One day, at a breakfast
with Karl, the following conversation ensued:
is there such thing as realisation?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
awareness of the Self, to be the Self. That what is prior to
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
for the Self to be conscious of the Self, or not conscious of
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
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
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,
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
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.
whatever the Self is perceiving is part of the perception. But
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
Because, it's always wrong because this comes out of the idea
And what comes out of the idea of separation, of the separate
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
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
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
creation and no creator. All there is is Self and there is no
that's all. And there is no creator and no creation. That's the
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
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
J: As an entity.
K: As a separate entity.
J: Yes, but as a function, you could
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
ideas, is what you are. And the explanation means nothing. Putting
concept about another concept and making a clear concept is not
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
understand, nor how it functions. Just see, Self is all, and
functioning is the Self. And you are this absolute functioning.
is functioning you are that what is functioning. Because you
are the very
Self, what is always the essence of functioning and the very
functioning. So you are the source and the functioning, and there
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
and no way out of that what they are. That they may just cognise
are. by not cognising it. That they see, whatever they can cognise
what they are.
But without this absolute perceiver nothing would be there. Even
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
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,
that what is the real Self. All is part of the unfolding, because
is Self never unfolds itself. It's always this stillness, which
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
you are is not a concept, that's all. And this is an absolute
exist. Even when you are not. Because you have to experience
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
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
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
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
or doesn't realise anything.
So just see, you are not needed for the Self to realise. And
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
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
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,
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
the Self never cares about that what is not Self. The Self is
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
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
time and space. Just see that that what you are cannot be touched
what is sensational or phenomenal.
K: Cosmic, whatever. Whatever idea cannot
touch what you are. So even the
idea of identified consciousness, cosmic consciousness, awareness,
merely ideas in time and space. That what is in time and space
what is prior to time and space. And that is what you are, without
J: With awareness are not yet there time
and space, they come with
K: No, already awareness is the first
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
selves. This simply can happen when there is already a kind of
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
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".
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,
they don't want to name it. They don't want to fix it; they don't
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
awareness, cosmic consciousness and the identified consciousness.
is still separation. So if you would call it awareness, it would
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,
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,
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
even in the world and time and space, totality is all there is.
your nature and totality is all there is. You are the Absolute,
unfolding of the Absolute is as absolute as that what is unfolding
and total as it is.
And it won't be more absolute or more total by your understanding,
clarification, or your realisation. That's the main part. It
anything if you realise anything, or not realise, it means nothing.
totally without need. You're just an image, which pops up and
without any need of realisation.
As long as you think, you are this.
J: .right, as long as you think you are
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
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
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
still the Self, because all there is is Self. That's only what
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
this is finite, this comes and goes. For you it's as if it comes
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
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
sufferer. As long as you look for the end of suffering, there
will be even a
sufferer without suffering. So there is consciousness identified,
there will be consciousness disidentified. But still there is
an "I am" or a
sufferer, maybe not suffering, but this sufferer, any moment
attention, can go back to suffering. So, what is the annihilation
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
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
J: But that means, this idea of separate
self collapses, it just vanishes at
K: That what is spontaneously arising,
as an "I am" idea of I-thought, can
only spontaneously disappear. Because the Self itself has no
something gets annihilated, because the Self only knows the Self
the Self. And that what is part of the realisation of the Self,
comes and goes, who cares? First there must be one who cares
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
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
consciousness for the absolute self-satisfaction in the ignorance
already absolutely satisfied, because they are that what is Self,
ever satisfied. In this ignorance of what they are, as consciousness,
are striving for that what is the Substratum or the absolute
Self. They are looking for infinite happiness, in the ignorance,
they are not happy. In this idea of separation, as an I-thought,
the sense of imperfection. And out of the sense of imperfection
looking for perfection, in the ignorance, that what they already
absolute perfection itself. So both, the butcher and the seeker
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
A: But there is a point of no return,
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
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
this one be who cares about an appearance. This we call the ignorance
Self, becoming a separate self, a little self, which takes an
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
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
is a suicidal attempt of the Self, so it's Self-suicide. If you
shadow of what you are to go, you want yourself to go. Because,
are there because you are. And there is no way out. As long you
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
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
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
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
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
are now to be absolute or to be happy.
A: So any kind of attempt is a waste
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 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
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
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,
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.
long as there is enlightenment and enlightened ones, there are
ones. But that what is the Self is never enlightened or not enlightened.
is always prior to all these ideas of enlightenment or non-enlightenment,
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
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
are, and will always be. That what you are is not in time, because
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
there is no process. You just see, that that what you are was
and the only real thing that was never touched from whatever
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,
J: No, but you had this flip-over, let's
call it, from identified "I am
K: ."I am".
J: .cosmic consciousness, and then you
described it as.
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
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.
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
difference, and that there is no separation. And that makes it
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
and you are the all-perceiver of what you are. That there is
between this eye looking at something or the other eye, you are
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
needed any escape. Because this is perfection itself. You are
just that what
is real and doesn't need any relative, whatever, satisfaction,
ever satisfied just being what you are. That you cannot get more
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
that what is sensational to exist. So, existence needs you, but
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
This is really stupid, for the source to look for the source.
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
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
it means, that what you are has no coming and no going. It never
and never may die. Because it was not born.
J: (to Anasuya) So now you can come with
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
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.
A: So, the company with the saints or
K: All the circumstances are favourable,
or none. Because you are always in
the absolute presence of what you are. Because without the presence
Self nothing is. The Self is all there is. So when there is a
the presence of the Self, in whatever it appears. So, to make
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
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
is merely an idea. As the creator is an idea, and the creation
is an idea.
A: But Ramana said that Arunachala is
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
Like a Guru, like cosmic consciousness is more attractive than
consciousness. The separate consciousness is always attracted
by the cosmic
consciousness. And then the cosmic consciousness is attracted
awareness. And then the pure awareness is final, because prior
you cannot name, you cannot define, you can do nothing.
But you go through all the three states, to see, that all the
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,
"I am" and in "I am Karl". I am absolutely
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,
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
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
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
circumstances. But it's consciousness, in this way it's Lila
or Samsara or
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,
itself, whatever happens in this, coming and going, and this
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
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
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
one can help you to be what you are. And the very question, if
right or wrong, or is or is not, doesn't help. Because that what
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
So when Ramana said, look from where this I thought comes, that's
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
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,
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,
perceiver is part of the perception. So even the perceiver you
So you can't be the perceiver. So, even the I-thought as perceiver
fiction. And then you see, you are the only real thing that is.
Reality itself. Because whatever you can perceive is not real.
depends on you to exist. And this pure existence is the very
existence. And whatever is dancing on this ground is not the
merely a dance, of life, of existence, of dreamlike sensations,
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
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
concepts, you can't bread anymore any idea, no idea comes out
even the I-thought doesn't appear. In this emptiness, in this
the Self even the I-thought has no air to exist. So, in this
emptiness you may see that you don't need that what is air, or
Nothing is needed for you to be what you are. If this happens,
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
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
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.
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
A: Because there is another thing. Listening
to talks about the truth, some
people look very depressed, they're getting more and more depressed
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
difference. The Absolute, as the source of any light and darkness,
be seen and never be perceived, so it appears like very unperceivable.
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.
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,
comes the point where there is no way out. You thought, the non-form
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
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
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.
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
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
K: Mischievous pig! (Leonor is a pig
in Chinese astrology)
L: This is on the tape! You have to cut
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
J: .and a Mister Chievous pig.
K: Mr Pig and Mrs Pig. Chief pig and
A: (to Johannes) and, you wanted to say
K: You never know.
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
that I can whip my ass, as if I had whipped my ass.
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
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
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.
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
(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
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
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
relation. So there is neither connection nor disconnection. And
and no disrelation. So you can never divorce from what you are,
were never married.
A: So when you say, I don't love you
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
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
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
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
when it doesn't exist. So this is a help-word too, a help-definition,
comes closest to that what is absolute, total. Without any ground,
no ground. The one without a second. Whatever you say, it's just
Para. para. para ox.
A: .pluie, parapluie.
K : Paraplus.
A: Parapluie is umbrella.
K: Para-shooter, 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.
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.
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
No, but I can say, basically what it comes down to is, that me,
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
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.
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
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,
L: Yes, but I cannot resignate, it's
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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;
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,
this would put the I-thought as being prior, but the I-thought
is part of
L: That's what I mean. The I-thought
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and more. And emptiness is arising on every level. And this emptiness
total. Whatever has to go will be annihilated, and at last the
L: Yeah, but, mmmh, I'm waiting for the
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
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
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
J: It's gonorrhoea.
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...