The Whole Universe is a Temple
29 October 1969 pm iation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: YOU HAVE SHOWN US THE METHOD OF ION FOR REALIZING THE TRUTH OR THE DIVINE BEING -- THE METHOD OF EXCLUDING EVERYTHING ELSE IN ORDER TO KNOW THE SELF.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT BY DOING THE OPPOSITE? WE NOT TRY TO SEE GOD IHING? WE NOT FEEL HIM IN ALL?
It will be helpful to uand this.
One who ot realize God within himself ever realize him in all.
One who has not yet reized God within himself ever reize him in others.
The self means that which is o you; then anyone who is at a little distance from you will have to be sidered as being farther away.
And if you ot see God in yourself, which is you, you ot possibly see him in those far from you.
First you will have to know God in yourself; first the knower will have to know the divine -- that is the door.
But remember, it is very iing that the individual who enters his self suddenly finds the entrao all.
The door to ones self is the door to all.
No sooner does a maer his self than he finds he has entered all, because although we are outwardly different, inwardly we are not.
Outwardly, all leaves are different from each other.
But if a person could pee just one leaf, he would reach to the source of the tree where all the leaves are in unison.
Seen individually, each leaf is different -- but once you have known a leaf in its interiority, you will have reached to the source from which all leaves emanate and into which all leaves dissolve.
One who enters himself simultaneously enters all.
The distin between I and you remains only so long as we have ered within ourselves.
The day we enter our I, the I disappears and so does the you -- what remains then is all.
Actually, all does not mean the sum of I and you.
All means where I and you have both disappeared, and what subsequently remains is all.
If I has not yet dissolved, then one certainly add Is and yous, but the sum will not equal truth.
Even if one adds all the leaves, a tree does not e into being -- even though it has had all the leaves added to it.
A tree is more than the sum of all the leaves.
In fact, it has nothing to do with addition; it is erroneous to add.
Adding oo another, we assume eae is separate.
A tree is not made of separate leaves at all.
So, as soon as we ehe I, it ceases to exist.
The first thing that disappears wheer within is the sense of being a separate entity.
And when that I-ness disappears, you-ness and the other-ness both disappear.
Then what remains is all.
Its not even right to call it all, because all also has the otation of the same old I.
Hehose who know would not even call it all; they would ask, "The sum of what? What are we adding?" Furthermore, they would declare that only one remains.
Although they would perhaps eveate to say that, because the assertion of one gives the impression that there are two -- it gives the idea that alone one has no meaning without the corresponding notion of two.
Os only in the text of two.
Therefore, those who have a deeper uanding do not even say that one remains, they say advaita, nonduality, remains.
Now this is very iing.
These people say that "Two are not left.
" They are not saying "One remains," they ar