Yesterday I paid attention to an interesting thing. There is a saying that is often used by people � �God is one�. And a though came to my mind that God is he, third person singular, and all these persons � first, second, they imply there is the other. �One� implies that there is no another one. But people for thousand of years had been saying �God is one�, thus combining incompatible concepts, because if God is one, who are you then who is telling this? So you are not included into this oneness. It turns out to be that one may say about oneness only using first person � �I am one�. That�s all. But all of them didn�t dare to say this, or they didn�t have enough experience. So as a result they had created an expression that used the language of multiple persons, and tries with the help of this language to speak about the single God. This means that people who had invented this phrase where stupid theorists. When a person has truly experienced oneness he won�t be able to say �God is one� � he either says nothing, or says in first person about oneness � �I�. That�s all. You can�t say another way about oneness � either �I am one� otherwise there is plurality. �God is one� � it is nonsense. It is a combination of incompatible linguistic concepts. And people don�t try to go deeper, i.e. to look at what they are saying. To put a little attention to the language aspect and we see that there is simple philosophy. In the mind any words could be combined, for example �cold fire� or �dry water�. And in the same way expressions about God and Truth could be build up. But if it is your experience, you can�t say that fire is cold. Your experience is the warmth of fire.

For instance, the Upanishad says: �I am That�, and this most closely expresses oneness. �That� here is not a symbol of the other. �That� points out that I am indescribable, I am that what is indescribable, what could be pointed at, but can�t be described.�

Yesterday we dealt with uniting of all three components: the body, the Being and the Seer into one whole. Western society comes across only with the illnesses connected with identification with the form, i.e. all the psychical illnesses are linked with the fact that I know myself as a form, and I don�t know myself as a Witness or Creator of life. Hence are certain tensions, conflicts, etc.

But in the East, when people started to practice meditation, they came across the illness of meditators. Some people both in the West and in Russia also start touching this. This topic wasn�t touched until a certain moment, because it had no actualization. But as there appeared Masters who began giving you the algorithm of what is called practice, some people began to really meditate, and not profane it. Consequently, now we face a certain situation that has been well known in the East long time ago. This is zen illnesses, i.e. the illnesses of those who meditate. It came out that in meditation there are its own illnesses, its own traps. While a person is playing in meditation, he cannot get ill, i.e. while you are making ice-cream from pastry, you won�t get sore throat from eating it. That�s why the issue of zen illnesses wasn�t that relevant till recent time. Due to the fact that some people started to go into it on a deeper level, there appeared a necessity to speak about these illnesses of meditation. It was well known in the East, and probably these illnesses have more problems than those of identification with form.�

Zen illnesses are identification with Being and Witness. As a matter of fact we are triple, i.e. we are form, Being and Witness. Any emphasis on one of these aspects while the others are neglected can be called an illness. And it�s important for you now to get acquainted with these illnesses, to understand and avoid them.�

As I�ve already said if you make an emphasis on any principle of the three � form, Being or Witness, while two others remain neglected, you are going to manifest certain inadequacy in life. Your challenge is to actualize in yourself all three components, then you live in integrity. Life has given you the body, has given you self-consciousness as the Being and has given you the Seer in order to experience all this, and if you have actualized all these principles in yourself, then you live in integrity.

A modern person has to learn to actualize all three constituents and at a certain point in life to manifest the constituent that is demanded by life. For example, when you go to the shop and the seller inquires if you like some good, he is not addressing your Witness, he may know nothing at all about him. Life in the face of the seller addresses your psychosomatic mechanism, i.e. actualizes your personal structure, it sees the structure and wants to get information from it. You may say � �I am not the one who chooses�. What the seller should do then? Do a meditation course? He isn�t addressing this level in you. To be adequate is to respond to the demand from the required level, i.e. to see what your psychosomatics reaction is, whether you like the good that is offered to you or not.

Another situation is possible � a disciple comes to a Master and the Master, in order to check if the Witness level is actuated in the disciple, asks �where do you come from?�. The question has a trick in itself and the disciple has to understand that this time, it is not to the shop that he came. The disciple says �from Denver�. And the Master asks �and how much does rice cost there?� The disciple begins to answer. So the Master has provoked the disciple.�

When an advanced disciple comes, he responds the question like �there is nowhere to come from, nowhere to go�, and the Master understands that a person of a certain level came to him, the one who knows that coming and going are relative things, and he came not for the relative, he came for the absolute. He wants to make it clear to the very end and announces it.

Try to miss a day at the office, come to your boss and when asked a question: �Why didn�t you come, where have you been?� respond like �There is nowhere to come from, nowhere to go�. This is called zen illness, when to the demand of the outer world the person isn�t able to actualize his periphery level, i.e. he becomes inadequate. To manifest the aspect that is not being addressed to is also a form of psychological disorder. That�s why when you actualize all three levels in yourself, there is an interesting situation � dependent on the factors of the outer world, you can say �I�, use first person, i.e. all three levels are you. If all the mankind were up to date with this, there would have been I number 1, I number 2 and I number 3 corresponding the levels. But as it�s not like this, you need to grasp on the spot which number is addressed to and from which number I to speak in this or that situation. Even so with the same person one can begin speaking about high matter �I am not a choosing Conscience, I am not changing��, and just in the same time, when asked if you like some tea, to switch to the corresponding level. Here is revealed the variety, i.e. a person can shine these facets like a diamond, and each facet reflects light from its own angle. And there is a diamond, its facets are worked on according to a certain technology and this is the masterpiece of art. i.e. one and the same light falls down and splits into millions of variations. The same with a man � the light of life is reflected in him and he can play millions of variations at once, depending on what is happening here. He may play various facets not opposing one another. From this point of view the opposite sides are not at variance with each other, but are mutually complementary. The same is with colours. If an artist had an approach that each color negates the other he won�t be able to paint canvases. And the fact that I am a certain psycho-physiological system doesn�t deny the Being and the Witness. The fact that I am having some likes on this level doesn�t deny that I can be a witness without choosing, and this makes an enrichment. And I am learning to live manifesting the facet that had most resonance with life for the given moment.

I call such person �a person of the new type�. This is a person that suffers neither from the materialism illness, when one is obsessed only by the form, nor from the meditation illness when one is obsessed by the choiceless witnessing, by his freedom. The first type is anxious about loosing their property, the second type bears a subtle form of division, thus separating themselves from the manifested Universe.

You need to see these levels and become aware of them so not to hang on in one of them for too long. For example I was hanging for some time, because I had no necessary information about this that I could apprehend. As soon as I got this information and became able to comprehend it, the situation closed immediately. This hanging on is due to the absence of the factors that could lead you from there and close the situation. And I am uncovering this to you now so that you weren�t sticking to those levels for too long. As Osho said � �The pathfinder is traveling along the unknown land; if he hasn�t got a Master he feels everything on his own back. However, later on these stages could be passed easier, as the mankind is also going its inner evolution and the technology of transmitting the subtle issues of meditation is enhancing.�

Q.: - But when you were passed these stages you were reading books with satsangs of Ramana Maharshi, weren�t you? There was the information that it is not enough to simply be aware of oneself as a Seer, you have to make one more turn and come back to the heart. Didn�t this information help you?

S.: - This information is spread along a huge amount of lots of other information and one needs a context; needs to understand what he calls �the heart�, what he calls �coming back� etc. It�s not easy to do something when there is no possibility to specify the meaning of the message by asking the one who told that things.�

I want you to become aware of all these three levels and that your I is present in each of them. You don�t deny the qualities of any level, but use them according to the situation. If you stay among ordinary people you don�t distinguish yourself by anything because your ordinary level is actualized, the level of the personal system. If you are in the company of awakened, you are also not distinguished by anything, because your self-consciousness is on the required level. You are able to keep up the conversation of any level.

Zen dialogs have their own beauty, because masters when testing the disciples where skipping from level to level. And if a disciple could not respond to the question, master understood that the latter hadn�t unified all the levels in oneself yet and can�t easily pass from one level to another.

One well-known saying about this is �First, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. Then mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. After that, mountains have once again become mountains and rivers have become rivers�. i.e. first, mountains and rivers were real and I was a part of this reality. Then they are no longer the reality, because I am the Seer and what I see is not me, it�s my dream. Then I understand that what I see is also me, and mountains are once again mountains and rivers are rivers. I am ordinary again. The stage when I as a Seer deny what I see as being not me � this is zen illness. That�s why Shankara, the founder of Advaita, has made three postulates. 1. Brahman is real. 2. Universe is not real. 3. Brahman is Universe. And many people came to Ramana for explanation of these postulates, because they couldn�t understand this. And Ramana gave a beautiful explanation. He said that Brahman is reality. The Universe isn�t real when you see it as being separate from Brahman. If you see the Universe as a thing in itself that exists separately from the Seer, then this Universe is not real. I.e. it�s not the Universe that is unreal but your idea about it. And if you see the universe as a manifestation of a single force, of Brahman, then this Universe is real.�

This is why you have to unify this trinity in yourself. Seer is your ability to know. Universe is what you know about. Being is what the universe is being formed in. Attention is what you see with. Why do people have such a strong mental tension? Because mentality that is working without being conscious of the Witness is overheated. The same as a motor operating without a cooling system is going to be quickly overheated. This is the way the mind of the western-type people works, it is always overheated. All the psychosomatic system is overloaded, because the level of the Witness is not actualized. And if I am aware of the Witness, this makes a relaxation effect on the mind, it cools it down. But if I slip away into the Witness and live it as the only reality, then the cooling system is working, but the motor isn�t, and it�s still impossible to drive. Totally cooled down, but without moving anywhere.

We are manifested here as an integrity, and if one of the fragments is missing, this could be called unsound. Thus, integrity gives health and an adequate respond. Notice the level someone speaks to you from, where his actualization is at the moment. It�s quite normal in the relative world to have a relative value system. But even when you make a choice in the relative world, you are aware of the witness part that doesn�t make choices, it is simply not actualized at this moment. But your awareness of it creates a background, and on this background the relative part works. And then the relative part is not over-tensed.�

Q.: - Is the expression �I make or I choose� correct? May be �the action or the choice occur� is more correct? May I say �I choose� and if I may, from which level then?

S.: - From the level of Being.

Q.: - Being makes a choice, does it?

S.: - Yes, it does. Being responds. Look how this happens � as the level of being is not programmed by the past, it can react and respond, but its response is not a consequence of the past. And it's possible to say that this is its freedom in responding or freedom in choosing. This is freedom from the past. But on the other hand, Being is integral, that is why in its response, it doesn�t have a choice. The choice is when there are two parts and someone has to choose between these parts. That�s why in the response of Being, on one hand there is freedom from the past, and on the other hand there is not any choice. Usually we understand it like this � when there is no choice, then it�s not freedom. And if there is a choice, then this is freedom. But here I can act only one way � the way the Whole has responded. And if the Whole in me is actualized, I feel that I don�t have any choice, the whole acts in the only way possible. But I am free in this because the respond of the Whole is not programmed by history. So, in this total choicelessness you get freedom.

Q.: - And where is �I choose� here?

S.: - You see something happening and you have a response. This response may be called the choice.

The same is with the action. If the level of Being is actualized in you, then while experiencing something that happens, it responds to it. This response is action. This action uses the psychosomatics of the body. If you identify yourself with the creative force of the Being at this moment, you indicate this force by the pronoun I and say � I act. If in this moment you identify yourself with the person, i.e. you call the person �I�, and you feel that some force is acting through you without taking your wishes into account, then you say � God is acting through me or Life is acting through me. Thus the language of bhakti appears � God does through me. But with the pronoun �I� you can denote this force, and then you are going to say �I do, I manifest myself in this world�.

Q.: - And what is called impersonal action?

S.: - Impersonal action is when we agree not to use the pronoun �I� and to use a word combination �impersonal action� instead of this.�

Q.: - But one may not use this word combination or the pronoun �I�, but say �the action is happening�.

S.: - One may not, but if we investigate something with the help of a dialog, if we use the gnyani method then we have to introduce some language structure. And we can either use the pronoun �I� or not use, but we have to be clear about the thing we apply it to.�

Q.: - But there is no �me� in this feeling, only the impersonal force.

S.: - Yes, and one may say that the impersonal force acts, or one may say that I act. Look, when I say �I�, I need to understand that this �I� is not linked to the psychosomatics of the body, but under this �I� the impersonal force is implied.�

Q.: - Yes, and when both interlocutors mean the impersonal force by �I�, the conversation is transferred into �what�s the weather� style, as if by nothing different from the talk on a personal level. So here is no sense to clarify I or not I.�

S.: - This is exactly at the level of the satsang to clarify these issues, when there is a disciple who doesn�t understand, but wants to, and there is a Master who has this understanding. Then this dialog appears, the play of this �I�, i.e. we are investigating. And a conversation on a personal level by form might not be different from that on the Witness level, it might be the same talking about weather, but the climate will be different. As Gurdjiev used to say, all talks on the personal level are always ended by a scuffle. And if people are conscious, their talks are always ended amicable; they may sit 24 hours, two days, a year together, but the conflict is impossible to happen. That is the difference.

Q.: - I�d like to come back to the previous discussion; the absence of choice is humility, isn�t it?

S.: - This is the way it is experienced � when I am speaking from the part of the body-mind mechanism. then I understand, that I do nothing here, either my past acts, or if the God in me becomes active He is acting through me. So, I am just a servant here. This is the bhakti language � I am serving God, I�m in service. Otherwise if God in me is not actualized, I feel that I am a machine; this is the language of Gurdjiev � I am a mechanism acting from the programmed past. In case of bhakti it is also the mechanism that is acting, but it is in service to Light, to the higher forces, and the psycho-physiology of such a person blossoms. One may call this humility. But if I transfer self-consciousness into the Light, this is not service. I say, I am the Creator, I am the master of my life; and this is another type of language. However if my actualization is in the body-mind mechanism, then proclaiming that I am a master of my life is inadequacy. If I see a person that is completely identified with the body-mind mechanism, and who proclaims at a time that he is doing something here, then I see that he is in deep delusion. But if I communicate to a person in whom the Being, the Light is active, and he says, I am the king, then I see he is adequate, he is speaking from the part of the force that is the King here, he is connected to it. So, Nisargadatta Maharaj, who had a Seer level actualized in himself, responded to the questions �what is your attitude to wars, to violence?� as if he didn�t care, as God created this world, let him take care of it then. This is the language of the Seer. It is not the language of the Absolute, which is at the same time the Seer, the God and the world. And from the part of the Seer he spoke: �This universe appears in Consciousness, Consciousness is Light, Light creates images, these images are functioning here somehow, so let the Light deal with what it creates. All this is reflected in me, but I don�t deal with this�.

And this was the position of the Seer. This is not the language of the Whole. From the Whole he would have said it differently. And this doesn�t mean that he isn�t aware of the Being and world levels, it is simply that at that moment for some certain person he was speaking from the part of the Witness, because in his wisdom he decided that it would be more appropriate.

How do you decide which �I� to speak from? Only in your wisdom. And wisdom is the depth of your self-consciousness, it can�t be measured, but it does exist.

There exists also the language of the Whole � �there is no freedom, no boundness�. When everything is one and the concepts of freedom and boundness can�t come up, as there is no the second who can bound you, and there is no the second from whom you are free. It is the same as with movement � we say that we can feel movement only as compared to something else. Peace is also comparative in this sense. Is it possible for you to feel that you don�t move if there is nothing moving in relation to you? i.e. you understand that you are sitting because something is flickering in front of you. If there is nothing flickering in front of you, how do you understand you are moving or not? There is no absolute immobility, because absolute immobility can�t be experienced. If you experience that you don�t move this moment, then there is something in comparison to that you don�t move. What is experiencing? This is friction, movement, it means there are two � the thing that is experienced and the one who is experiencing. This is why, if I am experiencing freedom, I am already in duality. If I have truly realized Advaita, I can�t say �I experience freedom�. That�s why they say that Buddha doesn�t know he is Buddha. And if you know you�re a Buddha, then you aren�t. True awakening lies beyond the bounds of freedom and boundness. You aren�t free nor bound, you are simply That is. That�s why experiencing one�s freedom is zen illness. One might live for a long time in this, but it is not realization. To be free is not realization.

Q.: So it is to be not free in something?

S.: It�s not about that you aren�t free in something, it is about you are not complete. As Satyam Nadin says: �Life is playing in freedom and boundness�. i.e. there is freedom in the Seer and boundness in the form. The Universe comprises both freedom and boundness in itself, and does this even simultaneously. If I choose boundness this is the life of an ordinary person or the illness of the living beings. If I choose freedom, then it is zen illness.

If I unite these two factors, then I say that I am so much whole that I comprise both freedom and boundness in myself. I am transcendental; I am beyond freedom and boundness. Consequently, I don�t have problems, neither with freedom, nor with boundness. When something limited appears in my perception, I go on being aware of my freedom. But in my freedom, I go on being aware of the limitedness of some life forms. In this respect I am not trying to move from limitedness to freedom, and I�m not afraid to loose my freedom. One can have attachment to things, and one can also have attachment to one�s independence � �I am independent, and this is valuable for me�.

Q.: - And did you, while being in the Seer for some time, have a fear of loosing your freedom?

S.: - No, I didn�t, but I had a kind of subtle feeling of imperfection, incompleteness.

Q.: - This is why I was asking you about fears, are they possible in this state? There is tension indeed, but for my part, it isn�t connected to the fear of death and fear to loose one�s freedom.

S.: - Everyone might experience it in their own way. I go through the whole range of possible feelings.

Q.: - Sumiran, I�d like to ask about bhakti who feels that it�s God or Being who is acting through him; if he is identified with the instrument, can he be aware of the Seer at the same time,?

S.: - Yes, he can, if he is an enlightened bhakti.�

Q.: - I can�t understand, how is that possible to experience these things at the same time?

S.: - It is that possible. There was Swami Ramdas, unfortunately his books are not translated into Russian; he was a contemporary of Ramana Maharshi and a well known Master in India and in the West. And he came to realization through bhakti, at the same time he was a strong gnyani, and when he was asked: �Ramdas, why do you go on singing mantras? You do know that you and Rama are one, don�t you?� - he answered: �Yes, but in this oneness there are still Rama, Ramdas and the process of worshipping. And all this is I. And this doesn�t prevent Ramdas from doing what he likes to do�. A person can realize that worshipping could be embedded into the psycho-physiological mechanism; and one of its parts is worshipping the other.

Q.: - Example of Ramdas is clear. Let�s have a look at another example. Do you remember I gave you a book of Bruno, where he says: �It is not me who is healing, it is God who is healing through me�. It is clear here that he is speaking from the part of the instrument and is aware of the divine force. How could we understand if he is aware of the Seer or not?

S.: - As I feel he was for sure aware that he is that God, that energy of the Being who is making the treatment. But regarding the Seer� It�s sometimes difficult to feel this though books. It�s clear why he used the language of the instrument, because it was very dangerous to use the language �I am God� in Germany at that time. He was pressed upon even with such a form of self-expression; what if he had told that he is God? But according to his manifestation it is clear that he was one with the force acting through him.

Q.: - I also wanted to ask one thing. You told us about the living beings� illness and zen illness. Are there any deviations from adequacy when one is identified with the Being level and what could these look like?�

S.: - On the level of Being, the main type of problem is that this state could any moment change into preoccupation and the person is well aware about this. Indeed, when a person totally comes out to the Witness level, from this level it�s virtually impossible to be preoccupied with the form. But there is such a danger from the Being level and it is a fact that when the sattvic energy comes to an end, you are again identified with a thing. Things are made of light and are reflected in the mirror. If you are a mirror the reflection doesn�t affect you then. But if you are the Light at any moment you can become a thing. And if you are a mirror you reflect both the Light and things, but a thing can never enter the mirror. Light is what moulds you, that�s why Light and a thing have one and the same reality. Light is an object and a thing is an object, they simply have different intensity of burning. The Seer is another level in principle, this is what reflects the object. And the second thing � there is no impartiality in Light. There is love, compassion, you suffer for your creature as a mother for the child. There is the care of Light for his creation. For example, you can feel Nisargadatta�s and Osho�s endless care and compassion, but at the same time there is felt endless keeping aside or uninvolvement.

So you are going to be pushed from Light, you are going to be made to search further. Compassion is a subtle form of tension.�

Q.: - Could you speak about freedom one more time? It turns out that this feeling of freedom of the mirror, although related to the world that is felt as �not me�, doesn�t have fear.� And this is ecstatic. And it is relative, not because I am afraid to loose this freedom, but simply because the world is not me.

S.: - Yes, one may say that there is no fear to loose freedom. But there is still some fragmentariness. I.e. freedom is a part of the Whole. You have chosen only freedom, and this is a fragment of life. There are freedom and limitedness in life. Freedom is in the Seer, creativity is in the Creator, limitedness is in form. Life is manifested in these three states. If I signify one of these components as �not me� I loose my completeness then. I can chose limitedness and suffer in this, I can choose freedom and enjoy it. But there will be no fullness.

That�s why a yogi is beautiful by his freedom and a Master is beautiful by his fullness. Limitedness is a miserable event. Freedom is a very beautiful event. Fullness of life is a magnificent event.

In order to feel the beauty of freedom, try to adjust yourself to the photos of yogis. It is sometimes difficult to see freedom in a Master, because he unifies everything in himself, he looks human.

Q.: - Freedom is to a high extent manifested in Ramana Maharshi.

S.: - Yes, there are yogis who are not interested in this world at all; they are waiting till the body dies. They even don�t have a wish to speed up or slow down this process. They simply sit down and wait till this ends. That�s why Ramana had this highly manifested quality of freedom, he was also sitting and waiting, for 20 years he was almost silent, unless the second death experience happened. Even his body turned blue. Then something happened and the body started recovering. And after that he started teaching in a more extroverted way.�

If you are in pure freedom, then all of you are going to be in mahasamadhi in the moment of death. Ramana used to speak �there is no difference between avatars, yogis and gnyani�. Master is just richer, the Seer, the Creator and the man are united in his consciousness. And you can live 30-40 years in an enriched way. Or you could live this time in a state of freedom and that�s it.

That is why, when I was living life from the Seer, I had a feeling that practically everything was over, but at the same time there remained an intangible sensation of search. But not the search of freedom, but the search of absolute completeness of life.�

Q.: - And according to your feeling, who does this effort belong to?

S.: - This is the effort of the life itself.

Q: - There is a feeling that starting from the level of Being there isn�t any you. You say �you have to� become aware of��, so who has, who belongs this effort to, what should be done?

S.: - It�s enough to listen to me, giving it all the heart and complete attention.

Q.: - Now � yes, but when I am in this, everything is functioning according to other laws there, and someone has to �hang about� in that for a long time.

S.: - Could be so, but if I meet across him, I will �rake him over the coals�. Actualization of going to the Seer has it�s own inconceivable ways. One of them is that I am speaking to you right now. And what I am doing now is being put into the matrix of the universe. I.e. what is happening right now? The universe organizes itself in such a way that Life opens absolute fullness of Understanding through some individuals. That�s why you shouldn�t do anything.

Look, what�s important � from some point we can�t do anything by ourselves, personal effort is over. After that something could be happening to you. Being at the satsang, in the Master�s field, you find out that what you can�t do happens as an impersonal event.

Q.: - What is an intensive group?

You need certain intensity, but life is not developing this intensity through you, and if you are trying to create it yourself, once again you are creating a doer and find yourself in vicious circle. You feel that the intensity you have is not enough for something to be finished, and on the other hand you feel that you can�t increase this intensity, otherwise once again you are increasing the ego-factor. Thus you come to someone who will increase this intensity and simply surrender to him. When you sit down to practice at home this could be a personal effort. When you sit down to practice in a group because a Master has created a schedule, then you are sitting not from the part of the person, and intensity has been increased.

Q.: - Isn�t it creating a doer when one agrees to sit in practice?

S.: - Yes, but not so much as when you have made yourself sit. Here is more surrender, you surrender to the circumstances. But at home you are creating the circumstances yourself.

All the West is obsessed by creating circumstances, that is why there are so many psychological trainings aimed at success and attaining something. East is more to follow the circumstances, i.e. you surrender to circumstances and flow with the river of Life.

Q.: - They say that it is the act of surrender that is important, and not to whom you surrender, it may be anything. Essential is to loose yourself in this.

S.: - As regards the inner state you may surrender to anyone. But as regards life events you have to think to whom to surrender. You will be free internally, but your life may become hell.

Q.: - But if you are internally free, then what�s the difference about events?

�.: - There�s a big difference for that part of you that is the body.

Q.: - There are symbolic figures that mean to signify the level of the Witness, for example it seems to me that Shiva is such a symbol.

S.: - The symbol of pure Freedom, i.e. beyond the human form. Probably yes. The same as Christ is the symbol of the level of the being, the symbol of Love. There are significant figures that mark out some layer. But a human can unify all the layers in oneself.�

That is why your challenge is to unify everything in yourself, not having stopped half-way. It�s a pity, but the nature of a contemporary person is often to start hundreds of affairs and complete nothing. He has got no time. But this feeling of incompleteness doesn�t allow getting inner completeness.

Our task is to finish the religious search once and forever. And then start a new stage of life. And I would like you to not only conceptually understand this scheme, but to live through each level, deeply, and to be able to unite them in yourself. Then it is going to be beautiful.