Observation: An Honest Acknowledgement
Questioner: Thank you, Acharya Ji. My question is on observation. When we observe ourselves, my observation has been changing. I have been listening to you since last year. It was different. I was also listening to Krishnamurti. The observation, when we do observe, there is a joy or happiness that comes from within. So, should we say that as happiness or actual joy? Krishnamurti also says that when you fully, intensely observe yourself with the full power of your mind, something happens within. So, is that the joy that is coming from within? I just wanted to clarify that.
Acharya Prashant: Joy is not really an experience. Joy is not something you can really identify as joy, put your finger on, and label it as joy. Just as observation, real observation is a passive thing, joy is equally passive. Happiness is sensational. It is a spike. It aims to make itself felt.
Joy is like a soothing song, mother’s lori. It is not real if you are still listening to it. The mother sings so that you go to...
If, after two hours, you say, “I am still conscious of her song,” then that means she is a bad singer. That’s joy. If you are conscious that you are joyful, then you are not joyful.
That’s the same with all the sublime things mankind knows of: love, simplicity, Truth. You cannot be conscious of them. Consciousness is dualistic, and the very aim of the real thing is to take you beyond duality. And beyond duality, there is no experience. You cannot know that you are joyful. You cannot know that you are in love. You cannot know that you are simple. You cannot know that you are truthful.
Maybe somebody else, who is not in Truth, will be able to identify more clearly, more easily: “Here (pointing towards the outside) is somebody in Truth.” As for you, you’ll simply say, “I am. I just am. If you want to label my state as that of Truth, that’s your wish. You may do that. I just am. If you want to label me as a lover, you can do that.” But consciously, actively, with motive, with intent, I’m not loving. I’m not doing anything at all with any intent, any motive, any consciousness.
If I am joyful, I’m not consciously joyful. It just is. I didn’t want it to happen. There was no motive. It happened. I don’t even know I’m joyful. The same applies to observation. You cannot intend to observe yourself.
If you intend to observe yourself, then there is a problem. It is a subtle thing of honesty that happens on its own. At most, your intention can be to not be dishonest.
Observation, knowing yourself, is your passive inner default state. What obstructs it is your determination, your stubborn resolve not to see the inner fact. That's what you have to dispense with. "I refuse to buy the arguments of the false." Once you refuse that, then the inner fact is obviously visible. The world is obviously, without effort, without activity, without intent. It is just visible because it is your own. It is your own.
How can the ego not know what it is doing? But the ego never knows what it is doing. Why? Because there is a stubborn determination to remain in the false. It becomes impossible for the ego to look at itself, because it knows if it looks at itself, it is gone. So that's what you have to stop doing. The word is ‘stop doing.’ It's not about doing something extra over and above. It is about stopping what you are continuously doing.
And what is it that we continuously do?
The fact is there, and we turn our face away. We don’t want to look at it. It’s there. How can you not know? The fellow is calling, and you’re deliberately not picking up the call. Don’t you know what you’re doing? And you also know why you are allowing it to ring. You also know that. Sometimes you very precisely know how long after the call you will call back. Who can know this better than you, because it’s you who is at the center of the doing.
Observation is about acknowledging what you are doing. It's not even about seeing. Why do you need to see? Why do I need to see? A paper (Closing the eyes and pretending to write something on the paper). Do I need to see what I have written? So, observation is not even about seeing. It's simply about admitting, acknowledging: I am the writer. I don't even need to see what I have written. I need to acknowledge my intent.
If you close your eyes and write, do you need to see what you have written? You are the writer. Observation is an honest acknowledgement: "This is what I'm writing. This is my life that I am writing on the canvas of time." Are you getting it?
On the other hand, you can keep your eyes open and say, "You know, I wanted to write love, but I have written hate. What can I do? My fingers are out of control," and all kinds of nonsense.
Observation isn't a thing of great mental activity or great intensity or great doership. It's a thing that's best when it is passive. It's a thing that gets done best when it is not done. It just happens.
Questioner: So, in that acknowledgement, are we changing the center, or is the center changing?
Acharya Prashant: You’re doing nothing. What happens, happens on your own. When the ego changes its center, what will it do? From E1, it will become E2. It still is the false one. The false one cannot, on its own, change itself to the Truth. Is Truth some kind of metamorphosis of the false? Is it possible? Can the false change its shape, name, form, appearance, color, label, and become the Truth?
Questioner: Thank you, Acharya Ji.
