Home  New  Books  Visitors'book   Links   Satsang  Spainproject  Tibet

Interview with Karl Renz


One day, at a breakfast with Karl, the following conversation ensued:


A: Karl, is there such thing as realisation?

K: Yes.

A: Is realisation something that reveals itself at one point of time? Is
there something like before.

K: Is there a moment in time when the Self is not realised? Is there some
point in realisation when the realisation is not?

A: Yes, I am not realised!

K: And that what you think you are will never be realised. How can an idea
be realised or realise anything?

A: How can I know that I am an idea?

K: Is this idea that you are Anasuya always there?

A: No.

K: You see. It must be an idea because this is not permanent.

A: So, all these things that the Masters talk about, enlightenment,
realisation, awakening. what is it?

K: They are talking about consciousness being identified and talking about
the process of consciousness becoming disidentified with an object.

J: What do you mean when you say realisation? Because I have the feeling
that many people go astray when you say realisation, because people normally
use it in a different way than you do.

K: Just look at the word: the real and the realisation. Die Wirklichkeit und
die Verwirklichung der Wirklichkeit.

J: You mean the unfolding of the realisation?

K: The real and the unfolding of the real, as in time and space.

J: People usually think realisation is a kind of an understanding. So, it's
not an understanding, what you are talking about.

K: No.

J: It's what manifests or what unfolds.

A: An explosion?

K: No, it's just pure Self-cognition. The cognition of the Self by the Self
is the realisation of the Self. Because all that can be cognised is the
Self. In whichever form the Self appears, it's still the Self. And only the
Self can perceive that what is Self. Because only Self is, as perceiver and
perceived, and the perceiving. And all this is realisation of the Self. So
only the Self is what can be realised. And only the Self can realise itself.
So, all there is is Self, and so also the realisation is still the Self. And
only the Self can realise the Self. Because only Self is.

A: So it's like at one point the Self is not aware?

K: The Self cannot be not aware. Awareness is the nature of the Self, and
not-awareness is still the nature of the Self. The Self doesn't need to be
aware of the Self to be the Self. And the Self-lessness doesn't need any
awareness of the Self, to be the Self. That what is prior to awareness, the
Self, doesn't need to be aware of the Self to be the Self. And there is no
advantage for the Self to be aware of the Self. And there is no advantage
for the Self to be conscious of the Self, or not conscious of the Self.
There is simply no advantage, because the Self is not one who can have an
advantage. The Self is in no necessity of anything to be the Self.

A: So now I have two questions. One question is: What is the difference
between someone hearing for the first time about that, and somebody who has
spent his whole life seeing all the Masters, all the teachers and is still
sitting there listening to the same thing.

K: There is no difference. Because there is still no second Self. You are
what you are, conscious or unconscious, aware or not aware of what you are.
And for what you are there is no such thing as advantage. And that what can
have an advantage is part of that what is the realisation the Self, but it's
actually not that what is Self. If a cup realises what is a cup, means
nothing. And the cup can never realise what is a cup. And that which is the
cup doesn't need to realise what the cup is, to be what is the cup.

J: But a cup, by nature, is insentient. It has no senses, there are no
sense-impressions for a cup, it doesn't know anything.

K: Yes, that's what it means. That what is perceiving, that what is pure
perception, the absolute perceiver, is Self. It's ever realised. And
whatever the Self is perceiving is part of the perception. But the perceiver
cannot be perceived.

J: Okay, so now we go away from the cup, we apply it to a human being.

K: But that's the same.

J: Well, let's make this clear. The common understanding for a human being
is: "I am conscious, one of my properties is consciousness."

K: "I own consciousness. My consciousness."

J: This is common understanding.

K: Out of the idea of an owner comes the idea even to own consciousness.

J: So what is now the correct perspective?

K: This is neither correct nor incorrect; this is part of ideas, concepts.
This is conceptual, and that's all. I wouldn't say this is right or wrong.
Because, it's always wrong because this comes out of the idea of separation.
And what comes out of the idea of separation, of the separate person, is
false. Because it comes out of the false idea.

J: But as I had understood you, this is a twisted, a turned around
perception, to say, "I have consciousness", whereas actually consciousness
has me.

K: No, you have to say: consciousness plays the role of a person. But there
is no person who owns consciousness, and if at all, there is consciousness,
which owns a person, because it plays the person as an information.

J: So, consciousness is creating a picture.

K: Consciousness can't create anything.

J: Who is creating then?

K: There is no creator, there is no creation. There is only Self and the
unfolding of the Self. This is an infinite unfolding. And there is no
creation and no creator. All there is is Self and there is no second Self,
that's all. And there is no creator and no creation. That's the main point.
There is no separate creator and there is no separate creation. There is no
separate God and there is no.

J: But sometimes you speak of the Creator God.

K: No. I say, out of this unfolding "I" as awareness comes as a thought the
"I am", and out of the "I am" comes the "I am an object, in time". And all
this is part of the unfolding. But in all this there is no creator and no

J: As an entity.

K: As a separate entity.

J: Yes, but as a function, you could say.

K: Well, in this function. all this is part of the unfolding, but there is
no creator and no creation finally. That what is Self appears as creator and
creation. But there is no separate creator and a separate creation. All
there is is Self, in the form of "I", "I am", "I am Johannes". And all this
is the unfolding of Self. But not the Self. Because the Self itself can
never know the Self, and has no knowledge about itself.

J: So, now we have again the four levels.

K: Yes, it's the fourth state as they call it, the fourth state as the
natural state of Self, the Self-lessness. The Self not knowing even to
exist, being prior to all ideas of existence or non-existence. That what is
always prior to any idea of being or not-being, even as awareness or
not-awareness, not even aware of itself.

J: So, and on this then, kind of, three different perspectives are
happening. The first perspective then is.

K: There is no happening. Just see that there is Self and the unfolding of
Self, and whatever is the unfolding is not different from the Self. And
there are no levels in it.

J: But what I mean, you speak of the "I", you speak of the "I am", you speak
of the "I am this".

K: This is just a concept itself. But the only thing, which is not a
concept, is the Self. And with concepts you can look from infinite angles,
and make different concepts. This is not an explanation! This is just to
see, to point to the very core, that only Self is reality. And the rest is
fiction. Any idea is fiction. And only that what is prior to fiction, to
ideas, is what you are. And the explanation means nothing. Putting another
concept about another concept and making a clear concept is not an
advantage. It means nothing that you understand anything. This is not part
of understanding. This is what you are, and this you don't have to
understand, nor how it functions. Just see, Self is all, and whatever is
functioning is the Self. And you are this absolute functioning. When there
is functioning you are that what is functioning. Because you are the very
Self, what is always the essence of functioning and the very source of
functioning. So you are the source and the functioning, and there is no
difference, no separation in it.
Understanding is futile. Resistance is futile.


J: But though, people are coming to you for. There is some urge to
understand, there is some urge to get out of this story, to realise

K: People come to find a way out, and I show them, there is no way out. And
they may resign. They may see that this idea of a way out comes out of the
idea that there is one who needs a way out. And that this both is a falsity.
Rooted in the first idea that there is one who is in need. And just to show
that what they are never needed anything. There is no necessity for them,
and no way out of that what they are. That they may just cognise what they
are. by not cognising it. That they see, whatever they can cognise is not
what they are.
But without this absolute perceiver nothing would be there. Even this
relative perceiver is part of perception.

J: That means this person.

K: The person is part of the realisation, the unfolding of the Self, is an
aspect of the Self.

J: So that means, the whole person is perceived, is not the perceiver.

K: The perceiver is even part of the perception.

J: The perceiver, like the focal point in the person.

K: .the third eye.

J: .is actually part of the perceived.

K: .is part of the absolute perception. So even the idea of the perceiver,
the perceiving, and what is perceived is part of the realisation, but not
that what is the real Self. All is part of the unfolding, because that what
is Self never unfolds itself. It's always this stillness, which is always

J: You just said: it never.

K: It never unfolds itself. And ultimately there is no unfolding, of
anything. Even this is an idea.

J: Yet all that is unfolding is ideas.

K: It's like Ramana says, you take one concept to erase all the other
concepts, and then this concept disappears too. Just to see that that what
you are is not a concept, that's all. And this is an absolute experience to
exist. Even when you are not. Because you have to experience this absolute
experience when you are in total emptiness. Because then there is no second.
When there is nothing to perceive anymore, there is still that what you are.
And this is total emptiness. And in this total emptiness you still are what
you are. But you can't say if you are or not. So you are even when you have
no idea or no perception of anything. You still are what you are - even when
you are not. Even without any sensation of what you are.

J: You just said something in-between, like, "you have to.", you remember?

K: Yes but I also said: even if you don't see this, you are still what you
are. This is not an advantage for that what you are to see what it is. There
is no one who could have an advantage, of anything.

J: But when this happens, that.

K: When you see, that nothing ever happened, what is then? This is when you
see, all is Self, when you are what is. And this is anyway what you are.

J: Yes, but to see this, is a very.

K: But then there is no advantage.

J: But it's a huge step somehow.

K: No. There is no step anymore.

J: But I mean, somehow it's such a shift of perspective.

K: No, you just are what you always have been and will be. And then there is
no advantage in seeing this. You see there is no.

J: Yes, for that what is always.

K: So, and for the rest doesn't matter. The rest is just Lila and part of a
theatrical play.
You can't create a necessity for that what is Self. Just see that that what
is Self doesn't need anything to be the Self. And that what is not Self. it
means no advantage for the Self if that what is not Self realises anything,
or doesn't realise anything.
So just see, you are not needed for the Self to realise. And your
realisation means nothing for the Self. For, whatever you can get clear of
means nothing for that, which is clarity itself. So you are in this way
worth nothing. Less than nothing.

J: Pretty mean this Self.

K: (cracking up)

J: . first it creates people.

A: .worth nothing.

K: .it never creates anything.

J: .and then these people think they are suffering.

K: .because they are special.

J: .and the Self is having its fun in the whole time.

K: The Self always enjoying itself, by being the Self. So that what is Self
enjoys even the unenjoyment of that what is not Self. Absolutely, you can
never disturb the perfect happiness of the Self. This cannot be disturbed by
anything. And that what can be disturbed is not the Self, that's all. And
the Self never cares about that what is not Self. The Self is not the
caretaker of that what is the unfolding of the Self. The Self is pure Self,
and this is absolute perfect happiness itself. The absence of any idea of
what the Self is not, or what the Self is. That is the perfect happiness and
perfection of the Self. And this cannot be disturbed, or erased or be done
anything with it, because this is not an object in time that you can move or
not move. So it always comes back to the point, be prior to that what is
time and space. Just see that that what you are cannot be touched by that
what is sensational or phenomenal.

A: .cosmic.

K: Cosmic, whatever. Whatever idea cannot touch what you are. So even the
idea of identified consciousness, cosmic consciousness, awareness, these are
merely ideas in time and space. That what is in time and space cannot touch
what is prior to time and space. And that is what you are, without naming

J: With awareness are not yet there time and space, they come with

K: No, already awareness is the first unfolding.

J: Is there already time and space?

K: There is already separation.

J: Separation, but not time and space.

K: Where can be separation when there is no time and space? There must be
two. One Self, which is aware of the Self. Then there are already two
selves. This simply can happen when there is already a kind of space and
time. This is already a form, an object.

J: You are speaking of the "I"?

K: Yes, the "I". Which is aware of the Self. The Self that is aware of the
Self is already two selves. There is one Self that is aware of another Self.
Otherwise there could be no awareness.

J: I thought it is just pure awareness without any object.

K: No. Even that is already separation. Awareness, in this way, is already
separation. There is one Self, which is aware of existence. So there is a
Self being aware of a separate self.

J: But that's already being "I am"?

K: No, no, even the "I" "I" "I" as awareness, it's not "I-lessness". It's
not absolute. The Absolute being aware of the Absolute, there are still two

A: Awareness of awareness.

K: Yes, even that is separation. So you can't escape separation.

J: Because awareness is already a function of the Self.

K: Exactly, it's part of the functioning. But it's not that what is
functioning. That's why they call it Para-Brahman or Para-Atman, because
they don't want to name it. They don't want to fix it; they don't want to
make an object out of it, because already out of awareness you can make an
object. Because you can name it. You can define it.

So, and "I" as awareness is not "I am" as cosmic consciousness, or "I am
this" as identified consciousness, so there would be a separation between
awareness, cosmic consciousness and the identified consciousness. So there
is still separation. So if you would call it awareness, it would be
separated from "I am Karl". But the "I am Karl is not different from the
Self. The awareness is not different, the "I am" is not different, and the
"I am Karl" is not different. So if you would call it awareness it would be
different from the "I am".

J: It would be defined.

K: Yes, so whatever you can define is not what you are. So in this way
awareness is not what you are. Awareness is the first unfolding.

J: Yes, I mean, it's the basis. Without awareness nothing further can

K: You may call it the source, of the "I am", and the "I am" is the source
of "I am Karl".
You can only rest, when you see that whatever you can define cannot be what
you are. Because that what is the absolute definer cannot define, what the
definer is. As the eye cannot see the eye. And then you rest, as you always
did, in what you are. Because this what you are is always resting in what it
is. It cannot not-rest in what it is, nor in something else, because Self is
all there is. How can it rest in something else?
And you cannot escape yourself, because all there is is Self, and wherever
you go, you will be there, already. So you stay still or you go. No one
goes, no one stays still. You just see the totality of what you are. And
even in the world and time and space, totality is all there is. Totality is
your nature and totality is all there is. You are the Absolute, and the
unfolding of the Absolute is as absolute as that what is unfolding itself,
and total as it is.
And it won't be more absolute or more total by your understanding, or
clarification, or your realisation. That's the main part. It doesn't mean
anything if you realise anything, or not realise, it means nothing. You're
totally without need. You're just an image, which pops up and goes down,
without any need of realisation.
As long as you think, you are this.

J: .right, as long as you think you are the image.

K: .and as long as this I-thought is your reality, as long as the Self-idea
is only an idea, you are this little self, who is trapped in this little
idea. And it's looking as consciousness for that what is Self.

J: And as long as this is there, there is always trouble.

K: And this will always be there, and there is no way out of it.

J: What will be always there?

K: The trouble.

J: You mean the identified consciousness will be always there?

K: Exactly, it will be always there. Because when there is identified
consciousness, as part of realisation, it is as infinite as that what is

J: Aah, now comes this one, yes, yes (all cracking up).
But this is because you look at it from prior to time.

K: From where else?

J: Yes, yes, right. But that what is in time doesn't look at this.

K: What is in time never looked. There is nothing in time, because there is
no time. And that what is in time never looked. Because there is nothing in
time as there is no time. And when the Self looks, it doesn't matter how the
Self looks, from in time or out of time or prior to time. Only the Self can
look. Because only Self looks. Self perceives and that what is perceived is
still the Self, because all there is is Self. That's only what counts, the
rest is pfffff...

A: So time is in perception.

K: For perception you need time. And time already comes out of the idea of
"me". But both is unfolding, is part of the unfolding of the totality of
manifestation of that what is total, the Self. But that doesn't mean that
this is finite, this comes and goes. For you it's as if it comes and goes,
because there is time, that doesn't mean it is time.

J: But so, now we consider ourselves as being persons and being trapped in
time and being subject to.

K: Exactly, exactly as it has to happen. Even though nothing happens, this
has to happen.

J: Ah, there comes another question with "the Guru". So, there is a person,
and it's striving for perfection. This person is saying: I am suffering and
I want to get out of it. And then this person hears about the Guru and hears
about the promise that the Guru can help. Like the Buddha said: there is an
end to suffering.

K: Of course there is an end to suffering, because it never started.

J: (Laughing away) Then there can be no end to it either.

K: You see. Look for the start of suffering. When you can find the beginning
of suffering, then you can maybe find the end of suffering.

J: Certainly, yes.

K: So did suffering ever start? Because for suffering it would need a
sufferer. So, and then look for the sufferer first. Look if there is a
sufferer. As long as you look for the end of suffering, there will be even a
sufferer without suffering. So there is consciousness identified, and then
there will be consciousness disidentified. But still there is an "I am" or a
sufferer, maybe not suffering, but this sufferer, any moment without
attention, can go back to suffering. So, what is the annihilation of this
idea of a sufferer? Because, when the sufferer is annihilated, where is the
suffering? What is the only way to annihilate the idea of a sufferer?

J: This you ask me.

A: That's the question.

K: That's the question.

J: That's the question anybody asks you.

K: Yes, the total annihilation of the sufferer is, when you are what you
are, when you are that what is without beginning and without end. And the
absolute Self-cognition, the Selfrealisation, is when the Self is absolutely
the Self. And how can the Self not be absolutely the Self? And when there is
only Self this is the absolute annihilation of separation, that there is a
separate self.

J: But that means, this idea of separate self collapses, it just vanishes at
some point.

K: That what is spontaneously arising, as an "I am" idea of I-thought, can
only spontaneously disappear. Because the Self itself has no necessity that
something gets annihilated, because the Self only knows the Self by being
the Self. And that what is part of the realisation of the Self, if this
comes and goes, who cares? First there must be one who cares about whether
something has to come or to go. And find the one who cares.


A: I want to come back to the professional seeker, who listens for fifty
years, and on the other hand the butcher, who doesn't care about anything,
and specially doesn't want to hear about anything, just wants to make lots
of money, have a nice house, be happy ever after.

K: Good steaks, good Schnitzel. Yes, both want to be happy, absolutely
happy. They are both striving for self-satisfaction. Both are striving as
consciousness for the absolute self-satisfaction in the ignorance of being
already absolutely satisfied, because they are that what is Self, which is
ever satisfied. In this ignorance of what they are, as consciousness, they
are striving for that what is the Substratum or the absolute happiness of
Self. They are looking for infinite happiness, in the ignorance, thinking
they are not happy. In this idea of separation, as an I-thought, they have
the sense of imperfection. And out of the sense of imperfection they are
looking for perfection, in the ignorance, that what they already are is
absolute perfection itself. So both, the butcher and the seeker are
consciousness, which looks for satisfaction. So there is no difference.

A: But to hear about what you say, for years and years, doesn't help then?
It's the same.

K: Yes, it's beautiful. Imagine there would be somebody who could be helped
and one who could help. This would be awful, this would be hell.

A: But there is the idea that slowly, slowly there is less ego, and slowly,
slowly it shines more through.

K: Less ego, more ego. but that what can get less can get more again. So
there is no advantage. What can disappear can appear for sure again. So the
ego, which can go, may come back as an ego-return, sooner or later.

A: But there is a point of no return, final, boum.

K: First you have to see what appeared, if that what is an appearance is
real. And then, who cares about an appearance? That's the main question, not
what comes and what goes. The main question is, is there one who cares about
an appearance. And if this one cares about an appearance, how stupid must
this one be who cares about an appearance. This we call the ignorance of the
Self, becoming a separate self, a little self, which takes an appearance as

A: So, sometimes, like with some Masters, it seems like the Self is taking
the shape of the ego also in the Master.

K: The Self takes never any shape.

A: So, what are these shapes?

K: All shapes are merely reflections, or fleeting shadows in time, but not
the Self. They are shadows of the Self. And this shadow of what you are
cannot go, because you are that what makes the shadow. Because you are what
you are, the shadows are. So, to say, the shadows must go that I can be,
what stupidity is this? Because you are, the shadows are. And if you want
the shadows to go, you want yourself to go. This is a way of suicide. This
is a suicidal attempt of the Self, so it's Self-suicide. If you want any
shadow of what you are to go, you want yourself to go. Because, the shadows
are there because you are. And there is no way out. As long you are, the
shadows are there.

A: And when you are not?

K: Then there is no question. Because there is no questioner and there is no
light and no shadow.

A: But there can be still ego there.

K: No. The ego itself is a shadow of what you are, but not what you are. So
as long as you take a shadow as real.

A: .merely shadows.

K: .and as long as you want the shadow to go, as your ego, you want yourself
to go. Because, the shadow is there because you are. So whatever you want to
go, you want yourself to go.

A: So that's the situation of the seekers.

K: The seeker looks for a way out, looks for the shadow to go. And as long
something has to go, for you to be what you are, this is a suicidal attempt.
You want to kill yourself. As long as you want the ego to go, you want to
kill yourself, you're looking for a way out.

A: And for example all these ideas of Sattva, to have a sattvic life, to
strive for good like the Buddhists, versus bad actions or .

K: Yeah it's all Dharma-keeping. It keeps the Dharma alive. It's keeping the
Lila alive.

A: ...like, you don't kill, you don't get angry or jealous.

K: .some say, you have to kill.

A: .you are good.

K: Yeah, then you are good. Sounds good.

A: So, is there an advantage in being good?

K: As long as you want to be good, it's an advantage to be good. And as long
as you think being good would make you happy, then it's better for you to be

A: But it makes some people happy to be bad.

K: Yes, the same way. Both come out of the ignorance that you need
something. Different than you are now, to be different from that what you
are now to be absolute or to be happy.

A: So any kind of attempt is a waste of time.

K: No, you can't waste anything that is not there. You cannot waste time,
for that time had to be there to get wasted. But when there is no time, how
can you waste time?


A: So, I want to ask you, what advice would you give to the sincere seeker,
who devotes his or her live to the pursuit of enlightenment? What advice,
what would you say?

K: Don't listen to anybody, not even to yourself. Because all you can
perceive is not what you are. All you can understand, you can forget
already. And that what can get clear is not what you are.

A: No understanding, no clarity.

K: .no freedom.

A: .no realisation.

K: See that that what you are is perfect as it is. And that what is an idea
of imperfection is merely an idea in time. It cannot touch that what is
perfection itself.


A: (picking up a prepared question from her paper) Is there anything that
can be done for enlightenment, are there favourable conditions?

J: Wait; please let me ask before, what is enlightenment at all?

K: Enlightenment? The normal understanding of enlightenment is, when
identified consciousness becomes cosmic consciousness again, becoming
conscious about being consciousness.

J: But if I understood you right, this is not the end of the game.

K: No. As there was never any starting of the game there is no end of the
game. And that what we call enlightenment is part of the game. Because as
long as there is enlightenment and enlightened ones, there are unenlightened
ones. But that what is the Self is never enlightened or not enlightened. It
is always prior to all these ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment, or
whatever you can say about enlightenment. All this is conceptual.

J: So then, how would you call this realisation that you are actually prior
to . prior to enlightenment you "are".

K: There is no one who ever realised this.

J: No, but in your.

K: There is not even Karl who realised anything; Karl is part of the

J: Right, but this step back.

K: There is no step back. Don't create one, who was ever here and may go.
Because there was never anyone here who can go. And there is no one who can
step back to anything.

J: But for Karl there was.

K: What you mean is like the final resignation, the absolute resignation
that you can never become what you are.

J: Right, this little "aha" that you had at one point.

K: This is not something that happens, it's not part of happening. This is
just a little aha, to see that that what you are was always that what you
are, and will always be. That what you are is not in time, because time is
in you. Time is merely a reflection of what you are, but not what you are.

J: But this is like the final outgoing breath, the last breath of the ego.

K: There was never any ego, which breathed anyway. So there is no last
breath, because there was no first breath. Don't create any process of it,
there is no process. You just see, that that what you are was always there,
and the only real thing that was never touched from whatever was
sensational. And this is not something, which is new. This is so old, so
ancient, so infinite. Just this aha, oh, infinity. All there is is infinite.
Because infinite is all there is. And this is not a, whatever, happening.

J: No, but you had this flip-over, let's call it, from identified "I am
Karl" to.

K: ."I am".

J: .cosmic consciousness, and then you described it as.

K: .Nothing.

J: .you've been walking around for five years with this.

K: .being Nothing.

J: .being Nothing, I am Nothing.

K: .being no form.

J: .right, and then being kind of proud about this and trying to keep it

K: Yes, and this is still being separated from form. I am no-form, and form
I am not. So you say, something I am not, so I am that what is the opposite
of it.

J: So this was like "I am enlightened".

K: "I know", this was one who knows. The knowledge, that this one is not an
object, that this is no form; that that what I am has no form. But this
knowledge still needs one who knows it.

J: Yes, and then at some point there was this realisation, that even this is

K: No, this was just: to see, that that what is in no-form was in form the
same, the very same, the Self. So, that no form could ever touch that what I
was. So, I am still the same in no-form as in form. That there is no
difference, and that there is no separation. And that makes it like
complete. That that what you are is not in a need of any special
circumstance. That that what you are is in any circumstance what it is, and
ever will be. And that there is no circumstance of birth, and so there is no
circumstance of death, which can ever touch you. Because, there can only be
the sensation of birth and death because you are prior to it. And you were
already prior to birth what you were, before this body was born.

J: But out of all these things that, let's say, happened to you, the fact
results that now you can speak the way you speak.

K: No, then comes this. when you see, that you are total compassion, that
nothing happens to you, that everything, whatever is, is because you are,
and you are the all-perceiver of what you are. That there is no difference
between this eye looking at something or the other eye, you are this
infinite eye, which looks from infinite angles into what you are. That you
are this infinite perception, which is perceiving only Self-information.
And the main thing is, to see, that for that what you are there is no way
out of it. Because you are the very essence of that what is. For the essence
there is no way out. And in this resignation, that for that what you are, as
the essence or the substratum of that what is, that there is no way out,
because you are the very source of that what is, as being what you are, only
then there is this peace.

J: Right, there is no more urge; there is no more seeking.

K: No attempt. Because there is no idea, or hope for you.

J: .of improvement.

K: .there is no hope left. You are in a total hope-lessness.

J: There is no need for it.

K: You are in a total despair. As long as it's total. It has to be an
absolute despair, an absolute hopelessness. As long as there is a little
hope, this little hope needs one who has the hope.

J: .yes, it's an urge.

K: .but in this absolute hopelessness it's an absolute annihilation of. when
there is no hope left. so there is no one who hopes anymore. And then there
is this absolute peace. Then you experience, that that what you are never
needed any escape. Because this is perfection itself. You are just that what
is real and doesn't need any relative, whatever, satisfaction, because you're
ever satisfied just being what you are. That you cannot get more satisfied
by objects than you already are. So nothing can satisfy you. Because you are
that what is absolutely satisfied by just being what it is.

J: There is no need.

K: Yes, that what you are has no necessity at all. But all you perceive
needs you, to be. You are the very source. This is absolutely needed for
that what is sensational to exist. So, existence needs you, but you don't
need to exist to exist.
And then it's existence-lessness. Because that what you are is not even in
the need to exist to exist. And then there is no idea anymore of existence.
Because then there is just. not even a word for it.

J: But still, you say: then.

K: As now.

J: (giggling.) Yes.

K: Yeah, just see that this what you can perceive needs you, but you don't
need anything what is world, time, space. Be absolute, not relative, that's
all the meaning of it.


J: But this talking, that's going on right now, is actually always hitting
the idea, hitting the impact, hitting the force of the I-idea.

K: The concept.
You can say, in the very absence of any idea of self, and in the absence of
this absence, is the presence or the naked Self. And this nakedness can only
create nakedness.

J: This looks like very far away. It looks like you need absence, and then
the absence of the absence; it looks like many conditions.

K: You need the absence of any condition and then even the absence of the
absence of a condition. And then you are what you are.

J: But you are it anyway.

K: But you are it anyway. But this you may call the presence, and the only
presence of the Absolute. In the very absence of any separation, and in the
absence of this absence of separation, is the presence of the Absolute.

J: And the point is, to be that.

K: No, you are it anyway. To see, that you are it anyway, with or without
this knowledge. This is absolute knowledge. But this doesn't need the
relative knowledge of any object, or realisation of anything. This is the
absolute realisation, which doesn't need to realise itself.

J: That's home.

K: Whatever you say. Don't land on this.

J: Oh, I heard this one before. Keep flying.

K: You will never, you can never reach your ground. Because that what you
are has no ground. But itself is the ground for everything. But the ground
has no ground. You as the source have no source, but you are the source of
whatever is. So never look for the source of the source, this is stupidity.
This is really stupid, for the source to look for the source. Because the
source is already the source, whether it looks or doesn't look. And if you
see, that you already were the source, and always will be, you see, how
stupid it was to look for the source, as the source. Because the source has
no source. And when Nisargadatta said, you are the child of a barren woman,
it means, that what you are has no coming and no going. It never was born
and never may die. Because it was not born.


J: (to Anasuya) So now you can come with your question.

A: Yes, it's more relative. So, my fifth question is: is there anything that
can be done for enlightenment, are there favourable conditions?

K: Is there anything that you can not do for enlightenment? Whatever you do
comes out of enlightenment and is in favour of enlightenment. But there is
no special thing you can do for enlightenment. Whatever is done is because
of enlightenment and is done in favour of enlightenment.

A: So, that comes back to, that there is no difference, to listen to you or
to go to the movie.

K: There are infinite differences and everything is unique, but nothing

A: Nothing helps. so no favourable conditions.

K: No.

A: .circumstances.

K: No.

A: So, the company with the saints or the Master.

K: All the circumstances are favourable, or none. Because you are always in
the absolute presence of what you are. Because without the presence of the
Self nothing is. The Self is all there is. So when there is a presence, it's
the presence of the Self, in whatever it appears. So, to make something
special out of it is part of the ignorance.

J: But then, why are we going to places like Arunachala or to Masters, to be
around them, to be in their presence?

K: Because that's part of the show. It's exactly as it's meant to be. And
there is no mistake. Because there is no one who could make a mistake. So
there is no separate God, no creator, who made ever any mistake. So as there
is no creator and no creation, the very idea of mistake, or right and wrong,
is merely an idea. As the creator is an idea, and the creation is an idea.

A: But Ramana said that Arunachala is the Self.

K: As you are the Self. And as Ramana said, there was never any Ramana, and
never will be. Self is all. As Arunachala, or.

A: So, what attracts people to Arunachala?

K: Self is attracted to the Self. You may say, Arunachala is like awareness,
like the primal light of awareness, which attracts the Self to the Self.
Like a Guru, like cosmic consciousness is more attractive than separate
consciousness. The separate consciousness is always attracted by the cosmic
consciousness. And then the cosmic consciousness is attracted by pure
awareness. And then the pure awareness is final, because prior to awareness
you cannot name, you cannot define, you can do nothing.
But you go through all the three states, to see, that all the three states
are purely Self. That there is no advantage in awareness, and that there is
no disadvantage in "I am Karl". In all three states the Absolute is the only
thing, which is. The only reality is Self. And that is in awareness, in the
"I am" and in "I am Karl". I am absolutely the Absolute.
And this is pure Ramana: "As Ramana I am absolutely man", and pure Jesus:
"As Jesus I am the absolute man". But I am absolute, that's the main thing,
being absolute, the Absolute. That's the main thing. As man, as
consciousness, or as awareness, makes no difference. "Me and the Father are
one, but I'm not the Father."


A: Many seekers have strong spiritual experiences, considered as
realisation, awakening. Later on they seem to fall back into the previous
state of egotic functioning. What would you say about that?

K: Idiotic functioning?

A: Yes, idiotic functioning. That happens all the time.

K: Yes, that's what they call individual consciousness awakening to cosmic
consciousness. But what can wake up, can go back to sleep again.

A: So that's just cosmic consciousness these realisations, it's a special

K: Yeah, the Self doesn't need to wake up because the Self is ever awake,
and what can wake up, is consciousness from one state to another state, and
then to this state. In consciousness everything is possible, but for the
Self that doesn't mean any advantage or disadvantage. For consciousness
there are infinite circumstances, or consciousness is creating infinite
circumstances. But it's consciousness, in this way it's Lila or Samsara or

A: Creation.

K: It's a reflection of that what is the absolute light, but not the light
itself. And that what is a reflection, a fleeting shadow in time, or time
itself, whatever happens in this, coming and going, and this awakening and
sleeping and whatever state, is not the Self.

A: It's all in the play.

K: It's all in the play. So, the one who can awaken or be enlightened, can
also go back to that what is not enlightened. As long as there is an idea of
enlightenment, or one who is enlightened, there is an unenlightened one.

A: Aha, like teacher and seekers.

K: As long as there is a teacher, even the teacher has something to learn.


A: Aha. And then, many who have some awakening, they declare themselves
realised and they start being teachers. How to make a distinction between a
realised ego and the realisation of the ultimate reality?

K: As long as you have a question, who is and who is not, just look to
yourself, look into what is here with you. The other ones don't count. No
one can help you to be what you are. And the very question, if someone is
right or wrong, or is or is not, doesn't help. Because that what counts is,
who are you, not, who is somebody else. If this somebody else is realised or
not, will never help you. So look who is here who needs help. And then look
if there is somebody who could help you, because both are concept and ideas.
So when Ramana said, look from where this I thought comes, that's the main
thing, the direct path. Go closest as you can come to what you are. And that
is the I-thought, where all this. the spider, which is spinning all the
time. And then look, if the spider is what you are. Look, if that what is
spinning, as the creator of that what is creation, is what you are. Or if
you are not prior to the spider. Because whatever you can define, whatever
you can perceive, whatever you can take as a sensation, cannot be what you
are. So you go always more and more back, to become more and more what you

A: So, it's like the wrong direction to try to discriminate.

K: No, this is part of discrimination. This is the final discrimination that
you cannot be what you can perceive. And then finally you see, even the
perceiver is part of the perception. So even the perceiver you can perceive.
So you can't be the perceiver. So, even the I-thought as perceiver becomes a
fiction. And then you see, you are the only real thing that is. You are
Reality itself. Because whatever you can perceive is not real. Because it
depends on you to exist. And this pure existence is the very ground of
existence. And whatever is dancing on this ground is not the ground. It's
merely a dance, of life, of existence, of dreamlike sensations, fleeting


A: The presence of a realised being is very uplifting. (all cracking up)

L: .I know some downlifts!

K: .Full stop.

L: .I know some hundred-elephant-pressures.

A: .and has the power to temporarily be contagious.

K: The what?

A: The presence of a realised being is very uplifting and has the power to
temporarily be contagious.

K: Yeah, that what may happen is, it takes the very ground away from you. It
lifts you up in the air where you can't breath. bread is good too. You can't
bread any idea anymore. Because in this emptiness of air, this emptiness of
concepts, you can't bread anymore any idea, no idea comes out anymore. So,
even the I-thought doesn't appear. In this emptiness, in this nakedness of
the Self even the I-thought has no air to exist. So, in this emptiness of
emptiness you may see that you don't need that what is air, or anything.
Nothing is needed for you to be what you are. If this happens, this is
But this is very painful for that what is not Self. And only Self can take
it. Only Self can take the Self. And nothing can be the Self except the
Self. And in this emptiness of emptiness only Self can be what is Self. And
that what is not Self gets crushed.

A: It hurts.

L: It hurts, it's not uplifting, it's downlifting.

K: It's annihilating, and annihilation hurts. It's crushing. Hundred
elephants running over you. Stampede.

A: But that seems to be connected with the presence of a realised being.

K: No, that what you mean is, that the grace of the Self, pitying the Self.

A: Compassion.

K: .that's compassion. When compassion is arising, no one can take the
compassion. No one can resist. And then resistance is futile, and grace is
annihilating that what you are not. And this annihilation seems to be not so
much pleasure.

A: Because there is another thing. Listening to talks about the truth, some
people look very depressed, they're getting more and more depressed instead
of more and more free.

K: Yeah, the emptiness makes depressed. Because emptiness is the absence of
any. it's a vacuum, there is nothing to breath anymore, there is no sense
anymore, there is the emptiness of sense, there is the emptiness of hope,
there is the emptiness of any idea. Mmmh, that's fun.

A: For whom?

K: For that what you are. But only that what you are can enjoy it. And that
what is in the need of anything can never enjoy it, because this means death
for any idea of what you are. This is killing any idea of what you are. This
is taking everything away what you think you own. And even the owner has to
disappear. Finally this is even the annihilation of that what is the owner,
the I-thought. And that is grace, and grace shows no mercy.

A: Because there is this idea always when one is depressed, or feeling
really not so good, that.

K: .he complains.

A: .he complains, but that it can get better.

K: .and then he complains to himself.

A: .it's better to be better, this is the idea, than to be down and

K: Yeah, yeah, and then they sit there and complain to me: why are you so
bad to me. Why is this so painful? I thought this was all blissful, all
heavenly and enjoyable.

A: So, this depression, can this be associated to darkness? Because there is
always this idea of Sattva, light, purity, and then darkness and.

K: The absolute light is the very absence of any relative light or darkness.
So you can even say, it's the absolute darkness or absolute light, makes no
difference. The Absolute, as the source of any light and darkness, can never
be seen and never be perceived, so it appears like very unperceivable. And
this means, very dark, like a black hole.

A: Like dark energy.

K: Pfff. it's the very source, everything comes out of it, the joy and the
pain. The bliss and the depression come out of it. But, to take the bliss is
very easy for everybody. But first there comes the honeymoon with bliss, and
out of the honeymoon. Grace shows its face first with bliss, as a honeymoon,
from the "I am Anasuya" to the "I am" into the Nirvana of non-form. But then
in this knowledge of non-form you are put back into the form.

A: Depression.

K: So, you know, but you don't know. You know that you are not that, but you
can't escape that what you are not. You can't escape the form, so finally
comes the point where there is no way out. You thought, the non-form would
be like a home for you, that there is a home for you. Because it needs one
to be at home, that there is a home. But then you see, even that is not
home. Because this is coming and going too, this is not final. So, and then
you go back to the form, you see this is not final, and then slowly but
surely you resign. That's grace.

A: So what is resignation?

K: You had signed in, to the idea that you exist, and in this resignation
you sign out of existence.

A: Is it like, whatever happens you say yes, yes, yes. Yes, okay, okay, no
problem. Like this?

K: No. No one is there who says anything anymore. It's an absolute Yes or
No. It's an absolute Yes even to No.

A: Means, you are not the yes, you are not the no.

K: The main thing is, it's absolute, it's total, when you say absolutely No.

A: What do you mean by absolutely No?

K: Absolute, not relative. Not maybe. You don't say maybe no, maybe yes, you
say absolutely Okay.

A: Absolutely not okay!

K: .or absolutely not okay.

A: That's not resignation!

K: But then it's okay too. You resign, that you can change it. At that
moment, in this very now, you say absolutely Yes. No problem. You say
absolutely No, no problem. When you are absolute, no problem.

J: But nobody can be absolute.

K: You are absolute. Who can not be absolute?

J: Yes, but a person cannot be absolute, person is an absolute idea.

K: A person was never there, how can it be absolute. When only the Absolute
was there.

L: And then, who is saying Yes and who is saying absolutely No? Who is left
to say it?

K: I say, if there is an absolute Yes, I didn't say, one says Yes. Don't put
words into my mouth.

L: I'm not putting, I'm asking only questions.

K: Ha ha ha ha ha

J: So, it's the Absolute that says absolutely Okay.

K: Mischievous pig! (Leonor is a pig in Chinese astrology)

L: This is on the tape! You have to cut it.

J: No, no, we write it. We write it out, in big letters. It's the headline
for the new chapter.

K: The mischievous pig was asking.

A: There is a mischievous pig and then a.

J: .and a Mister Chievous pig.

K: Mr Pig and Mrs Pig. Chief pig and mischievous pig

A: (to Johannes) and, you wanted to say something?

J: ---

A: Nirvana!

K: You never know.

A: Vipassana.

J: Oh yes, what is vipassana good for?

K: That the passing may pass.

L: That the whip may pass?

K: That the whip may pass. whip ass. whip my ass, whipassana. The very
question, what is whip-asana? Or, I'm sitting so long on my ass and meditate
that I can whip my ass, as if I had whipped my ass.

A: Circulation.

K: Vipassana is good for ass whipping.

A: And Chi-Gong? Chi-Gong is.

K: Shicking, shicking goong?

A: A Chinese chicken

K: Shinese shicking taste better than German chicken, is shikoong.


(little French section with Tia skipped)


M: But there is a release in hearing that.

K: Yes, the only release, to be released from the idea that you have to be
released. The release is, that you never can be released from what you are.
And that is an absolute release. Because then there is no attempt to escape,
or anything. Because there is no hope left that you can ever escape what you
are. And that's the biggest release, from the idea of release. That you
never can be released from what you are is the biggest release.

M: Yes, bingo.

K: The only release. that there is no release. And absolutely no one who is
in the need of release. Release me. take these chains from my heart.
(starts singing in falsetto) Please release me, let me go, I don't love you
Yes, that's the main thing, Self-love. As long as you love the world or
yourself, there are two selves. So this song is really true. I don't love
you anymore. There is no one who loves anything anymore. I have no
relationship to myself anymore. There is no relationship.

J: And no other ship.

K: And no shit at all. I shit on the ship, until the ship goes down.

A: There is no relationship.

K: No relationshit.

A: No friendship, French shit.

K: Because there is no one, there is no two, so there is no relation. I can
never relate to myself because there is no second Self. So there is no
relation. So there is neither connection nor disconnection. And no relation,
and no disrelation. So you can never divorce from what you are, because you
were never married.

A: So when you say, I don't love you anymore.

K: That means, I see, there is no second Self to love. So there is not even
love for myself anymore. And I don't have to love myself to be myself. So
there is no need of any idea of love or freedom, or any idea of truth or
anything, for me to be what I am. No necessity.

A: So, I am love itself and I am meanness itself.

K: You don't have to say, I am love itself, or anything, love doesn't exist
anymore. Only that what you are exists, is real. But this doesn't even
exist. Because if it would exist, you would always ask, in what. What is the
source of existence? So this is an absolute existence, which even exists
when it doesn't exist. So this is a help-word too, a help-definition, but it
comes closest to that what is absolute, total. Without any ground, which has
no ground. The one without a second. Whatever you say, it's just like a
Para. para. para ox.

A: .pluie, parapluie.

K : Paraplus.

A: Parapluie is umbrella.

J: Parachute.

K: Para-shooter, poff poff poff poff poff.

J: Shooting from the Para.

K: I'm shooting out of the prior into the prior. I'm a prior-shooter.

J: Karl the Para-shooter, this we make as a headline.

A: I'm a prior shot.

J: We make it as a headline for the Troisième Millénaire: Karl, the

K: You get wet even under my umbrella.

A: Parapluie.

K: Come under my umbrella.

J: .I will make you wet.

K: .you will be baptised. into what you are. Johannes the Baptist. Baptista.
Johannes della Bapis bap bapip bapissta.

J: bapiss dich!


A: And Leonor, you want to say something?

L: Yes, I can say many things.

K: What?

L: He looks already so bad at me.

J: You could say now, Karl is not right.

L: Karl has never been right, I would say.
No, but I can say, basically what it comes down to is, that me, the person
the person, I think, who I am, or who relates to myself, will never be able
to realise itself. Because there is the "I" "I".

K: Because it's already realized.

L: It's even realised in not seeing that it is.

K: You cannot get more realised than you already are. How can a realised pig
get more realised than a realised pig is already realised?

L: Yes, it would at least know, that it is realised, but that it doesn't

K: The pig wants to know the butcher.

L: Well, the butcher is sitting here. (pointing to Karl)

K: Yes, but by knowing the butcher the pig doesn't know what the pig is.

A: By knowing the butcher the pig gets.

J: .unpigged.

K: Grace is the butcher for the pig, and when grace appears the pig gets

L: Yes, but the thing is, the pig is waiting for grace somehow, and it's
waiting and waiting for grace, and at the same time.

K: Grace is waiting for grace, what a joke.

L: .and at the same time running away, because it's totally scared.

K: That's the whole joke, the Self is waiting for the Self, grace is waiting
for grace, what a joke.

L: But it cannot even say, now I don't wait anymore, because that's also not

K: That's what I say; you can resign, in waiting.

L: Yes, but I cannot resignate, it's not possible.

K: The resignation to wait.

L: Resignation resigns me.

K: .Kuwait. who wait.

L: You are not serious, when I ask questions!

J: This is wait woo wait.

L: You only get nervous and make me a pig in Kuwait.

K: Don't wait; a sheik will take you to Kuwait. And there you will be
butchered by. You will became a camel.

L: Thank you very much, and what else? Your predictions are very nice.

A: .from pig to camel.

K: .and then you will understand the saying, inch Allah - but bind your

L: Oh, this is the worst you have said, this is wrong.

K: What?

L: About binding the camel, who's gonna bind the camel?

K: Yes, but who is not binding the camel?

J: Wait until you are a camel, you will see who's gonna bind you.

K: You are sitting here as a camel and want to be bound by a butcher. But
the butcher doesn't bind you, the butcher is butchering you.

L: Both, it's binding and butchering. It's like I'm in a prison and all the
doors are open. Or, the butcher is standing with a knife all the time in
front of you: I will butcher you, I will butcher you.

K: Then you see, that this butcher will never butcher you. Because that what
you are cannot be butchered.

L: It's only a threat.

A: It's just, whatever is butchered can be butchered.

K: I kill you, ha ha ha ha, I kill you, hm hm hm hm.

J: I'm gonna kill you!

K: I'm gonna kill you!

L: So then res.

K: .kill you.

L: .ignation is okay.

K: Wait. I kill you.

L: It's like this, isn't it?

A: It's like the kids say.

K: Kill me. - I don't kill you.
.until no one cares anymore about being killed or not killed.

L: I'm coming very close to that, very close.

K: See, you see.

L: Yes really, it's true.

K: The butchery is working without butchering.

A: (to Leonor) How do you know that?

L: Because about certain things I just don't care anymore.

K: The caretaker dries out. It's like the drying up of a lake. And then the
lake gets less and less; the water gets less and less. It seems like. It's a

A: But then again, you make it look again like a process.

K: Yeah, it's a process, like from identified consciousness to
non-identified consciousness; it's still the same.

A: But there is no advantage.

J: No, but the process still can happen even if there is no advantage.

K: The process is still there, but you may say that the process doesn't
happen to anybody. There is still a process. But this functioning of the
process doesn't need one who has this process. Because the one who thinks he
has a process, is part of the process. So that what she thinks is like,
there is a perceiver who is perceiving a less of whatever.

A: Less desires.

K: Less desires. But both are part of the process. But for that what she
really is, the essence, there is no process. But there is still a process.
To say, there is no process, means nothing.

J: So, that takes everything out of what we said before.

K: Takes out?

J: Yes, yes, because you said the opposite, but it is the same. You said,
there is no functioning, there is no process.

K: No, to say, there is no functioning, makes this functioning. When you say
something, like, there is no cup, it makes a cup.

J: Yes, certainly, yes.

K: So, to say, there is no cup, or, there is a cup, means nothing. The only
thing that counts is to see, that you are not the cup. But to say, there is
a cup or no cup, it's still not that what you are. To make a distinction, to
say, this is an illusion, doesn't mean anything.

A: All is illusion, all is a dream.

K: It's all bullshit.

A: .it never helped anyone.

K: So, that's what I mean. To see, there is no process, makes the process.
Because this, what is the root, the I-thought, is still there, with and
without a process.

A: So, in this process, like lots of desires to less desires, it's a

K: Yes, there is, but there is not.

A: .but there is no advantage.

K: There is a process, but no one has this process. There is no owner of
this process; there was never anybody who was in this process.

J: But there is the impression of an owner.

K: The owner is part of the process.

J: It looks like there is an owner, but there is none.

K: No, there is. The owner is part of the process, but that what you are was
never inside the functioning. You are not an object of functioning; you are
prior to the functioning. But the owner-idea, the I-thought is part of the
functioning. But to say, there is no functioning, means nothing, because
this would put the I-thought as being prior, but the I-thought is part of
the functioning.

L: That's what I mean. The I-thought comes after.

K: With the functioning.

L: With the functioning.

K: With the functioning. Because the I-thought is part of the functioning.

L: And that's where I started off, because of the I-thought is after, all
"I" can relate to is after, always after that what is Absolute. So it never
can touch the Absolute. Or, it is the Absolute, but at the same time it is
the realisation of the Absolute.

K: No, it's not the Absolute, it's the shadow of the Absolute.

L: Yes, so it can never know the Absolute.

K: No, the Absolute cannot know the Absolute. And that what is the I-thought
can never know. The Absolute cannot be known.

L: No, It's a dark black hole that cannot be known.

K: Pfff. whatever you say. Dark black hole, white black hole. There is a
white black hole!


A: But I come back to more or less desires. There is no advantage then, to
have less desires.

K: No, because for an advantage, it would need one who could have an

A: Right, because this really something that we heard all the time, that
there is advantage in being more desireless.

K: How can the Desire-lessness become more desireless than Desire-lessness?
Because you are Desire-lessness right now. And desire and no-desire are just
a shadow, or a reflection of that what is Desire-lessness. So you cannot get
less or more than you are. With or without desires you are still what you
are. Good deeds, bad deeds.


L: Karl, but at the same time, in this seeming process of the person, there
is something happening, when people are around you. They lose interest in
certain things, it's also an energetic thing, kind of things die just off.
How many lose money, and they just don't want to work.

K: You may say this is an interrelation in consciousness, which is like a
chain reaction. A karmic consciousness thing, that when emptiness appears,
it appears in every circumstance. And it's like getting more and more empty
on all levels. In material, in ideas, in whatever level the emptiness
appears. And this is called grace. And this takes away all your ideas,
because money is another idea, or love, or relationship, all what you are
connected to, what you relate to, gets annihilated.
This is grace. This is grace of the Self having mercy on the Self. This is
the merciful Self giving grace. And the grace is, emptiness is arising more
and more. And emptiness is arising on every level. And this emptiness is
total. Whatever has to go will be annihilated, and at last the I-thought.
For sure.

L: Yeah, but, mmmh, I'm waiting for the annihilated I-thought.

K: You will annihilate the I-thought! The I-thought wants to annihilate the
I-thought, yeah, wonderful! Still controlling the annihilation. You will be
dropped when you will be dropped, but not when you want to be dropped.

L: Yes, I want to control it; I want to have it my way.

K: You drop will be dropped when the drop will be dropped. You little drop
you. You dropper. Or you're a tripper, no dripper.

L: Well, well, this is being taped, the tripper.

J: Stripper? The stripper is being taped.

K: Stripper, tripper, dipper.

L: (to Anasuya) So you'll have to translate stripper into French.

A: That's the same word; I don't even have to translate.

L: .and tripper and dripper and all those.

K: But in Germany, you know what Tripper is?

J: It's gonorrhoea.

A: Aha.

K: Having too much sex with yourself.

J: It's gonorrhoea. it's gone or here. it's gone already.

A: How can you have sex with yourself?

K: How can you not have sex with yourself? When there is sex, there is sex
with the Self. And when there is satisfaction, there is self-satisfaction.

A: And when there is selfdisfat.disfatisfaction?

K: Then there is selfsdisfacsi fassa ssa ssa ssas...

L: Disfucktysession.

K: Disfucktysession!



talks www.karlrenz.com
paintings www.karlrenz.de

Home    Boeken  Gastenboek   Links   Satsang  Spanjeproject  Tibet