 So this idea of enlightenment and this yearning to be like those spiritual masters who are detached from everything is an aberration in the trajectory of spirituality. The future of spirituality will be one which is present-ness connected as a servant, as an instrument of the Source. Namaskar. Say your name please. I spoke to you yesterday and I have been contemplating on what you said. So some questions arise out of that. When we talk about surrender, I feel that from my little experience there seems to be these two different parts to it. One is that as you said there is this push from the higher Source and there is some kind of ego rising. On the same time you need to see some discernment to choose the push from the truth. And there are other times when the ego really do not rise and there seems to be a state of involuntary actions happening, some form of oneness there. So we were also talking about witnessing yesterday. So I was thinking that on the out of phase whether there is guidance, aren't we witnessing the ego or aren't we in some form of kind of separate from it but just see rising in some way. So isn't that some form of witnessing? Can you? I don't speak of a higher Soul or a higher Source. I speak of the inner residing Soul, Source, Truth, Self. Antaratman, it's given a feel of an entity because then the system relates to it better. So let's start with what are the elements of this whole experience because everything becomes very nebulous. Suddenly seven different people are talking about seven different things and nobody really knows what the other one is talking about which is also interesting because each one has their own approach but if I am trying to put clarity into these things and simplify it then I would say that you are denup, you have a name, this body and you actually take it up rather than rejecting it. You say yes I am denup because that's what the name this body has been given and to disassociate from the body will certainly result in a temporary freeing but that freeing is always shocked by the reality that the body has to face. So instead of going into that seesaw experience we start with saying okay this is denup, denup knows that at the centre of his being is an impulse which is continually in action, the Soul impulse, the Truth impulse, he knows it. It is not the same thing as Conscience. It is not something socially engineered, it is its own thing, it is the divine cosmic impulse individualised in denup. Denup also knows that there is the loud, clamouring, demanding noise of the ego which is that which has been engineered through the socialisation process and through certain inheritances also. So you have the ego lie and you have the Truth. This is a conceptual simplification. Denup certainly is the observer of these two forces at play within his system but he is not the witness, he is the one that takes action, he is the doer. I know that this shakes a lot of what we are actually over the millennia attempting to move away from doership but when one takes responsibility for that doership one is able more clearly to distinguish between the action of the ego, the force of the ego that impels the system to actions of various kinds and the very quiet, almost imperceptible impulse of the Truth that is there to be obeyed, to be in surrender to. So yes, you are observing it because you are using your Vivekabuddhi your ability to discern between these two forces at play within your system so certainly you have to observe it but you are not a silent witness who is simply observing both. You are the doer that is taking the decision to act based on the impulse. At least for short periods of time, there will be times when the ego doesn't rise at all. So at that time it almost feels for me that there is no doer or there is no choice. Exactly, precisely. And when there is just a simple flowing with the impulse, the Truth impulse, the Truth impulse, the Truth impulse the whole system becomes an instrument of that. So when you are in that state then Dinoop is an instrument and the more you are an instrument the more the consciousness expands but it expands within the system. It's not taking you into cosmic experience. It's not taking you out somewhere or you are not identifying with the soul. You're not saying I am the soul. I'm not this body, I am the soul. No, no, because the very ability to say that I at all arises from the bodiliness from the corporeality of the system. So to say I am the soul is a contradiction in terms. The maximum one can say is I am this in surrender to that. And the more one is in that surrender state the less of I there is. But there is always an entity because that is what keeps you connected with the materiality of your system. People ask me, they say, but then all the great masters, you know, they said I am that. Yes, they said that because they were that. They were in a cosmic identification. And the ones who clearly and solidly said that out of experience and not out of projection were saying that because they were not anymore connected fully and holistically with the materiality of the body. So coming back to that identity of the noob, there is some resistance there for me. I am comfortable to say I am in surrender to that inner guru or inner truth. But for me at some point, I saw this body as an object at some level. And it feels very difficult for me to see that I am this this body and the name only or exclusively. There seems to be some resistance there for me. Yes, and there would be that resistance. Since you have a history of the practice of detaching from the body, the point is that when you say, I saw this body as an object, what is it that saw this body as an object? Is it a material exercise? Is it an emotional exercise? Is it a conceptual exercise? Is it happening in Dinoop's thinking that he saw this body as an object? I can sit here now and see this body as an object. It's not very difficult to do that. I just detach from it and there it is an object. But the question is, what is thinking me through that process? What is thinking that this is an object? Or some form of contemplation, let's say. No, no, let's take it step by step because then only you'll have clarity about, you know, it is a very challenging thing I'm saying here. And it's challenging for many, many people who have spent years, if not decades, detaching from the materiality of the system and actually seeing it as an object. Or seeing it as something separate from themselves, quote unquote, right? So the question then is, what is that that is seeing that as an object? Is it happening in the cells of your body? Is it happening in your thinking? Perhaps. Where is that thought happening? So I was practicing the self-abidance or identifying more with my consciousness. So when there is self-abidance, as Ramanoha Shiva was speaking, there is still the experience of the body and the experience of the mind. But there seems to be some form of distance there. And so there, it seems to be clear for me at least at that moment that I was not the body, at least not exclusively I experienced it, but it was not like, yeah, I can't explain. When you went through that experience that you are not the body, what is that thing that is thinking that? It may appear to be a reductionist approach where I'm actually cutting you up into pieces, but the point is that the nebulous approach to all of these practices often, not always, but often results in steps towards the mental institution because all of this is going on in the thinking, which is why I asked that question. Where is that thought arising that thinks that this is separate from it? So it's arising in the thinking, it can't arise anywhere else. It can't arise in your toenails or in the cells of your belly. It is a thought, right? Is it a thought? For me, it's more like there's an absence of the body experience and then the presence of it later. So there is a deduction from that, that since it was absent at certain times and present at certain times cannot be me exclusively at least. That's a very precise observation and my questioning is not out of disrespect for your experience. I think it's a deep experience. And what I'm trying to do here is to put clarity into it from the point of view of what is spoken about here. So the question is, could it be that this whole experience is actually a conceptual experience where the conceptual, the ability to think isolates itself or relegates itself to an area of your experience where the materiality of your system does not have a place? So in other words, it's not holistic but purely and deeply and singularly conceptual. So there's just the perceiving identity and then at one point it is one again with the body and at one point it is separate from the body. But the body is the basis of that ability to perceive. And if the body is the basis for that ability to perceive because there is no perception in the way you understand it and express it without the body. It is an impossibility, it's a contradiction. So that experience is an experience where the thinking retracts into itself and exists as a thought because a perception is only grasped when it is expressed in the thinking. Unless it is a material perception but that is not the case here. Yeah, I agree. So it's more like a deduction and definitely it's a thought because as you said there is no experience in that state. You cannot say there is real perception in this state and then from the lack of perception there is a deduction coming out of the mind which says you cannot be the body because of that. In that moment when you experience that separation, you are still aware because otherwise you won't be able to even describe it. So when you are aware that means it is perception and it is translated in the thinking. So you are perceiving that detachment and you are saying oh I am not the body. Of course I can say that right now. I can just put myself in a state where the thinking isolates itself and I just feel that. I mean I am experiencing it right now. I am not this body. Of course I am not this body but the idea that I am that cannot be derived from this experience. That's true. And if you are not that then what are you then? Then the only thing that we have that we can tangibly connect with is this body. It is an approach. It is what is taught here, the spirituality of the future because over the past millennia the attempt has been to map the cosmos, to understand what is out there, to free the consciousness from the body. But the perception is so tied to the body that any expression of that perception can only happen through the agency of the body. And therefore to in a waking state be entirely disconnected with everything around is a machination of the thinking. So what do you do then? Because now suddenly even that doesn't hold. So what do you do? What do you do? To avoid that path to the mental institution because there are that many seekers that have landed there and especially students of Neo-Advaita. And I specifically differentiate between Neo-Advaita and classical Advaita Vedanta because the Neo-Advaitan approach has forgotten the word Samarpan. It is not even taken into consideration other than the concept of the ego surrendering to itself. So in the light of that danger, let's say that challenge, why is it so impossible to simply simplify this existence and say this body has a name, it has a mother from which it was born just to give it a slim identity and then that this body actually is bending in surrender from moment to moment and to that binary impulse that guides this system and has done it with a small child. A child, a baby is operating from the cosmic impulse within that makes it do what it has to do in order to survive. And the only difference is the socialization that has happened with you. Great spiritual masters, when they spoke, most of them spoke from an enlightened state and being in that enlightened state, they identified with self. But many, many of the enlightened beings who spoke from that state also had to reintegrate. They had to come back into this and they never could really reintegrate fully, which is also why. We have so many people who come here, enlightened beings who say, I don't want this enlightenment, how do I get back into the body? How do I stay here? So the question is, do you want enlightenment? Because if you want enlightenment, remember, you're going to have to reintegrate into the body because the body is the agency of your functioning in this world. It is a jump, it's a chasm that has to be crossed, but it may be a possibility for you to do that also. I felt, I was... I'll come to you once he's finished. In these two boats, one was the spark of this meditation, long meditation and then I have to integrate, I have to go to work, I have to do my things. And so that's where I applied the surrender principles to be active in the world and then use the... So that was my other side was to do the meditation. But there is no two sides. Yeah, I know. There is only one thing. Yeah, I understand. And if you split yourself up into the meditating caveman and the work world suited booted man, you will have a split in your life. And that is the ultimate duality that you will have to suffer through a lifetime. You're not the only one, which is why this is my Agnya. It is a divine Agnya to speak these words. It's not my own invention. And I know that I'm here to listen to you. That's why I'm very happy to be here. So and what you're saying makes a lot of sense because I felt a lot divided by these kind of felt like this to differentiating processes. And my natural tendency was more to surrender. And the other one is something probably I picked up. It's just about bending down. It certainly does not easy to follow the impulse of the truth. It is not. This is a very, very challenging sadhana and practice. It is not an easy practice. It is more difficult than Agora Sadhana. It is more challenging. But it is also what for the spiritual seeker is his nectar, her nectar. The difference is you're not aiming for paradise, for enlightenment, for that which is outside your system. You are in the here and the now present and very deeply connected to the soul or the source within and ready to bend to its impulse and refuse at every moment. The loud commanding, demanding, insisting, pushing, yearning, opinionating voice of the ego. It is a moment to moment sadhana here and now, here and now. It is not a sadhana to take you out of the system to go into cosmic enlightenment experience. So it is a choice. You can also choose the other thing. But the integration is next to impossible. In fact, it isn't possible. The few spiritual masters that survived this experience have been taken care of by their disciples. They were not capable of taking care of themselves. I spoke about Ramana. He was in the temple there inside with his body covered with sores bleeding and full of pus and it was Sheshadri Swamigal who went and rescued him. So those who are not rescued, what happens to them? They die. They actually die. A lot of them reintegrate but they can never live a normal life again. Just a life in the body. So this idea of enlightenment and this yearning to be like those spiritual masters who are detached from everything is an aberration in the trajectory of spirituality. The future of spirituality will be one which is presentness connected as a servant, as an instrument of the source. That is where everyone will have to come to because being out there, being identified with source will create exactly what it doesn't want to. It creates the duality. As you do this practice, you'll feel more and more integrated because you're here and now, you're doing your work and while you're doing your work, while you're earning your money, while you're taking the auto, you are present and you are a spiritual being in surrender, in samarpanam to the antaratman, in samarpanam to the antarguru. That is in surrender to the truth, to the master of your being, to the inner guru. You are that from moment to moment. So what is not spiritual about this life? What is not self-realized about it? Why does one have to be separate from life and create that duality in the attempt or with the idea that that is the non-dual? It is a misrepresentation and an aberration.