is not freedom.
It is the blossoming of your desires,
But it is not their fruit.”
Questioner: Sir, what pleasure is and what is its place in life?
Speaker: Khalil Gibran is saying, “Pleasure is a freedom song, But it is not freedom. It is the blossoming of your desires, But it is not their fruit.”
Pleasure and pain are two ends of duality, but they should not be taken as separate. They are one. Pleasure in itself will hold no attraction for you if you are not in pain. If you ask, “What is pleasure?” The answer has to be in context of pain. Pleasure means nothing in absence of pain.
Question: Why do we choose to suffer in silence, to not fight back? Does all frustration need to be voiced?
Speaker: If you will not suffer, how you will write this question? If you will not ask this question, how will this form get filled? If your form does not get filled, what will happen to your participation? What will I speak on? Your suffering is very important to keep your mind moving. If you do not suffer, things will come to a standstill. Suffering gives you a lot of food for thought, and lot of ammunition for violence.
“I am suffering so I get the right to fire here and there, to shoot down a few people.” Why? “My suffering has earned me a license to be a little revengeful.” Getting it? Something has to keep happening. If you will not be in pleasure, then you will have to be in silence.
So, what does pleasure take away? Silence. And what does pain take away? Silence. They might seem like opposites, but both pleasure and pain are good devices to keep you away from silence.
Question: Is death, as an event, good or bad experience, if we dissolve our self in the universe after death or to the bigger Self?
Speaker: See, you are sitting here. You are writing something. You traveled a particular distance. How is all of that any less important than an imaginary moment of death? Nobody ever seems to ask, “What will happen, when I will sip the next cup of tea?” Nobody seems to ask, “What will happen when I will breathe next?” Are all these things any less important? But we all seem to be asking about death.
Question: Sir, why should I care about global warming or any political situation in a country? If the world is unreal, then why do all these things matter?
Speaker: You don’t care about global warming. Do you?
Listener: But still, why should anyone care about global warming?
Speaker: You forget about others, because you do not know others. But you anyway don’t care about global warming, do you? So, from where is the question ‘Why should I care about global warming’ coming?
Listener: Sir, then should I forget about it?
Speaker: You have already forgotten about it. Being what you are, do you have an option? You are asking as if you can care about global warming. Who can care about global warming? Global warming, remember, is nothing to be taken care of. You stop doing what you are doing and global warming will take care of itself. You don’t have to take care of global warming. What do you take care of? You only take care of yourself. When you take care of yourself that’s when global warming happens.
Question: The Bible says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Sir, I want to know what is my sin? And what is the meaning of glory of God?
Acharya Prashant: Concept of sin has a very central place in Christianity. The Bible repeatedly refers to it, and it is supposed to be a pious Christian’s duty to repent for the sins. This repentance is interpreted in several ways; and there are several ways in which it is advised that the atonement can take place. But obviously, any question of repentance is meaningless without first understanding what the sin is. Otherwise, there is the absurd situation of a man trying to correct a mistake without knowing at all what the mistake is.
‘For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’
“What is my sin?” There is nothing called ‘your’ sin.
The simple fact is that you are the sin!
You are not a sinner; you are the sin itself. You are not mistaken, you are the mistake itself.
The moment this ‘my’ comes into picture is the moment of the beginning of sin. It is the point of beginning of all moments. Without this ‘my’ there is no moment, and no beginning either. All that begin is this ‘my,’ and this ‘my’ itself is the sin.
This has to be understood!
In what sense is it the sin? In the ultimate sense there can be only one sin, which is to be dissociated from God, which is to be separated from the ‘one Truth’.
Now, what do you say . . . the moment you say, “I?” . . . do you say, “I am God”? Have you ever heard anybody saying that? The moment you utter this ‘I,’ you declare yourself to be somebody short of God. You declare yourself to be somebody other than God.
The moment this ‘I’ comes into picture, is the moment of the birth of duality, and duality implies that an alternate reality, other than God, other than Truth exists. You start talking of yourself, and you do not refer to yourself as God. And it is not merely a question of verbal reference; it is the question of your entire feeling. When you refer yourself as ‘I,’ you surely do not refer to the ‘total,’ to the ‘one,’ to the absolute; instead you start referring to a fragment, to the limited.
Now, what are you doing? You are saying that you exist. By uttering ‘I,’ you are saying that you exist. And you are also saying that the world exists, and you also probably do not mean to deny that God or Truth exists. So what have you done? You have created parallel and multiple realities. You are saying, “I exist, the world exist, and God also exists.” Now, is the Truth many? Then how can there be many realities? How can there be these three: you, others and God? To believe in many Gods is sin. To believe in yourself is sin. To have an identity separate from God is sin. This ‘my’ itself is sin.
Do you get this?
It is impossible for you to ‘be’ and not be a sinner. Now, what does this imply? Does this imply that as a human being, you have to live a life mired in the guilt of sinning? And this is what religious men sometimes end up implying and advocating. And Christianity has done a lot of this. They talk of sinning so much that repentance becomes a standalone virtue in itself.
Now repentance is no dissolution of sin. Repentance is just the dual opposite of sin. Repentance always goes along with sin. Repentance arises from a feeling of guilt. You cannot ask somebody to repent without first declaring him guilty. So, what is the implication? Are we to spend this human life in guilt? Feeling bad? Feeling small? “Oh! We have sinned? Just to be born is sin?”
If you be a little attentive, you will see that there is only one way out, which is to not to believe in any identity except the God identity. You acquire any identity and you have sinned. Because acquiring an identity implies, I am repeating, a belief in many truths, and a belief in the separation from the ‘one Truth.’ And both of these are surely sins.
You take on any identity, it is as good or as bad as the previous one.
You believe that you are a sinner, you are believing that you are a sinner. You believe that you are a repenter, and you are just believing that you are the one who is repenting. In either case, you are still maintaining an identity apart from the Truth.
Repentance does not mean that your central sin has been dissolved. It only means that you have moved from one type of sin to another type of sin. To feel guilty is sin, and to repent is sin reinforced. That’s why I said it is the dual opposite and companion of sinning. Repentance is simply the dualistic companion of sinning. It does not absolve you of your sins. It only gives you a new type of sin. If sinning is sin, then repentance is just a new type of sin. I am repeating this because religion has been making this mistake of advocating repentance.
What really then is repentance? There is only one real repentance possible. I have just talked of it. It is to live in the God identity. That is the only real repentance possible. If you say that you are a sinner, then you are only extending and deepening your sin. If you say you are repenting, you are again only extending and deepening your sin. The only way to get rid of sin is to get rid of the sinner itself.
You will have to very clearly live in the deep faith that because Truth is one, hence, you cannot be separate from God. After all, this too is just a belief that you are separate, the world is separate. If you can be misled into cultivating and nourishing this belief, then with a clear mind, you can also clear away this belief. This belief is not innate, not really natural. It has been given to you by circumstances, by body, by society, by books. If it has been given to you, it can also be cleared away.
This clearing away of this ‘I’ belief, this clearing away of this ‘I’ identity, is the only real repentance.
That is the only way to get rid of both the sin and the sinner.
I am repeating this: there is no way to get rid of your sins, except by coming very, very close to God. You have to come so close to God that you are left with no individual identity of your own. That is the reason why the Upanishadic Mahavakya, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahma) is the heart of all spirituality. Without that utterance there is no redemption possible for man. You may say a thousand things about yourself, about Truth, and about God, and about the world, yet nothing will absolve you, nothing will give you peace. There is only one declaration, one article of faith which will bring you to rest, and that is, ‘I am That and That am I’. Everything else is sin.
You may say you are a ‘Son of God,’ it is a statement of sin, because the son after all, is separate from the father. He may be quite close to the father, yet he is not the father himself. So, even to say that you are a son of God is sin. And obviously, it is a great sin to say, “I am a creation of God,” unless you also say that the creator himself is the creation. Then it is alright. If you say that you are a creation of God, you will have to simultaneously say, that the creator himself is the creation. Only then is this a proper statement. But if you say that the creator is somebody else, and his creation is separate from him, and you are a part of that creation, then it is a statement of sin.
Are you getting it?
Kindly see that all your suffering, and sorrow, and misery, arises from your fragmented identities. Sin is something that leads to sorrow. See, where your sorrow comes from. It comes from your identities. It comes from your belief in your individuality. Till the time you keep believing that you are ‘you,’ a bundle of identities, your sorrow will continue. Dissolution of your identities is just the same – it is a return to the identityless identity, and that is the God identity.
To not to have any identities is to have the ‘ultimate identity’; and that is the God identity.
Are you getting this?
This is not merely a concept. This is what we all are living daily. See that not even one of your problems is there without you being attached to some or the other identity. See that you cannot suffer without a belief in your limitations. You will have to be attached to some sense of limited being for you to suffer.
What does it mean to say, “I am God”? It is not to declare that I am grand and big. On the contrary, to declare that I am not separate from God, is just to declare that I am not going to be attached with anything that is petty, limited, small and trivial. It does not mean that there is something big called God, and I can declare myself to be that. No, because whatever you will declare to be big, will actually be very small. The biggest that you can think of, will just be as big as your mind is, and that is very small.
How big can your mind think of? The biggest that you can think of is nothing compared to the immensity of infinity. And your mind cannot conceptualize infinity. So, even your biggest identity is shallow and petty.
So, to have God identity, is not to have a big identity. It is to have no identity. Many people are apprehensive of this statement, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’. They say that if man declares himself to be God, it is just ego. They say it is a proof of your arrogance, if you say, “I am God.” They are mistaken. And mistaken are those who utter ‘I am God’ in the wrong sense. If you have a concept of God, and then you say you are God, then surely you are committing a heresy. If you have a concept of God, and then you say, “I am God,” then this is surely blasphemy. Because then to say, “I am God,” would be similar to saying, “I am a husband, I am a Hindu or I am a Christian.” All concepts!
You had ten conceptual identities, now you have an eleventh conceptual identity also. What is that eleventh conceptual identity? Of God.
No! It is not really a statement of ego, because the man who honestly says, “I am God,” is actually saying, “I am nothing.” It is a statement, hence, of great humility. Only a greatly humble man can say, “I am God.” It is not at all a work of ego. So, there is no need to be apprehensive of the man who honestly declares himself to be God. Because this man is actually saying, “I am nobody.”
It is statement of great humility, along with great boldness. “I am nobody.” And if somehow, you dislike to say that you are God . . . it happens, in some religions, for example, it is prohibited, and you cannot say that you are God . . . then no issue, simply say, “I am nobody.” No religion prohibits this statement. There are religions which prohibit man to declare identity with God. They say that you cannot say, “I am God,” but no religion prohibits man to utter “I am nobody.” So, there is no need for unnecessary confrontation. Simply say, “I am nobody.” That is just the same as saying, “I am God.” Because when you are nobody, then you are the closest to God, actually one with God.
Just say, “I am nobody.”
Your humility, your deep humility is identical to saying ‘Aham Brahmasmi’. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ and ‘Naham’ (I am not) are the same statements. Aham Brahmasmi says, “I am the Truth, I am God, I am Brahm,” and ‘Naham’ says, “I am not.”
And both of these are same. Just say “Naham, I am not!” Both these statements are one, and both of them absolve you of your sin.
You are the sin. Get rid of yourself and you have fully repented. This is the only repentance possible.
Question: The Bible says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Sir, I want to know what is my sin? And what is the meaning of glory of God?
Acharya Prashant: Concept of sin has a very central place in Christianity. The Bible repeatedly refers to it, and it is supposed to be a pious Christian’s duty to repent for the sins. This repentance is interpreted in several ways; and there are several ways in which it is advised that the atonement can take place. But obviously, any question of repentance is meaningless without first understanding what the sin is. Otherwise, there is the absurd situation of a man trying to correct a mistake without knowing at all what the mistake is. Read more
Questioner: In spite of keeping all watch and vigil, anger comes and leads to wrong actions on certain trigger points and situations. After that it is realized that a slip happened. What is the way?
Speaker: There is nothing in existence that is unnecessary, totally useless, needlessly there. It is good that we are talking of anger, its causes and its consequences, the harm that it does. But that also might be because firstly anger is very gross, very visible. There is a clear sensual expression of anger. So, it becomes very obvious that we are angry; it cannot remain hidden. And secondly our education or morality has constantly taught us that anger is something bad. So to the problem of anger, we seem like being alert. But are we equally alert, let’s say, to the fact that even in those moments of the day when everything appears normal, we are actually feeling a little down, a little dull, a little bored, a little short of energy; that we do not consider a problem as big as anger, again for those two same reason. One, anger is gross and that constant sense of background boredom is subtle. In anger you shout, your face turns red, your blood pressure rises. In boredom, well, there is not much that happens that can be caught or traced by senses. Now you are just sitting, you are weary, you are yawning, and it doesn’t seem that there is much wrong with yawning. In anger, well you are beating people up. It seems that there is so much wrong with anger. And secondly, we have been taught that anger is bad and boredom is a much smaller evil. But is that so?
Question: Sir, people these days emphasis on the idea of the ‘Power of now’. But you say that the present is different from the now. Please elaborate.
Speaker: This whole talk about the power of now is a great sham. It is deep materialism disguised as spirituality. The present is not the now. The now is a point in the stream of time. The now is that which is preceded and followed by the past and the future. The present is that in which the past, the now and the future, simultaneously co-exist. The now is a point in the stream; the present is the vast infinite land, in which that stream is flowing.
Question: Sir, can there be a ‘conscious innocence’?
Speaker: No, but there can be ‘innocent consciousness’. In the same way as there can be no ‘worldly God’, but there can be a ‘Godly world’.
Innocence is your center. Innocence is far above consciousness. In fact, innocence means a point that is not stained by consciousness. With innocence in your heart, you can be conscious in the mind and it will be an ‘innocent consciousness’. With God in your heart, you can have the world in your mind and it will be a ‘Godly world’. But if you try the opposite then you are inviting hell. If you make God a thing of the mind then, not only have you lost touch with God but even this mind, that dares to contain God, becomes a petty mind and suffers.
“I am your lover, come to my side, I will open the gate to your love.”
Speaker: So yesterday night we were talking about the beginning of love. How does love begin? Who is this ‘I’? Who is this lover? What is Rumi saying?
“I am your lover, come to my side, I will open the gate to your love.”
Love is your very being. The moment, the day, the place, the point you come into being, love too comes into being. You cannot be without loving. It’s just that you do not know your lover. You do not know for whom your heart beats. You know somebody calls. Read more
Question: Restlessness doesn’t really leave me. Why am I so restless? How can I get rid of my restlessness?
Speaker: Cars these days come with the auto-pilot feature. You can put the car on the cruise mode, especially on long drives, and the driver can relax. There was a research conducted on the vehicles that have this auto-drive feature. It was found out that people who buy cars having this facility do not really use it. Read more
Question: Is spirituality easier or more probable for a sharp intellect?
Speaker: We do hear this sometimes that one requires a certain level of intellect even to be spiritual. That one needs the power to think and analyse, logically discern, so as to go deep into the spiritual truths. But to what extent is this factual, that we will have to investigate. Read more
Speaker: The question is: why does my confidence get low while speaking to others? I feel I have the required knowledge, yet when it comes to dealing with others, communicating with others, I find myself helpless, I find myself unable to put things across, unable to articulate, unable to communicate.
There are two things in this question. One, my knowledge: the content of my mind, what I claim that I know. And the second factor is the presence of the other person.
We need to carefully investigate where the problem lies. Is it the lack of knowledge, or is it the presence of the other which is causing all the anguish?
To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here.
Question: What is the difference between confidence and over-confidence?
Speaker: It seems that this question is important to many of us here. Right?
Listeners(everyone): Yes, Sir.
Speaker: What is confidence? On a normal day at home, do you require confidence to speak to your parents, to other family members? Before you speak to them, do you gather courage, do you gather confidence and then go there? No, you don’t. So, you don’t require confidence at home. You must be having some friends? When you are speaking to your friends, do you require confidence? No. But you surely require confidence when you are speaking to an interviewer. Then you say, ‘I require confidence’. Correct?
To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here.
Question: Why do persons not like to be individuals?
Speaker: Because the person is the opposite of the individual. The individual is the death of the person. The individual is the death of the person, just as waking up is the death of the dream. The person wants to continue. The dream is unreal, fake, but it still wants to continue. The person is unreal and fake, but it wants to live on. Hence it resists. Because the moment you become an individual, it is death for the person.
What is the person? The person is a stupid way of living. The moment you are an individual, an intelligent being, it means death of stupidity. And stupidity does not want to die. So, it will resist. It will create a wall. It will create an armor. It will give all types of argument. It will resist. It will say, ‘No, this is not alright. If everybody becomes an individual then what will happen to the world?’ And all kinds of stupid arguments will be raised by the ego. The ego does not want to die.