That is right, but when the mind goes astray I
have trouble. Sometimes I feel that life is universal,
but at moments it becomes individualized. How
to get rid of this?
This is the conventional way of talking. The water
is universal, use it when you possess it. Similarly,
use the mind to meet your needs and then let it
flow by itself without your interference and involvement,
like the flow of a river from where you take water
only when needed.
talks are meant for intelligent people. [To
a local visitor:] Why have you come? You will
not understand these talks; you only sing bhajans
in praise of God.
do I respect those foreign visitors? They are
earnest seekers, in search of Truth, but they
have not been able to locate it. I appreciate
their sincerity and deep urge to understand.
They really go far. Any subject they take, they
explore deeply into it.
Although the two of us talk here, in actuality
they (the two entities) are not there. This is
the theme today. At first, "no one" is. Instantly,
one is, and then two. The subject of the talk
is: How did these two reduce to one, and finally
to nothing? Out of nothingness spontaneously the
sense of beingness is felt this is one.
Later, when the sense of beingness knows "I am,"
duality begins. Then, after the duality has arisen,
the sense of beingness identifies with the form,
and so on. Actually to refer to the sense of being
as "one," is not quite correct. Since in this
state only the sense of being prevails, where
is the need to say even "one"? With the appearance
of otherness (duality), both no. 1 and no. 2 appear
simultaneously. To say, "something is," "I" must
be there first. If "I" am not, I cannot say "something
is." So the fundamental principle in spirituality
is that "I" must be there, before anything else
can be. This "I" is the beingness which is first.
You said, in the beginning there is "one," and
later there is "none."
When one looks into one's self, that is, when
one abides in the Self, then there is "none."
Yet, when one merges, one remains.
To say that, is all right in common parlance,
but actually it is nothing of the sort.
But you said that life is eternal, so life is
But not the life of an individual; it is the Absolute
transcending the universal consciousness.
Life is eternal, that means life is there for
Yes, life potential is always there. But unless
a body-form is available, there cannot be any
sense of perception. When the body drops dead,
the senses do not function; therefore, no perception
or knowing of the world takes place for that entity.
so long as the senses operate is perception and
knowing of the world possible. So, in a way, the
absence of sensory function is liberation. Isn't
present, I am alive and my senses and reflexes
react to situations. The senses and reflexes of
a dead person do not react. In the manifested
universe, when the capacity for sensory perception
and motor function is created in a body form,
only then is existence of a perceptible universe
possible. The main point is that for a universe
to exist, there must be an observer with sense
organs in proper working order. The mind interprets
the sense perceptions and concludes that the universe
exists. Therefore, if the observer's sense organs
and mind do not operate, then the observer's universe
does not exist.
But the senses of seeing, hearing and touching
etc. belong to the body and not to the self, the
Without atman, the senses cannot function.
But it resides in the quintessence of the body.
When it subsides in itself, only nirguna
remains the non-qualitative Absolute.
The atman can change bodies.
The atman has no body, so how can it change?
At present, it presumes that "I am" means body
In this materialistic world, when we say "we"
we mean the body only. But if my legs are removed,
they are apart from me. Therefore, I feel that
I as such am not the body.
That is correct.
So atman is something other than body.
Atman is not the individual, this must
be firmly grasped. Atman feels the sense
of being only through a body with senses operating,
otherwise the atman does not feel itself.