Category Archives: Love

Love, Grace and the Divine – Osho

Qualities of love and grace have been attributed to the Divine. Do these qualities exist? Can this be explained?

To say that the divine exists will not be right, because all that exists is divine. Each and everything exists; only the divine cannot be said to exist. The divine is existence. To be divine and to exist is to say the same thing in two different ways. So the quality of existence cannot be attributed to the divine.

Everything else can be said to exist because it can go into non-existence. I can be said to exist because I will go into non-existence. You can be said to exist because there were times when you were not in existence. But the divine cannot be said to exist because the divine is always there. Its non-existence is inconceivable. So existence cannot be attributed to the divine. I will say existence is divine or divineness means existence.

Nothing exists which is not divine. You may know it or not; it makes no difference as far as your divinity is concerned. If you know it, then you become existence, bliss. If you do not know it, you go on and continue in agony, but you are divine. When asleep, when ignorant, then too you are divine. Even a stone is divine, unknown to itself. Existence is divine. All those who try to prove that God exists do not know. This is sheer nonsense, to prove that God exists. Those who try to prove that God does not exist are in the same boat. No one will prove that existence exists. If you say it this way, if you ask me whether existence exists, the question will be absurd.

To me, when someone says that God exists, it means the same thing: existence exists. God and existence are equivalent: synonyms. Once you have become aware of what existence is, you will not call it existence. Then you will call it God. The moment one becomes aware of the total being that is, then you cannot use the word existence. You become more intimate with it, so you have to use a personal name. You call it God. To call existence God only means this and nothing else — that you can be in an intimate relationship with it. To call existence God means you can be in personal contact with it.

It is not something dead. It is not something to which you cannot be related. It is not something which is indifferent to you. When we say existence is God, we mean to say existence is intimately related with us. We are related with it; existence is not related to us. And it is not indifferent to us. But as far as the human mind is concerned, we do not know a more accurate word to use than God.

If you ask some orthodox Jew, he will not use the full word “God”. He will only use “G-D”; the “O” is dropped. Orthodox Jews will not use the full term “God”. They will only use “G-D”. If you ask them why do you use “G-D”, why is the “O” dropped, they say: “Whatever we say is always less than what is. So ‘O’ is dropped just to symbolize that we are using a word which cannot convey the whole, which cannot be totally comprehensive. So the ‘O’ is dropped.” “O” is symbolic of the zero, symbolic of perfection, symbolic of the totality, the whole, so the “O” is dropped Only “G-D” remains.

Whenever we use any word, it is never meaningful or comprehensive of the whole. It just indicates, not something about the divine, but about the human mind. If you say “existence”, then you use a term which is neutral. You can be indifferent to it and “existence” can be indifferent to you. When you use “existence” there cannot be a dialogue between you and existence. Then there is no bridge. But those who have known existence, they know there is a dialogue with everything that exists. You can be in an intimate relationship, in love. This possibility of dialogue, this possibility of relationship, this possibility of being in love, makes the term “God” more meaningful than “existence” But they mean the same.

So I will not say that the divine exists. I will say that all that exists is divine. Existence is divine. To exist is to be divine. Nothing is which is not divine. Nothing can be which is not divine. We may know it, we may not know it. We may be aware, we may not be aware. It makes no difference.

Another thing you asked is whether the qualities of love and grace can be attributed to God. Again, no qualities can be attributed to him because qualities can be attributed only if the contrary is possible. Otherwise they cannot be attributed. You can say “Someone loves me” because someone is capable of not loving. If he is incapable of not loving, you will never say that “He loves me.” Then to say that someone loves you carries no meaning. If I cannot be in love, I can only be in hatred. Then I can say “I love you.” If I am incapable of being in hatred, then the quality of love cannot be attributed to me. Love then is not a quality, but nature. And what is the difference between quality and nature?

A quality is something which can be in manifestation and which can be in non-manifestation. A quality is something of which you can be deprived. You can exist with the quality; you can exist without the quality. It is not your intrinsic existence. It is something attributed to you; it is something added to you. It is not your nature.

Nature is something without which you can never exist. So when someone says “God is loving”, he is not saying exactly the right thing. Jesus is right when he says, “God is love”, not loving. Then love becomes his nature, not a quality. It cannot be replaced. God can be love, love can be God, because love is the intrinsic nature of the divine.

Love is not something added. It cannot be. It is not possible to conceive of God without love. If you conceive of God without love, you are conceiving of a God who is not a God. To conceive of God without love is to conceive of a God without godliness, because the moment love is erased there is no godliness left behind. So again, I will not say that love is an attribute. Neither will I say that grace is an attribute. They are nature.

Somewhere Aesop has told us in a fable that by a riverside a scorpion requested of a turtle, “Please carry me to the other shore on your back.” The turtle says, “Do not be foolish. Do not think me to be stupid. You may sting me in the middle of the stream, and I will drown and die.” The scorpion said, “I am not foolish; rather, you are foolish because you do not know simple logic. I belong to the Aristotelian school. I am a logician. So I will teach you a simple lesson in logic, a simple solution. If I sting you and if you are drowned and dead, I will also die with you. So be sensible, be logical. I will not sting you. I cannot sting you.”

The turtle thought for a moment and then said, “Okay! It seems sensible. Hop on me and off we go.” And exactly in midstream the sting comes. They both are sinking down. Before the turtle dies it asks, “Where has your logic gone? You have done a very illogical thing, and you yourself said that this is simple logic, you will never do it, and now you have done it. Tell me before I die. Let me learn another lesson of your logic.”

The scorpion says, “It is not a question of logic at all. This is just my character, just my nature. I cannot be without it. I can talk about it. I cannot be without it. I am incapable, really.”

Something which you are incapable of doing or not doing indicates your nature. We cannot conceive of the divine as being non-loving or without grace. The love is always there; the grace is always there. We use two words — “love” and “grace” — because of our linguistic limitations. Otherwise, one word will do. Either you call it love or you call it grace.

We use two words because with love we always expect something in return — not with grace. Whenever we love someone, something in return is expected. It is always a bargain, howsoever subtle. Told or not told, made known or not made known, it is an inner bargain. Something is expected in return. That is why we use two words, “love” and “grace”, because with grace nothing is expected in return, and God never expects anything in return from us.

But as far as divine existence is concerned, love and grace are both one and the same. He is loving and that is his grace. He is always with his grace. That means he is loving. But these are not qualities which can be attributed to him. This is his nature. He cannot be otherwise. But we make distinctions because someone is known to have received grace; someone has become beloved to the divine. That again is a fallacious statement. God is always grace and always love. But we are not always in the receptive mood.

Unless we become receptive we cannot receive it. So when you are not receiving divine grace, it is not anything lacking on the part of the divine, but something like a barrier you are carrying. You are not receptive to it, you are not open to it, you are not vulnerable to it. God’s nature is to be graceful, to be grace itself. But as far as we are concerned, we are not naturally receptive. We are naturally aggressive. We are aggressive, and these are two different things.

If the mind is aggressive, then it cannot be receptive. Only a non-aggressive mind can be receptive. So all the qualities which carry any type of aggressiveness with them ought to be dropped, and one has to be just a door to receive. Just like a womb, one has to be in total receptivity. Then grace is always flowing and love is always flowing.

From everywhere grace is flowing. Every moment, everywhere, grace is flowing. It is the nature of existence, but we are not receptive. That is the nature of mind. Mind is aggressive. That is why I always insist that meditation means “no-mind”. Meditation means non-aggressive receptivity — openness. But logic can never be receptive. Logic is aggressive. You are doing something. Then you cannot be receptive. You can be receptive only when you are not doing.

When you are in a non-doing state, absolutely non-doing, simply existing, then you are open from all sides, and from everywhere comes the flow of grace. It is always coming, but our doors are closed. We are always escaping the grace. Even if it knocks on our doors, we escape.

There is a reason why we go on escaping: the moment mind is born, it is always safeguarding itself. Our whole training, our whole education, the whole culture of mankind is always so. Our whole mind, our whole culture, is based on aggression, competition, conflict. We have not yet become so mature as to learn the secret of cooperation — that the world exists in cooperativeness, not in conflict; that the other one, the neighboring one, is not just a competitor, but a complementary existence which makes me richer. Without him I will be lesser.

Even if a single individual dies in the world I am a bit lesser. The richness that was created by him, the richness carried into the atmosphere, in the hemisphere, is no more. Somewhere, something has become vacant. So we exist in a coexistence, not in a conflict. But the training of the mind, the collective unconscious, is always thinking in terms of conflict. Whenever someone is there, the enemy is there. The “enemy” is the basic assumption. You can develop your friendship, but that will be developed. The basic assumption is the enemy. Friendship can be added to the enemy, but the base is inimical, and you can never relax.

That is why you can never rely on your friendships: because at the base there is “enemy”. You have only made a fake friendship. You have added something artificially. But somewhere at the base you know always that there is enemy — the other is the enemy. So even with a friend you are not at ease. Even with your lover you are not at ease. Whenever there is someone, you are tense. The enemy is there. Of course, the tension becomes less if you have created a facade of friendship. It is less, but it is there.

This attitude has reasons as to why it has developed so — evolutionary reasons. Man has come out of the jungle. The whole evolution has seen so many stages, so many animal stages. Physiologically also, the body knows because the body is not yours. When I say “my body”, I am claiming something which cannot be claimed. My body has come through centuries of development. The basic cell is inherited. In my basic cell I inherit all that existed behind me. All the animals, all the trees, all that has existed, have contributed to my basic cell.

In my basic cell there is accumulated the whole experience of conflict, struggle, violence, aggression. Each cell carries the whole evolutionary struggle that has preceded. Physiologically also, mentally also, your mind has not evolved just in this life. It has come to you in a long journey. It may be even longer than the body itself. Because the body evolved on this earth, it cannot be more than forty million years old. It cannot be older than the earth.

But the first mind came from another planet. Mind has still deeper evolutionary experiences. And all those experiences make you violent and aggressive. One has to be aware of this total phenomenon. Unless one is aware, one cannot be free from his own past. And the whole problem is that one has to be free from his own past, and this past is something very great — incomprehensibly great.

All that has lived is still living with you. All that has been is still in you in seed, in potentiality. You come from the past, you are the past. This past-oriented mind goes on creating aggression, goes on thinking in terms of aggression.

So when religion says “Be receptive”, the advice goes unheard. The mind cannot think of how it can be receptive. Mind has known only one thing in which it has been receptive, and that is death, in which the mind has not been able to do anything. It could not act. The only thing that the mind has known in which it has to be receptive is death. So whenever someone says, “Be receptive,” somewhere in the shadows you feel death. If I say “Be receptive,” the mind will then say, “Then you will die. Be aggressive if you want to exist and survive. The fittest survives. The most aggressive one survives. If you are just receptive, you will die.”

That is why receptivity is never even understood — not heard, not understood. This receptivity has been said in so many ways. Someone says, “Surrender.” It means “Be receptive”. Surrender means do not be aggressive. When someone says “Be faithful”, it means “Be receptive”.

Do not be aggressive through your logic. Receive existence as it is. Let it come in. The mind cannot love because love means “Be receptive to someone”. Even in love we are aggressive. If you ask a friend, he will say love is nothing but a sort of violence — a mutual violence in which two partners have agreed to become involved. And when a friend says this, he is not just saying nonsense. He means it, and he knows something.

Whenever you are in a sexual act, whenever you are in intimate love, the actions that follow are just like fighting: you are fighting. If you go deep in any act which we know as love, if you go deep in it, you will find animal roots. Kissing can anytime become biting. If you go on kissing, if it goes deep, it will be biting. It is just a mind form. Sometimes lovers will say, “I want to eat you” — a very loving expression. Really, they try. Sometimes it goes deep, becomes intensive: then sex is just a fight.

So two partners, two sexual partners, will always alternate between love and fight. This will go on alternating. In the evening they are fighting, in the night they are loving, in the morning they are fighting, in the evening they are loving, in the night they are fighting. This circle will go on – fighting and loving, fighting and loving. If you ask D. H. Lawrence, he will say, “If you cannot fight with your lover, you cannot love.” The fight makes it intense. It is just creating a situation.

The human mind as it is, as it has come out of the past, cannot love because it cannot be receptive. It can only be aggressive. So it is not that you are loving: you always demand love. And even if you act loving, it is only to force the demand. There is a cunning logic. It is always demanding, “Give me love.” And if I give you love, that is only to demand, to make the demand forceful. The human mind cannot love.

So if you ask those who know, those who have really known love, if you ask Buddha, he will say, “Unless the mind dies, love cannot be born.” And unless there is love, you cannot feel grace; because only in love do you become open.

And you cannot love a particular individual because it is impossible to be open to a particular individual and closed to all. This is very difficult. This is one of the most impossible things to do. It is not possible at all.

If I say, “I love you,” it is just like saying this: that whenever you are beside me I breathe; otherwise I will not breathe. If this were the case, then another time you will come to me and you will find me dead. But breathing is not something which I can do and not do. Love is not something like that. But whatever is known to us as love is like that. That is why sooner or later a lover will find that the other’s love has gone dead, and both will know this. Both will know that there is no love now.

The more lovers know each other, the more unfortunate is the situation. The more they become acquainted with each other, the lesser is the hope and the more the disillusionment. They know that the love has gone dead. You so narrowed it, demanded so narrow a passage, that it could not be alive.

One has to be loving, not a lover. One has to be loving. This “loving” must come as an intensive, natural manifestation, not as something added as an attribute, as a quality. It must come as an inner flowering, not as something perfumed from without. This love can happen. One has to be aware of one’s total past. And the moment you are aware of your total past, that very moment you have transcended, you are beyond it, because that which is aware is not the mind.

That which becomes aware of the mind is the consciousness which carries no past with it — which is eternal, which is always in the “now”, which is always new, which is always here and now. That consciousness is known only when you become aware of your mind. Then you are not identified with your mind. There is a gap between you and your mind. You know this is the mind: this aggressiveness, this hatred, this whole hell, is the mind.

And this mind goes on continuing. This mind will go on continuing, unless you become aware. And this is a miracle: that the moment you become aware the continuity is broken. Now you will be, but not of the past. Now you will be of the moment — fresh, young, new. Then each moment you will die, and you will be reborn.

Somewhere St. Augustine says, “I die every moment.” One who has become aware of one’s whole mind and its whole process, the continuity, the past continuing itself and carrying on and forcing itself into the future — one who has become aware of this — will die each moment. Each moment the past will be thrown out. One will be fresh, new and young, ready to jump into the new moment that is coming on. Only this fresh consciousness, this young consciousness — eternally young — is receptive, is open. There are no walls to it, no boundary walls to it. It is completely open, just like space.

The Upanishads call it “the inner space of the heart”. There is a space, simply a space. That is consciousness, sakshi — the expression of awareness. This transcendence of the mind, of the past, makes you open and vulnerable from all sides, to all the dimensions. Then grace is falling on you from everywhere — from the trees, from the sky, from human beings, from animals, from everywhere. Even a dead stone is graceful then. You feel grace falling toward you.

Then you cannot say this is simply an existence. Then you say, “This is God.” This metamorphosis, this transformation of your own mind, this transformation of the dead mind into an eternally living consciousness, from the junk of the mind to the open sky of the consciousness, this transformation changes your attitude toward existence. Then the whole existence is just a flow of love — friendly, compassionate, loving, graceful. Then you are loved through thousands of hands.

So Hindu religion has created deities with a thousand hands. It means from everywhere is the hand. Nowhere can you go where the divine hand will not be upon you. Everywhere is the embrace. You can go everywhere. Now there is nowhere where the divine is not.

Nanak went to Kaaba: he was tired. When he reached the mosque, and he just put down his small bundle, whatever it was, and went to sleep. The priest was furious because his legs were toward the holy stone, so he dragged him out and said, “What foolishness are you doing here? You do not know even this much respect — that the legs should not be towards the holy stone. Are you an atheist?”

Nanak’s sleep was broken. He is sitting. He says, “Put my legs in that direction where God is not, and do not disturb me.” There is no direction where God is not, because the direction itself is divine, existence is divine. But you must be open to it.

This whole tragedy, this dilemma of the human mind, is that the mind is closed, the mind is closing, and this mind goes on searching for that which will be freedom. This mind is an imprisonment, and this imprisonment goes on seeking freedom. This is the whole tragedy of human existence.

This mind is a prison. It cannot find any freedom anywhere. It must die before freedom comes to you. But we have taken the mind as us. We are identified with it. This death of mind never happens to us, it never occurs to us.

Mind is something other than me. But we go on being identified with the mind. How then can you come out of the past if you have become identified with the past? The one who has forgotten that he is a prisoner is the most imprisoned, because there is no possibility of freedom then. But even that prisoner may become aware. An even greater prisoner is the one who has become one with the imprisonment, one with the prison, who has become identified. The walls of the prison are his body. The whole arrangement of the imprisonment is his mind.

Be aware; be conscious of your mind. And you can be because you are something different. The dream can be broken because you are not the dream. The dream is occurring to you, but you are not the dream. You can shatter this imprisonment and come out because you are not the imprisonment. But there is such a long association with the body and the mind.

And understand this well: that the body is new; each birth is new; each beginning is new. But the mind is old. It is continuing from your previous, your past births. That is why if someone says your body is ill, you are never angry. You feel that he is sympathetic to you. But if someone says your mind is mad, your mind is ill, you are mentally deranged, then you become angry. Then you do not feel he is sympathetic to you. He does not seem friendly.

With the body this is a new association, only of this birth. Other bodies have died with which you have been in association. And this body association is broken with each death. It has been broken so many times, that one thinks himself a body, even he is not identified with his body. So if his body falls ill, something else has fallen ill.

I was reading about an alcoholic’s life. He was sentenced so many times, and for the tenth time the same judge is sending him to jail. So the judge says in his judgment, “It is only the alcohol, the alcohol, the alcohol, which is the root cause of your problems.” The man says, “Thank you, sir. You are the only person who has not made me responsible. Everyone else says I am at fault. Everyone says, ‘You are at fault.’ You are the only man who understands me. Alcohol is at fault. I am not responsible at all.”

With the body, if there is some fault, you do not feel you are responsible. But if the mind feels some fault, then you feel that you are responsible. The identity is keen and deeper. It has to be, because the body is the outer layer of your being. The mind is the inner layer. It is the inner you. You can be more identified with it. It has been with you for so many lives. The mind is the old, always the old, the continuity. But you are not the mind. And this can be known, and there is no difficulty in knowing about it.

Just be a witness. Whenever the mind is working, just sit aside and see it — how it works. Do not interfere: do not come in. The coming in will again create the strength which makes the identity. Do not come in, do not say anything, do not be a judge. Just sit aside as if the traffic is passing on the road, and you are sitting by the side just looking. Do not make any judgment. And if even for a single moment you can sit aside and look at the mind’s traffic, the continuous traffic, you will see the gap — the gap between you and the mind. Then this gap can be made greater, wider, unbridgeable.

When the gap is such, when the interval is such, then there is no bridge. You have seen from all possible points that the circle of the mind is somewhere where you are not. You are always inside — somewhere else. When this is not a theory, but has become a fact, a realized fact, then you are open. Then you have jumped into an inner space, into the inner sky, into the inner space of the heart: you have jumped in. Now you are there and you are open.

You will know then that you have always been open. You have been sleeping in an open sky but dreaming that you are in prison, and thoughts are not any other substance than what dreams are made of. They are of the same stuff. In the day you call them thoughts and at night you call them dreams. But because they are transparent, identifying becomes easier. With anything transparent you can forget.

If there is a totally transparent glass between you and me, I will forget the glass. I will think that I am seeing you directly. It means that I become so totally identified with the glass that it is not there. My eyes and the glass have become one.

Thoughts are transparent — more transparent than any glass you can look through. They are not at all a hindrance then. That is why the identity becomes deeper. The transparency of thoughts is so close to you, you forget totally that there exists a mind which is always around you, always between you and the world, always — wherever you are: between you and your lover, between you and your friend, between you and your God, it is always there.

Wherever you go, your mind is a step ahead of you. It is not only that it follows you like a shadow. It is always one step ahead of you; it has reached before you. But you are never aware of it because it is so transparent. Whenever you are entering a temple, your mind has entered before you. When you are going to a friend, when you are embracing him, your mind has embraced before, and this you can know. Your mind is always rehearsing. That stepping ahead is always rehearsing. Before you speak, it is always rehearsing what to speak. Before you act, it is always rehearsing what to act. Before you do anything or do not do anything, it is rehearsing. The rehearsal is constantly going on. The rehearsal means that the mind is preparing itself before you, one step ahead. And that is a constant, transparent barrier between you and everything else that you will come across, that you will encounter.

Thus an encounter can never be real, authentic, because something else is always in between. Neither can you love, nor can you pray. You cannot do anything which requires the removal of this barrier, and the grace is not felt because the barrier is there, always surrounding you like a transparent shell. Grace, love or existence are not God’s attributes. They are divine nature. But we are not open to them. When someone is open, he becomes the receiver. But then too we will not say that he has become a receiver. The ego is competitive. We will say he has received grace. We are denying him anything. Now we say, “God has become graceful to him.”

It is good that we should say God is graceful, because now nothing exists except God. Once the barrier is not, nothing exists except God. Once the barrier is not, there is nothing upon which to stand the ego. One cannot say “I”, so he cannot say, “I have become capable of receiving grace.” He can only say “I” have received because “I” was not there. “I” was the barrier. So once “I” is not, he can always say, “It is due to God’s grace. What can I do? ‘I’ is no more.” It is right when he says so, but it is not right when we say so. We are again deceiving ourselves.

We are deceiving ourselves because we are not recognizing a great transformation. The ego will not let us recognize it. The ego will say, “God is graceful to him and not to me.” We create this very misguiding notion, that God is graceful to someone.

He is grace. If someone is ready to receive he is always giving. He is not even ready to give: He is giving. When you are not receiving, then too he is giving. When you are closed, then too he is raining His blessings are raining. Be open and know it. Be conscious and be open, and only then you can know what love is, what grace is, what compassion is. And they are one and the same thing. They are not different things. Basically, they are one and the same.

Only then can you know what prayer is. When the barrier is not, then prayer is not to ask for something. It is not begging. Then it is thanksgiving. So wherever there is a prayer which begs for something, the barrier is there. The begging is the barrier; the mind is the barrier.

Whenever there is a prayer which thanks for something, not even for something but thanks for all that is, whenever grace is received, you feel gratitude. On your part it is gratitude. On God’s part it is grace. On the receiver’s end it is gratitude. We have not known gratitude at all. We cannot know unless we know grace. We cannot be grateful unless we know grace. And this can be known.

Do not begin the search, do not begin an inquiry for the divine, because that is metaphysical and useless, and that has been going on for centuries. The philosophers have been thinking about what are the attributes of God. So there have been metaphysicians who will say that “This is the attribute of God and that is not.”

Someone will say he is attributeless — nirguna. Someone will say he is with attributes — saguna. But how can we know what we have not known ourselves? And how can we decide whether God is with attributes or without attributes, whether he is loving or not? Just by thinking we are going to decide it! This is not possible.

So metaphysics will lead us into absurdity. When human imagination becomes logical, then we think that we have achieved something. We have not achieved anything. Imagination is ours, and logic is ours. We have not known anything.

Always begin with yourself if you are to escape from metaphysics. And if you cannot escape from metaphysics you cannot be religious. Metaphysics and religion are opposite pillars. Do not begin with God at all. Always begin with your mind — where you are: always begin from there. If you begin from your mind, then something can be done. Then you can know something, then something can be transformed. Then it is within your capacity to do something. And if your capacity to do something with yourself is used completely, you will grow, you will expand, your barrier will be gone, your consciousness will be naked. Only then can you begin with the divine.

When you have begun, when you are in contact with the divine, then you know what grace is, what gratitude is. Grace is that which you feel showering upon you from everywhere, and gratitude is that which you feel within your heart, at the center of that inner space upon which the whole is showering his love, his compassion, his grace. Only then is it meaningful to say:

“Oh God” or “Hare Ram”. Otherwise our words are just words — not known from existence but only learned from language, learned from the scriptures.

So I will not say what the attributes of God are. As far as I am concerned, as far as I know, God has no attributes, but it does not mean that when we come in contact with him we will not feel his love; we will not feel his grace. It only means that these are not his attributes.  These are his nature. This is how he happens to be, and he cannot be otherwise. Even when you are close to him, even when you are standing just opposite to him, just giving your back to him, then too he is the same.

It is just like light: your eyes are closed; the light is there. It will not go into non-existence just for the sake that your eyes are closed. Open your eyes! The light is there; it has always been there. Begin with your eyes.

You can never think anything about light. How can you think? And any thinking, any contemplating, will be wrong. From the very beginning it will be wrong. You cannot think, you have not known. Thinking about that which is known can go on in circles. It can never touch the unknown. It can never conceive of the unknown. The unknown is not for thinking. That is why thinkers will go on denying God: because to them he is not known.

When someone says God is not, it is not that he is against God. It is only that he is the man who thinks. It is nothing else. He is not against God, because to be against God will have to be preceded by knowing him. He is not against God. One who knows cannot be against. One who has known, how can he be against? He cannot be. It only shows that he just goes on thinking. And thinking cannot conceive of the unknown, so he denies it.

Do not begin with God. That is a false beginning. It always leads to nonsense. So all metaphysics is nonsense. It goes on thinking about things about which nothing can be thought. It goes on giving statements about the existence about which no statements can be given. Only silence can be a statement about it. But if you begin with yourself, then much that is solid can be said. If you begin with yourself, then something scientific can be done. If you begin with yourself, then you begin with the right beginning.

Religion means to begin with oneself, and metaphysics means to begin with God. So metaphysics is madness — of course, with a method. All madmen are metaphysicians without method and all metaphysicians are mad but with methodology. Because of their methodology they seem to be talking sense, and they go on talking nonsense.

Begin with yourself. Do not ask whether God exists. Ask whether “I” exist. Do not ask whether love is an attribute of the divine. Ask whether love is an attribute of mine, whether I have ever loved. Do not ask about grace. Ask whether I have ever felt gratitude, because that is the pole which is just nearby, which is just a step from us. We can know it.

Always begin from the beginning. Never begin from the end because then it is no beginning at all. One who begins from the beginning always reaches the end and one who begins from the end does not even reach the beginning, because to begin from the end is impossible. You can just go on and on.

Make God not a metaphysical notion but a religious experience. Go inward. He is there always waiting for you. But then you have to do something with yourself. That doing is meditation; that doing is yoga. Do something with yourself. As you are, you are closed. As you are, you are dead. As you are, you are not in any dialogue. You cannot be in any dialogue with the divine, with the existence. So transform yourself. Open some doors, break open some spaces, make some windows, jump outside of your mind, your past. And then it is not only that you will know, but you will live. You will live with the grace of the divine, you will live with the love; you will be part of it, just a ripple of it. And once you have become a ripple of it, a wave of the divine, only then is there authentic divineness.

So I am not a metaphysician at all. You can call me an anti-metaphysician. Religion is existential. Begin from yourself; begin transforming your aggressive mind. Let it be just receptive.

I would like to tell you Buddha tried for six years continuously to know what the divine is. And it cannot be said that he left anything undone. He did everything that is humanly possible, even some things which seem humanly impossible. He did everything. Whatever was known up to his day he practiced. Whatever methods were taught to him, he became a master of them.

He went to all the gurus that existed in his time, to everyone. And whatever they could teach, he learned, he practiced, and then he said, “Anything more, sir?” And the guru said, “Now you can go, because all that I could give you I have given, and I cannot say, as I say in other cases, that you have not practiced. You have practiced. This is all that I can give.” Buddha said, “I have not known the divine yet.”

With each guru this happened. Then he left all the gurus. Then he invented his own methods. Continuously, for six years, he was in a struggle of life and death. He did everything that could be done. Then at last, he was so tired of doing, so deadly tired, that one day when he was taking his evening bath in the Niranjana River near Bodhgaya, he felt so weak and so tired that he could not come out of the river. He just clung to a root of a tree and a thought came to his mind: “I have become so weak; I cannot even cross this small river. How will I be alive to cross the whole ocean of the world? I have done everything and I have not found the divine. I have only tired my body.”

He felt that he was on the verge of death. At that very moment he felt that he had done everything, and now there was nothing to do. He relaxed, and new energy came upon him because of his relaxation. All that was suppressed through those six years flowered. He came out of the river. He felt just like a feather, a bird’s feather — weightless. He relaxed under the Bodhi tree.

It was a bright full-moon night. Someone came: a girl, a shudra-low-caste-girl named Sujata. The name shows that the girl must have been a shudra because to have the name “Sujata” means she has not come from a higher caste. Sujata means “well born”. She has promised the Bodhi tree to pay it some homage daily, so she had come with some sweets.

Buddha is there — tired, pale, bloodless, but relaxed, absolutely unburdened, and it is a full-moon night with nobody around. The girl, Sujata, felt that the deity of the tree has come to receive her homage. Had it been another day, Buddha could have refused. He would not rest in the night; he would not eat any food. But today he was totally relaxed. He took the food and he slept. This was the first night after six years that he really slept.

He was relaxed with nothing to do. Then there was no worry. There was no tomorrow even, because tomorrow exists only because one has to do something. If one has not to do anything, then there is no tomorrow. Then the moment is enough.

Buddha slept, and in the morning at five o’clock, when the last star was withering away, he is out of the sleep. He saw the last star disappearing, with no mind, because when you have nothing to do there is no mind. The mind is just a faculty for doing something. It is a technical faculty. No mind, nothing to do, no effort on his part, indifferent to whether he was alive or dead, he just opens his eyes and he begins to dance. He had come to that knowing to which he could not come through so many efforts.

Whenever someone would ask him how he achieved, he would say, “The more I tried to achieve, the more I was at a loss. I could not achieve. So how can I say I have achieved? The more I tried, the more I was involved. I could not achieve. The mind was trying to transcend itself, which was impossible. It is just like trying to be a father to yourself, just trying to give birth to yourself.”

So Buddha will say, “I cannot say I achieved. I can only say I tried so much that I was annihilated. I tried so much that any effort became absurd. And the moment came when I was not trying, when the mind was not, when I was not thinking. Then there was no future because there was no past. Both are always together. Past is behind; future is in front. They are always conjoined. If one drops, the other drops simultaneously. Then there was no future, no past, no mind. I was mindless, I was I-less. Then something happened, and I cannot say that this something happened in that moment. I can only say that this was always happening; only I was not aware. I cannot say that this happened in that moment. It was always happening, only I was closed. So I cannot say I have achieved something.”

Buddha said, “I can only say I have lost something — the ego, the mind. I have not achieved anything at all. Now I know that all that I have was always there. It was in every layer, it was in every stone, in every flower, but now I recognize it was always so. Only I was blind. So I have lost my blindness; I have not achieved anything, I have lost something.” If you begin with the divine, then you begin to achieve. If you begin with yourself, then you begin to lose. Things will begin to disappear, and ultimately you will disappear. And when you are not, the divine is with all its grace, with all its love, with all its compassion, but only when you are not.

Your non-existence is the categorical condition. For no one can it be relaxed. It is categorical; it is the absolute. You are the barrier. Fall down, and then you know. And only when you know, you know. You cannot understand it; I cannot explain it to you. I cannot make you understand it. So whatever I am saying, I am not saying anything metaphysical. I am only trying to show you that you must begin with yourself.

If you begin with yourself you will end with the divine, because that is your other part, the other pole. But begin from this bank. Do not begin from the other where you are not. You cannot begin from there. Begin from where you are, and the more you will go deep, the less you will be. The more you will know yourself, the less a self you will be. And once you have come to total understanding about yourself, you will be annihilated, you will go into non-existence, you will be totally negative — not. And in that not — in that total negation, you will know the grace which is always falling, which is always raining down from eternity. You will know the love which is always around you. It has always been, but you have not paid any attention to it. Be annihilated, and you will be aware of it.

-Osho

From I Am the Gate, Chapter Four  

Copyright© OSHO International Foundation

An MP3 audio file of this discourse can be downloaded from Osho.com, or you can read the entire book online at the Osho Library.

Many of Osho’s books are available online from Amazon.com and in the U.S. from OshoStore-Sedona and Osho Here and Now.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Love, Osho, Osho on Witnessing

God Is Existence Itself – Osho

Does God exist? How can there be so much evil and corruption in the world if God exists?

God is a mythical word, a mumbo-jumbo word that is the invention of the priesthood. Actually, to ask whether God exists is absurd. For those who know, God is existence, or existence is God.

Things exist, not God. A chair exists because a chair can go into nonexistence. To say that the chair exists is meaningful because its nonexistence is possible.

God is existence, the very isness. When we say God exists we create something out of the word God, then God becomes a thing. But God is not a thing, nor is God a person. That is why you cannot make him responsible for anything. Responsibility only comes when there is a personality, when there is someone who can be responsible.

God is not a person, he is pure existence. The word is misleading because the word personifies. It is better to use the word existence. The totality of existence is God.

So it cannot be asked whether God exists. That is like asking whether existence exists. Put this way – whether existence exists – the question becomes absurd. Obviously existence exists; there is no question about it. The question cannot even exist if there is no existence, nor can the questioner.

I would like to make it clear that when I say God, I mean existence as such. God is not a thing among other things, God is total thingness. To say that the table exists is the same as saying that the table is God. To say that you exist is the same as saying that you are God. God is the existence. God is isness, the quality of isness, the quality of existence.

First of all, God is not a thing. Secondly, God is not a person because the total cannot be a person. Personality is a relationship. Alone, totally alone, you will not be a person at all, you will be existence itself. That is why those who are seeking the divine tend to go into loneliness. In this way, they can cease to be persons and can become one with existence. Aloneness, absolute aloneness, is a step toward jumping into the abyss of existence.

God is not a person because there is nothing opposite to him, nothing distinct from him. God cannot say “I” because there is no other that exists as thou. He cannot be related to anyone. He is the whole, so all relationships exist in him and cannot exist beyond him.

So if God is not a person, there is no question of any responsibility. If evil exists, it exists. No one is responsible for it. The total cannot be responsible for it.

Responsibility implies that there is a person who can be responsible. A child of four cannot be taken to court because he is not yet a person and therefore cannot be held responsible for anything that he may have done. He is so innocent that even the sense of personality, the sense of ego, is not there. He is not responsible at all, because responsibility comes with ego. Existence has no ego at all – God has no ego at all – so you cannot make him responsible for any evil that exists.

But the human mind is very cunning. First we invent a personified God – we give God a personality – and then we make him responsible for what happens. We go on creating problems that are not problems at all but only linguistic fallacies. Ninety-nine percent of philosophy consists only of linguistic fallacies. If you call the totality, existence, you cannot make it responsible; but if you call it God, then you can make it responsible – only the word has changed.

Existence is non-personal, impersonal. But if God becomes a person, then you can ask, “Why is there evil?” The whole game is being played by you alone; God is not a party to it. When you give existence a name, a personal name, you create problems. These problems are not authentic problems; they are created problems, invented problems.

God means existence. I cannot say that God exists, because that would be a tautology. It would be just like saying: existence exists, or poetry is poetry. It means nothing, it defines nothing, it clarifies nothing, it explains nothing; it only repeats itself.

To me, God is existence, and existence is impersonal. It cannot be otherwise because the total cannot be a person. How can it be? In contrast to whom can it be an individual, a person? In contrast to whose ego can it create its own ego?

You become an ego because other egos exist. Psychologists say that the sense of ego develops in a child later than the sense of the other. First the child becomes aware of others, then he becomes aware of himself. The ego is a later addition.

You cannot become aware of yourself if there is no other. Without the other you cannot define yourself – your definition of yourself comes from the other. Others define you; they make you separate. By knowing others you come to feel your own boundaries. Then you know, “I am here, and I am not there.” Then you know, “This body is mine, and that body is not mine.” Then what is you is clearly defined – defined by other egos. If there were no other, you would never be aware of yourself as a person.

God cannot become an ego. He cannot say “I” because there is no thou: he cannot define himself. God is indefinable because a definition means a drawing of boundaries, and the total has no boundaries at all. The total means that which has no boundaries, the infinite.

We cannot conceive of the infinite – whatsoever is conceivable by the mind is finite. Even when we think about the infinite we conceive of it as a greater finiteness, never as the infinite. We cannot conceive of a boundaryless existence, but it is so nevertheless. Whether you can conceive of it or not makes no difference.

Mind cannot conceive of the indefinable, because mind requires definitions, clear-cut boundaries. That is why God, existence, cannot be understood by the mind.

God is the indefinable. Because we use the pronoun he for a person, we use he for God. But “he” is not correct, because by calling God he, he becomes a person. Still, there is no other way. If we call God it, it may seem better, but since we call things it, God also becomes a thing. Our language is not meant to express the indefinable, so the best we can do is use “he.” But he is not a person at all: he is a no-person, a non-ego. You cannot make him responsible.

If you say that something is bad – that there is evil or there is want – you are saying it to no one. No reply will be given to you from the universe, because as far as existence itself is concerned there is no evil. Evil depends on our attitudes; it depends on our moralistic definitions. For example, you may call someone ugly, but there is no ugliness in existence itself because there is no beauty. The distinction is human, it is not existential. You have made the definition: you have defined something as beauty and something else as ugliness. You have made the distinction and then you ask, “Why has God made ugliness?”

There is no way to decide what is good and what is bad. If there were no human beings on earth, would there be anything good or bad? There would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on earth would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would not be there.

You say “this is evil” and “that is good.” But if, for example, Adolf Hitler’s mother had killed him during his childhood, would it have been good or bad? She would have been a criminal and they would have punished her for it. But now, looking back, we can say that it would have been a most moral act: by killing her child she could have saved the whole world.

No one can know the future. For us, every act is an incomplete act, every act is a fragment. We don’t know the whole so we cannot pronounce judgment on it.

It is just like a page torn from a novel – how can you make any judgment about the novel by reading just one page? You don’t know anything about the novel. This is just a fragment – it has no beginning or end. You will say, “I would like to read the whole story first. Nothing can be said about it otherwise. This page is not enough.”

Words such as good and bad are just expedient, utilitarian; they are not existential. We cannot exist without classifying things as either good or bad because otherwise society would be impossible.

This must be clearly understood. Definitions are not ultimate truths, they are relative. There is not a single act that cannot be considered good in some context. A good deed can be bad in one context and a bad deed may be good in another. If you are to make any final judgment you will have to know everything from the very beginning to the very end – everything in the whole of existence. But of course, this is impossible.

All our statements about good and bad, beauty and ugliness are nothing more than traffic regulations. We have to make them, but they are not ultimate truths. “Keep left” or “keep right” – it makes no difference. But no society can do both: either you have to keep right or you have to keep left. The rule is utilitarian; it is neither natural nor ultimate.

The road is absolutely unconcerned with whether you keep to the right or to the left, but traffic does require certain rules. When there is less traffic you do not have to make any rules; but the more confusing the traffic, the more rules will be needed. In a village there is no need for traffic rules, but in a big city rules are needed.

As society develops in a more complex way, a more clearly defined morality is needed; otherwise you will not be able to live. But these moralities, these conceptions of good and bad, are human expediencies.

When you ask how there can be corruption if God exists, remember: God is not involved at all. There are reasons for corruption, but God is not responsible, the total is not responsible. If responsibility is to be put anywhere, it is to be put on us. We have created a society in which corruption has become necessary because its very base is corrupt. Unless you change the very foundation of society there is bound to be corruption; there has always been corruption. Forms have changed, but the corruption has remained because we have not yet created a society in which corruption is impossible.

This situation is our creation; God is not involved in it at all. It is as much a human creation as this table, this sofa, this house. You cannot hold God responsible for this house or for this room’s being small and not large, or for this window’s facing west and not east. You never ask God, “Why did you build this window onto the east wall and not the west?” That would be nonsense – you know that it is some person who built the window into the east wall. God has never been asked about it, he is not a party to it.

In the same way you can ask why there is corruption, but you cannot make any reference to God. To ask why there is corruption is a pertinent question. But to talk about God in reference to corruption is impertinent. Our society has been made by us – we are the architects of it. And because the foundation of it is wrong, because the base upon which we have built all of society’s structures is not scientific, it is bound to be corrupt. It is a human problem. We can change it or we can prolong it – it depends on us.

For example, our whole education is ambition-oriented. Our whole society is ambitious and an ambitious society can never be anything but corrupt. If you create ambition in everyone, not everyone will be able to fulfill it. You may say that anyone can be president, but only one person can be president at any one time. When you teach that everyone can be president, ambition is created: if everyone can be president then why shouldn’t you be? But since only one person can be president, a mad rush begins. Every means will be used – even evil means will be used.

Ambition corrupts; the ambitious mind is bound to be corrupt. Ambition is the seed of insanity. Yet our whole education is ambition-oriented. Your father says, “Become someone!” and the fever is created – you become diseased. Only one person can be president, and thousands of people who will be unsuccessful are aflame with the same ambition. Then you cannot be sane – you become insane. Because so much tension is created you become corrupt: you will use any means to achieve your goal.

It is infectious. If you see that someone else is using corrupt means you know that if you don’t use them you will be left behind. So you have to use equally corrupt means. Then someone else sees you being unscrupulous, so he has to be unscrupulous. It becomes a question of survival. Nothing else is possible within this framework, this structure. If you look to the very roots of society you will see that corruption is a natural outgrowth of our conditioning, our education, our cultivation.

The complexity of our social structure is such that those who succeed can hide their corruption.

Corruption is seen only when someone fails. If you succeed no one will know that you have been corrupt; success will hide everything. You have only to succeed and you will become a pinnacle of goodness – you will become everything that is good, pure, innocent. That means you can succeed in any way you like, but you must succeed. Once you succeed, once you are successful, nothing that you may have done is wrong.

This has been true throughout history. A person is only a thief if he is a small thief. If he is a great thief, then he becomes an Alexander the Great, a hero. No one ever sees that there is no qualitative difference between the two, that it is only a quantitative difference. No one will call Alexander the Great a great thief because the measure of your goodness is success: the more successful you are, the more good. Means are only questioned if you are a failure; then you will be called both corrupt and a fool.

If this is the attitude, how is it possible to create an uncorrupt society? To ask a person to be moral in this immoral situation is to ask something absurd. An individual cannot be moral in an immoral society. If he tries to be moral, his morality will only make him egoistic and ego is as immoral and corrupt as anything else.

This situation is a human creation. We have created a society with a mad rush for wealth, power, politics; we go on supporting it, and then we ask why there is corruption. Where there is ambition, corruption will be the logical consequence. You cannot check corruption unless the whole basic structure that encourages ambition is destroyed.

Ambition even becomes manifest around a so-called saint. He will incite you to ambition in terms of comparison; he will say, “Become better than others. Be good so that you will go to heaven and be the beloved of the divine while others will be tortured in the fires of hell.” The poison of ambition can easily be used in order to make a person good.

But that is not really possible. A person may be ambitious and bad – that is natural, logical – but he cannot be ambitious and good. It is impossible. If a person wants to be good, he cannot think in terms of comparison, because the flowering of real goodness only comes when there is no comparison.

Comparison is the barrier because comparison creates ego, it creates violence. The moment you say, “I am more humble than you,” you have become violent. You have used a subtle, cunning method that thrusts a knife into the other; you have killed him. The weapon is lethal – and much more subtle than political or capitalist weapons. If you say, “I am better than others, I am more saintly than others,” then the object may be different, but you will be on the same ambitious track. Criminals and sinners are not the only ones who are corrupt; the so-called good people, the “saints,” are also corrupt – in a more subtle way.

Our whole society is corrupt. It creates sinners with ambition and saints with ambition. And they are interdependent, because both exist on the same axis: the axis of ambition. A person who understands this will drop out of society completely. He will be neither a sinner nor a saint – he will not fit himself into any category – and you will be at a loss to measure who he is, what kind of a person he is. We need a society that is non-ambitious.

God is not involved in it at all, but if you are ambitious, even God will become part of your ambition. You will pursue him, you will try to attain to God.

A person who is ambitious is never able to attain to God. He is never relaxed; he is never loving – because ambition is violence. And a person who is not at ease, who is not loving, who is not silent or peaceful, can never know what God is. God is not something that can be known intellectually, he is something that can only be felt.

When you are at ease, totally relaxed, going nowhere – when the mind is still and at peace with itself – then you know what existence is. Then you know the beauty and the bliss of existence. It is not beauty in contrast to ugliness; there is no contrast and there is no comparison. Rather, everything becomes beautiful – the very existence is beautiful. Then a cactus is as beautiful as a rose. Then individuality is beautiful; it is incomparable.

Then for the first time you begin to love. It is not a love that exists in contrast to hate because that kind of love can never really be love; it is bound to be a diluted form of hate, a non-intense form of hate. It is the opposite pole: love exists at one pole and hate exists at the other pole, and you go on wavering between the two. Your hate means less love. Your love means less hate.

You may ask how one can be beyond hate and love. You can only be beyond the duality of love and hate if you are no longer ambitious, if you are no longer tense, if you are relaxed – going nowhere, seeking nothing at all, just being. Then you know God and, simultaneously, you know love. Love is a byproduct of being in tune with the infinite; it follows just like a shadow, it is a consequence.

Buddha never searched for love; love just came to him. Jesus never thought about love; he lived love. The search for love cannot be direct – it is such a subtle perfume that you cannot search for it directly. It comes as a byproduct of the realization that everything is one, a byproduct of comprehending that God exists in your enemy and in your friend.

The moment you become aware that you are not separate from existence, from all that is, that you are a part of it – and not a mechanical part but an organic part, just as a whale is organically joined to the ocean and is one with it all the time, just as my hand is organically one with me – then you can know love.

You can become aware of it only when you are non-ambitious. Only a non-ambitious mind is religious. It makes no difference what your ambition is – whether it is wealth, power or fame, or even liberation or God – if you are ambitious, that means your mind is moving somewhere else, running after something else. It is always busy achieving; it is never just being that which it already is.

Ambition is tension, and tension is the barrier to encountering the divine. Once you encounter it, you are no more – the encounter cleanses you completely, the encounter devours you completely. Only then is there love. The death of your ego is the birth of love.

Ordinarily, we think of love in contrast to hate. But those who know always think of love in contrast to ego. The real enemy of love is not hatred – the real enemy of love is ego. In fact, hatred and love as we know them are two aspects of the same coin.

Love comes when you are not, when the ego is not there. And the ego is not there, you are not, when you are not ambitious. A non-ambitious moment is a moment of meditation. In a non-ambitious moment, when you are seeking nothing, asking for nothing, praying for nothing; when you are totally satisfied with what you are, not comparing yourself with anybody else – in that moment you touch the deep reservoir of the divine. You are not just in contact with it, you are deeply in it: you are one with it.

Then love flows. Then you cannot do otherwise; you can only be loving. Then love is not the opposite of hate. There is neither love as we have known it nor hate as we have known it; both have ceased. Now quite a different quality of love, in a very new dimension, grows in you.

This love is a state of mind, not a relationship. It is not related to anybody; it is not that you love someone; rather, it is that you are loving. The other is not, the loved one is not, you are just loving to whatsoever comes in contact with you. You are love; you live in love. It has become your perfume.

Love is there, the perfume is there, even when you are alone – like a flower on a lonely path. No one passes, but the flower is there with its perfume. No one is there to know, to enjoy, but the perfume goes on silently spreading because it is not addressed to anyone. The perfume is there because that is the manifestation of the innermost nature of the flower. The flower is blissful, and the perfume is part of its nature. There is no effort to spread it – it is effortless.

When ego is not, love comes as a perfume – as a flowering of your heart. Then it goes on spreading. It is addressed to no one, it is absolutely unaddressed. When love is not addressed, it becomes prayer. When it is addressed, it degenerates into sex; when it is unaddressed, it rises to prayer.

God or love or death are not problems to be solved – they are experiences to be passed through.  They are not questions that can be answered; they are quests that can either be realized or not. God cannot be made a question at all. Whenever you ask questions about God they are bound to be superficial. And the answers are even more superficial, because a question that is superficial can only be answered with an even more superficial answer.

God is an existential quest; an inquiry, not a question. So there is no readymade answer to the question: Does God exist? Those who give readymade answers to the question do not know anything at all. It cannot be said that God exists and it cannot be said that God does not exist.

Both answers are irrelevant, because no answer can touch the real problem.

The theologies of every religion have become superficial because they have simply become expert in supplying readymade answers: you ask, and the answer is supplied. But this has done a very subtle harm to the religious spirit. These things cannot be answered like that. You cannot ask someone, “What is love?” You cannot ask it! And if he answers, then he is in the same boat as you – neither of you knows.

We want answers because we are trying to escape from the suffering entailed in the process of love, in the process that is life, existence, God. We are riding safe vessels: we want to know so that we will not suffer. But suffering is birth; through suffering there is ecstasy. You have to pass through the dark night of the soul to come to the dawn. You cannot ask what dawn is. You have to pass through the dark night to know it.

God is a search, not a question, and a search cannot be answered. It has to be lived; you have to go into it deeply. You will have to be committed to it; you will have to throw yourself into it. That is what the fear is: throwing oneself into the unknown, the uncharted.

You are afraid, so you sit on the bank and ask questions. And, of course, there are always people who get pleasure out of answering you. To answer someone is ego-fulfilling: you know and the other does not, the other is ignorant and you are a knower. Then this mutual nonsense goes on: someone asks and someone will answer. Both are in ignorance because the problem cannot be solved on the bank. One has to go into unknown waters, and you cannot go into the unknown with readymade answers.

Readymade answers are a barrier to the unknown. One has to go into the unknown in total insecurity, not knowing anything. That is what is necessary – and nothing can be done about it. To jump into the unknown is to come upon the truth, the ecstasy. When you come upon the divine yourself, it is not simply an answer, it is a transformation: you become one with it.

You can never become one with any answer; an answer always remains separate in the memory. You can go on collecting answers and piling them up in the mind; then you know so many answers and yet the question remains the same – it is still not answered.

The question cannot be answered like that. It can only be answered through a mutation. When you encounter the divine directly, immediately – when the divine is before you and you are before the divine with no barrier in between – then you encounter the fire and you are transformed. Then you become one with the divine flame: you and the flame are not separate. Then you never ask, “What is God?” because you are not separate. Then you never answer the question, “What is God?” because you are not separate.

Those who have known have remained silent. They have talked, but they have not given any answer to the question; they have made no statement at all. They have pointed in a certain direction, but to point is not to make a statement, it is just a gesture. Because of the limitation of words, of language – because of the limitations of the human mind, questioning and answering – one can only indicate, one can only point in a particular direction.

God is a living encounter, not a question. And through God, love comes. But one can only come to know God when one is not ambitious. Be non-ambitious and you will know.

Do not define yourself by those who are behind, because no one is behind; or by those who are ahead, because no one is ahead. Do not compare yourself with anybody. You are alone. Only you are like you; no one else is like you. Just be what you are.

That doesn’t mean not to be active. Be active, but only because of yourself, not in comparison to others. Flower by yourself, not in comparison to others. With this attitude, when the mind is completely unmoving, something of the divine will lure you; you will have glimpses.

Once you know the bliss of such glimpses, you will know the nonsense, the absurdity, and the absolutely unnecessary misery of ambition. Then the mind stops by itself. It becomes completely still, silent, non-achieving. In this still moment, the jump comes. And after the jump, there is God. After the jump, there is love – love follows like a shadow.

-Osho

From The Great Challenge, Chapter Eight

Copyright© OSHO International Foundation

You can read the entire book online at the Osho Library.

Many of Osho’s books are available online from Amazon.com and in the U.S. from OshoStore-Sedona and Osho Here and Now.

1 Comment

Filed under Love, Osho

Out of That Pure Existence Arises the Aroma of Love – Osho

In my meditations, as I try to look more and more inside, I often feel that there is nobody. It is like falling into an endless black gap. And I feel a lot of tension and wanting to run away. If there is no me inside, then whom should I love? Please help me find that love for myself, and that totality that you have talked about so many times.

Shivam Annette, the question you have asked is one of the most important questions as far as the people who are meditating are concerned. Before I go into your question, a few necessary distinctions have to be understood.

When I say, “Go inwards,” that does not mean that you will find someone there waiting for you. On the contrary, the more you go inwards, the less and less you are an ego. You are, but the feeling of I-ness starts disappearing — for the simple reason that the I can exist only in reference to Thou. If the Thou is not present, the I starts melting.

Outside you are confronted with many Thous, they keep your I alive. But inside, there is no Thou; hence, there can be no I. That does not mean that you are not. It simply means you are in your purity — not in reference to somebody else, but just yourself, without any reference, in your absolute aloneness. Because our whole life we live as an ego, as an I, this disappearance of the I naturally creates fear and an effort to run away. Although it is natural, it is not right.

You have to go through this fear, darkness, anxiety, tension, because your I is dying. Up to now, you have remained identified with the I, so it seems as if you are dying. But just look at a single point: you are watching fear, you are watching the disappearance of I, you are watching tension, you are watching blackness, darkness, you are watching a feeling of nobodiness. This watcher is you.

Going inwards is to find the witness in its absolute purity, unpolluted by anything — just a pure mirror, not reflecting anything. If mirrors were thinkers — fortunately they are not — and if they were brought up always with somebody looking in them, that would have given them an idea of who they are. And for many years, always reflecting somebody, they would have created a certain image of themselves — that they are the reflectors. Just visualize that one day suddenly nobody reflects in the mirror. The mirror will feel fear. The mirror will feel as if he is falling into a deep abyss, dark, dismal, into nonexistence — who is he? His identity is lost just because nobody is looking in the mirror. The mirror has not changed, in fact the mirror is pure. But with this purity he has never been acquainted; nobody has introduced him to this purity.

Meditation takes you to your purity.

Your purity is witnessing, watching, awareness.

You have not asked, “Who is the watcher?” You are asking, “I find there is nobody.”

Who finds it? — That’s you! You will find nothingness, you will find nothing reflected in you; you will find emptiness. You have to change your focus from the object to your subjectivity. One thing is certain: the witness is present, and the inward journey is to find the witness — is to find the pure mirror of your being.

You say, “In my meditations, as I try to look more and more inside, I often feel that there is nobody.” But you are not conscious at all that you are finding that there is nobody. But you are! Do you think you are going to meet yourself as somebody? Do you think you are going to meet somebody who will say, “Hello, Shivam Annette, how do you do?” That will really freak you out — “My God, I’m not one, I’m two!”

This feeling that there is nobody is absolutely right. You are on the right track. Just go on being alert that you are still there, watching. All these are objects — the nobody, the darkness, the fear, the tension…. “It is like falling into an endless black gap. And I feel a lot of tension and wanting to run away.”

Watch all these things. They are just your old habits. You have never been into your own depths; hence the fear of the unacquainted, of the unknown. You have always been going around and around — but outside — and you have even forgotten the path to your inner home. In the beginning it will look like an endless black gap. Allow it. Blackness has a beauty of its own. Blackness is deep, is silent — enjoy it! There is no need to run away from it.

“If there is no me inside, then whom should I love?”

There is certainly no me inside anyone. But there is something else far more important: there is something which can only be called your am-ness, your is-ness — just your pure existence.

You call it me, because outside you need to refer to yourself.  Have you watched small babies? In the beginning they often refer to themselves by their name, “Johnny is hungry.” They are far more accurate. But in a society they will be thought to be insane. “Johnny is hungry?” Why don’t you say, “I’m hungry” “Johnny” gives the idea that somebody else is hungry. Johnny is your name to be used by others.

You cannot use it when you are referring to yourself. Then you have to refer to yourself as `I’, `me’, but not your name.”

It happened in Thomas Alva Edison’s life… he was one of the greatest scientists. As far as numbers of inventions are concerned he is unparalleled — he invented one thousand things. It is almost impossible to find a thing which is not invented by Thomas Alva Edison. He was so much respected that nobody mentioned his name, just out of respect. His colleagues called him Professor, his students called him Sir, and obviously he didn’t use his own name.

Then came the First World War, and for the first time rationing was introduced, and he went to the rationing shop. There was a queue; he was standing in the queue and when the man in front of him had left, the clerk shouted loudly, “Who is Thomas Alva Edison?” And Thomas Alva Edison looked here and there, where is Thomas Alva Edison? The clerk was also a little puzzled, because this man ought to be Thomas Alva Edison; it was his number. And the whole queue was also puzzled. They were looking at each other, what is the matter?

Finally one man from the back of the queue said to him, “Sir, as far as I remember, I have seen you. You are Thomas Alva Edison.”

And Edison said, “If you say so, perhaps I am.”

The clerk said, “Are you insane or what?”

He said, “Not insane, but I have not heard this name for almost thirty years. I have forgotten it. Nobody calls me by the name. My father died when I was very young, my mother died. Now it is a far, faraway memory. I can remember that something like Thomas Alva Edison used to be my name, but for thirty years nobody has mentioned it. It is good that that man recognized me; otherwise I don’t think that on my own I would have been able to recognize it myself.”

It is a rare case, but thirty years is a long time, particularly for a man like Edison whose life is so full of creativity. His thirty years are almost three hundred years in your life. It is simply a social invention that you refer to others by their name, and you refer to yourself by I, me. But inside there is no other, and with the other gone, the me, the I, is gone.

But there is no need to worry. You will not find your I, but you will find something greater: you will find your is-ness, your existence, your being.

When I say “Love yourself,” this is for those who have never gone inside; because they can always… they are bound to understand only a language of duality. Love yourself — that means you are dividing yourself into two, the lover and the loved. You may not have thought about it, but if you go inside you will not love yourself, you will be love.

You will be simply the energy called love.

You will be loving; you will radiate love. Love will be your fragrance.

Goldstein, who looked Jewish, was walking down a street in Berlin just before the war, when he accidentally collided with a stout Nazi officer.

“Schwein,” bellowed the Nazi.

“Goldstein,” replied the Jew with a courteous bow.

Sometimes you may need your name also; life gives strange situations. Goldstein did well. Rather than being offended, he introduced himself, just as the Nazi had introduced himself. But all these names can be used only on the outside.

Inside you are nameless, you are egoless. Inside you are just a pure existence — and out of that pure existence arises the aroma of love.

-Osho

From The Golden Future, Chapter Eight

Copyright© OSHO International Foundation

An MP3 audio file of this discourse can be downloaded from Osho.com, or you can read the entire book online at the Osho Library.

Many of Osho’s books are available online from Amazon.com and in the U.S. from OshoStore-Sedona and Osho Here and Now.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Love, Osho, Osho on Witnessing

Be Truthful so That One is Loving – Osho

If one is loving, one becomes truthful; it is impossible to be loving and not be truthful. Truth is necessarily created by the energy called love, and vice versa: when one lives the truth, one becomes loving; it is impossible to be true and unloving. If you find somebody who is loving and untruthful then know well that his love is just a façade, a camouflage, it is phony; because the criterion is truth. And if somebody is truthful and unloving then know well that truthfulness is just an imposed character. It is not growing in his being, it is not his own flower. It is something borrowed, something synthetic, not natural.

Whenever love grows naturally it brings truth in its wake and vice versa. They are always together, they cannot be separated. There is no way to separate them, they are inseparable. In fact they are one, two faces of one reality.

The real seeker has to work from both sides, then growth is fast. Be truthful so that you can be more loving; be more loving so more truth happens to you. And there comes a moment when they are one. That is the moment of illumination – when truth is love and love is truth. That’s what Jesus means when he says ‘God is love.’ God is his word for truth.

-Osho

From Turn On, Tune In And Drop The Lot, Chapter Four

Copyright© OSHO International Foundation

You can read the entire book online at the Osho Library.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Love, On Jesus, Osho

The Vast Space Which Thought Cannot Touch – J. Krishnamurti

When you turn your head from horizon to horizon your eyes see a vast space in which all the things of the earth and of the sky appear. But this space is always limited where the earth meets the sky. The space in the mind is so small. In this little space all our activities seem to take place: the daily living and the hidden struggles with contradictory desires and motives. In this little space the mind seeks freedom, and so it is always a prisoner of itself. Meditation is the ending of this little space. To us, action is bringing about order in this little space of the mind. But there is another action which is not putting order in this little space. Meditation is action which comes when the mind has lost its little space. This vast space which the mind, the I, cannot reach, is silence. The mind can never be silent within itself; it is silent only within the vast space which thought cannot touch. Out of this silence there is action which is not of thought. Meditation is this silence.

-J. Krishnamurti

From Meditations 1969, Part 3

To see more posts of J. Krishnamurti see:   http://o-meditation.com/category/j-krishnamurti/

To read more of J. Krishnamurti see:   http://o-meditation.com/jai-guru-deva/some-good-books/downloadable-books/j-krishnamurti/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Advaita, J. Krishnamurti, Love, Meditation

A Slip of the Tongue

Woke up this morning and found my English slipping

Maybe it’s the result of all those years teaching it

Can’t find the distinction between god and happiness

Are love and meditation two words or one?

Not able to slip a sliver between the Tao and the Logos

Used to be a division between me and you, what happened?

Perhaps we’ll just rest here before the word

-purushottama

Leave a Comment

Filed under Advaita, Love, Meditation, poetry, Prem Purushottama

Start the Journey from the Heart – Osho

I used to listen to you without understanding and feel perfectly blissful – And I’ve heard you say that this is right listening. Lately I’ve had an intense desire to understand what you say. At first I was sad; it seemed I had taken a wrong turn. But it feels good: my head tingles and feels intensely alive. Is there anything I can do other than enjoy it?

There is no need to do anything else. If you are enjoying it, you have heard me from the heart. It is an overflowing with love, an understanding beyond words. You have not tried to understand; you have never used the mind. It is good, perfectly good – that’s how the journey should begin.

When the heart is completely full of joy, it starts overflowing in all directions; the mind is not kept apart. That’s what is happening: you suddenly started listening with an effort to understand, and you feel your head is full of a strange tingling. That means something is overflowing from the heart, because that tingle cannot be possible by understanding only words. And if you are feeling joyful, enjoying it, then there is no problem: it is simply the heart and mind are getting into tune; their conflict is dissolving, their antagonism is disappearing. Soon they will be one thing.

Then the very hearing is both – it reaches to your heart as a vibe, a thrill, and to the mind as an understanding – and both are connected with you. The problem is only when the head starts the journey. It is a miser. In the first place it cannot understand many things but it pretends to understand them, so it creates a falsity. And it cannot give anything to the heart; it is not even aware of the heart. It does not know giving, it knows only getting; it is greedy.

You will be surprised to know that the English word ‘greed’ comes from a Sanskrit word. In Sanskrit the vulture is called gridha. Gridha and greed come from the same root. The mind is a vulture. It is significant to understand because the vulture is always present if there is a corpse, if somebody is dead.

If you go to Bombay, the Parsee cemetery is something to see. It is one of the most beautiful places, exactly in the middle of Bombay. Parsees exist only in Bombay. Originally they were Persians and from Persian has come the Hindi word parsee. Because they were not willing to be converted to Mohammedanism, they escaped and landed in Bombay. Since then their whole existence in the world has been within the boundaries of Bombay, because the whole of Persia became Mohammedan – forcibly.

When they had first come, the place they chose for their cemetery was outside Bombay. But all Bombay has been growing tremendously and now it is exactly in the middle – a thick forest. The Parsee cemetery has something strange: it has a very big well, and on the top of the well there are iron rods. They put the corpse on the rods so that it cannot fall into the well. Then the vultures eat the corpse, and only the bones fall into the well. The well is full of bones – it is a very big well. And on all the trees you will find thousands of vultures sitting, waiting for somebody to die. They live only on the dead.

Strange it is that the mind also lives on something dead, not on anything living. When the mind starts the journey it thinks it is trying to understand the meaning, but it really kills the meaning. All that was alive in those words is left out; only the dead part is absorbed. That’s what I mean when I say someone is intellectual. That means he has collected many dead bones, but he has not tasted life at all. He is full of words, but he himself gives meaning to them; he does not take meaning from them, so the whole journey goes wrong.

If one starts from the mind, one remains confined to the mind. He collects words, becomes a scholar, an intellectual, but it is not intelligence. His first step, to begin with the mind, is unintelligent.

I have never come up against any intelligent intellectual. That looks absurd because ordinarily we think intellectuals are intelligent people, but that is not true. Intellectuals live only on dead words. Intelligence cannot do that. Intelligence drops the word – that is the corpse – and just takes the living vibe in it.

So it is good to start the journey from the heart. The intelligent man’s way is the way of the heart, because the heart is not interested in words; it is interested only in the juice that comes in the containers of the words. It does not collect containers; it simply drinks the juice and throws away the container. The mind does just the opposite: it throws away the juice and collects the containers. Containers look beautiful, and a great collection of containers makes a man a great intellectual giant.

If you start the journey from the head you will go on round and round and round inside the head. Your head will become swollen; you will become more egoistic.

Hasya was asking me, “Why don’t we invite intellectuals, authors, writers, professors to understand you?” This is the problem: they cannot understand. It is good if they read my books; they may be able to collect some words, some containers, but to be in my presence they will feel awkward, because my whole emphasis is on the juice, not on the containers. I am trying hard so that you throw away the container and you simply take the juice.

The heart knows how to become drunk, and the heart knows how to give, how to share. It is willing to share even with the mind. And when the heart shares with the mind then there is a difference because the heart has no containers; it can share only the juice. If the mind is willing to take, it will have to take the juice. That’s why you are feeling the tingling sensation. Soon the heart will also fill the mind with the same juice. It will fill your whole body with the same tingling sensation. It is a dance of each cell in your being.

So what is happening is perfectly good – and it is happening; you are not doing. Doing is always suspicious; happening is never suspicious. So whenever something is happening, go with it – go with it totally, with no reservations at all, and you will always be getting into deeper benediction, into deeper blessings.

-Osho

Taken from The Path of the Mystic, Chapter Two  

Copyright© OSHO International Foundation

An MP3 audio file of this discourse can be downloaded from Osho.com, or you can read the entire book online at the Osho Library.

Many of Osho’s books are available online from Amazon.com and in the U.S. from OshoStore-Sedona and Osho Here and Now.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Love, Osho

The New Humanity – Meher Baba

The New Humanity

As in all great critical periods of human history, humanity is now going through the agonizing travail of spiritual rebirth. Great forces of destruction are afoot and seem to be dominant at the moment, but constructive and creative forces that will redeem humanity are also being released through several channels. Although the working of these forces of light is chiefly silent, they are eventually bound to bring about those transformations that will make the further spiritual advance of humanity safe and steady. It is all a part of the divine plan, which is to give to the hungry and weary world a fresh dispensation of the eternal and only Truth.

At present the urgent problem facing humanity is to devise ways and means of eliminating competition, conflict, and rivalry in all the subtle and gross forms that they assume in the various spheres of life. Military wars are, of course, the most obvious sources of chaos and destruction. However, wars in themselves do not constitute the central problem for humanity but are rather the external symptoms of something graver at their root. Wars and the suffering they bring cannot be completely avoided by mere propaganda against war; if they are to disappear from human history, it will be necessary to tackle their root cause. Even when military wars are not being waged, individuals or groups of individuals are constantly engaged in economic or some other subtle form of warfare. Military wars, with all the cruelty they involve, arise only when these underlying causes are aggravated.

The cause of the chaos that precipitates itself in wars is that most persons are in the grip of egoism and selfish considerations, and they express their egoism and self-interest individually as well as collectively. This is the life of illusory values in which man is caught. To face the truth is to realize that life is one, in and through its manifold manifestations. To have this understanding is to forget the limiting self in the realization of the unity of life.

With the dawn of true understanding, the problem of wars would immediately disappear. Wars have to be so clearly seen as both unnecessary and unreasonable that the immediate problem would not be how to stop wars but to wage them spiritually against the attitude of mind responsible for such a cruel and painful state of things. In the light of the truth of the unity of all life, cooperative and harmonious action becomes natural and inevitable. Hence, the chief task before those who are deeply concerned with the rebuilding of humanity is to do their utmost to dispel the spiritual ignorance that envelops humanity.

Wars do not arise merely to secure material adjustment. They are often the product of uncritical identification with narrow interests, which through association come to be included in that part of the world regarded as “mine.” Material adjustment is only part of the wider problem of establishing spiritual adjustment. Spiritual adjustment requires the elimination of self, not only from the material aspects of life, but also from those spheres that affect the intellectual, emotional, and cultural life of man.

To understand the problem of humanity as merely a problem of bread is to reduce humanity to the level of animality. But even when man sets himself the limited task of securing purely material adjustment, he can only succeed in this attempt if he has spiritual understanding. Economic adjustment is impossible unless people realize that there can be no planned and cooperative action in economic matters until self-interest gives way to self-giving love. Otherwise, with the best of equipment and efficiency in the material spheres, humanity cannot avoid conflict and insufficiency.

The New Humanity that emerges from the travail of the present struggle and suffering will not ignore science or its practical attainments. It is a mistake to look upon science as anti-spiritual. Science is a help or hindrance to spirituality according to the use to which it is put. Just as true art expresses spirituality, science, when properly handled, can be the expression and fulfillment of the spirit. Scientific truths concerning the physical body and its life in the gross world can become mediums for the soul to know itself; but to serve this purpose they must be properly fitted into larger spiritual understanding. This includes a steady perception of true and lasting values. In the absence of such spiritual understanding, scientific truths and attainments are liable to be used for mutual destruction and for a life that will tend to strengthen the chains that bind the spirit. All-sided progress of humanity can be assured only if science and religion proceed hand in hand.

The coming civilization of the New Humanity shall be ensouled not by dry intellectual doctrines but by living spiritual experience. Spiritual experience has a hold on the deeper truths that are inaccessible to mere intellect; it cannot be born of unaided intellect. Spiritual truth can often be stated and expressed through the intellect, and the intellect surely is of some help for the communication of spiritual experience. But by itself, the intellect is insufficient to enable man to have spiritual experience or to communicate it to others. If two persons have had headaches, they can cooperatively examine their experience of headaches and make it explicit to themselves through the work of the intellect. If a person has never experienced a headache, no amount of intellectual explanation will suffice for making him understand what a headache is. Intellectual explanation can never be a substitute for spiritual experience; it can at best prepare the ground for it.

Spiritual experience involves more than can be grasped by mere intellect. This is often emphasized by calling it a mystical experience. Mysticism is often regarded as something anti-intellectual, obscure and confused, or impractical and unconnected with experience. In fact, true mysticism is none of these. There is nothing irrational in true mysticism when it is, as it should be, a vision of Reality. It is a form of perception that is absolutely unclouded, and it is so practical that it can be lived every moment of life and expressed in everyday duties. Its connection with experience is so deep that, in one sense, it is the final understanding of all experience.

When spiritual experience is described as mystical, one should not assume that it is something supernatural or entirely beyond the grasp of human consciousness. All that is meant is that it is not accessible to the limited human intellect until the intellect transcends its limits and is illumined by direct realization of the Infinite. Jesus Christ pointed out the way to spiritual experience when He said, “Leave all and follow me.” This means that man must leave limitations and establish himself in the infinite life of God. A real spiritual experience involves not only realization of the nature of the soul while traversing the higher planes of consciousness but also a right attitude toward worldly duties. If it loses its connection with the different phases of life, what we have is a neurotic reaction that is far from being a spiritual experience.

The spiritual experience that is to enliven and energize the New Humanity cannot be a reaction to the stern and uncompromising demands made by the realities of life. Those without the capacity for adjustment to the flow of life have a tendency to recoil from the realities of life and to seek shelter and protection in a self-created fortress of illusions. Such a reaction is an attempt to perpetuate one’s separate existence by protecting it from the demands made by life. It can only give a pseudo solution to the problems of life by providing a false sense of security and self-completeness. It is not even an advance toward the real and lasting solution; on the contrary, it is a sidetrack from the true spiritual path. Man will be dislodged again and again from his illusory shelters by fresh and irresistible waves of life, and will invite upon himself fresh forms of suffering by seeking to protect his separative existence through escape.

Just as a person may seek to hold on to his separative experience through escape, he may also seek to hold on to it through uncritical identification with forms, ceremonies and rituals, or with traditions and conventions. Forms, ceremonies and rituals, traditions and conventions, are in most cases fetters to the release of infinite life. If they were pliant mediums for the expression of unlimited life, they would be an asset rather than a handicap for securing the fulfillment of divine life on earth. But they mostly have a tendency to gather prestige and claims in their own right, independently of the life they might express. When this happens, any attachment to them must eventually lead to a drastic curtailment and restriction of life. The New Humanity will be freed from a life of limitations, allowing unhampered scope for the creative life of the spirit; and it will break the attachment to external forms and learn to subordinate them to the claims of the spirit. The limited life of illusions and false values will then be replaced by unlimited life in the Truth; and the limitations, through which the separative self lives, will wither away at the touch of true understanding.

Just as a person may seek to hold on to his separative existence through escape or identification with external forms, he may seek to hold on to it through identification with some narrow class, creed, sect, or religion, or with the divisions based upon sex. Here the individual may seem to have lost his separative existence through identification with a larger whole. But, in fact, he is often expressing his separative existence through such an identification, which enables him to delight in his feeling of being separate from others who belong to another class, nationality, creed, sect, religion, or sex.

Separative existence derives its being and strength from identifying itself with one of the opposites and contrasting itself with the others. An individual may seek to protect his separate existence through identification with one ideology rather than another or with his conception of good as contrasted with his idea of evil. What results from identification with narrow groups or limited ideals is not a real merging of the separative self but only a semblance of it. A real merging of the limited self in the ocean of universal life involves complete surrender of separative existence in all its forms.

The large mass of humanity is caught up in the clutches of separative and assertive tendencies. For one who is overpowered by the spectacle of these fetters of humanity, there is bound to be nothing but unrelieved despair about its future. One must look deeper into the realities of the day if one is to get a correct perspective on the present distress of humanity. The real possibilities of the New Humanity are hidden to those who look only at the surface of the world situation, but they exist and only need the spark of spiritual understanding to come into full play and effect. The forces of lust, hate, and greed produce incalculable suffering and chaos. However, the one redeeming feature about human nature is that even in the midst of disruptive forces there invariably exists some form of love.

Even wars require cooperative functioning, but the scope of this cooperative functioning is artificially restricted by identification with a limited group or ideal. Wars often are carried on by a form of love, though it is a love that has not been understood properly. In order that love should come into its own, it must be untrammeled and unlimited. Love does exist in all phases of human life; but it is latent or is limited and poisoned by personal ambition, racial pride, narrow loyalties and rivalries, and attachment to sex, nationality, sect, caste, or religion. If there is to be a resurrection of humanity, the heart of man will have to be unlocked so that a new love is born into it-a love that knows no corruption and is entirely free from individual or collective greed.

The New Humanity will come into existence through a release of love in measureless abundance, and this release of love can come through the spiritual awakening brought about by the Perfect Masters[1]. Love cannot be born of mere determination; through the exercise of will one can at best be dutiful. Through struggle and effort, one may succeed in assuring that one’s external action is in conformity with one’s concept of what is right; but such action is spiritually barren because it lacks the inward beauty of spontaneous love.

Love has to spring spontaneously from within; it is in no way amenable to any form of inner or outer force. Love and coercion can never go together; but while love cannot be forced upon anyone, it can be awakened through love itself. Love is essentially self-communicative; those who do not have it catch it from those who have it. Those who receive love from others cannot be its recipients without giving a response that, in itself, is the nature of love. True love is unconquerable and irresistible. It goes on gathering power and spreading itself until eventually it transforms everyone it touches. Humanity will attain a new mode of being and life through the free and unhampered interplay of pure love from heart to heart.

When it is recognized that there are no claims greater than the claims of the universal Divine Life-which, without exception, includes everyone and everything-love will not only establish peace, harmony, and happiness in social, national, and international spheres but it will shine in its own purity and beauty. Divine love is unassailable to the onslaughts of duality and is an expression of divinity itself. It is through divine love that the New Humanity will tune in to the divine plan. Divine love will not only introduce imperishable sweetness and infinite bliss into personal life but it will also make possible an era of New Humanity. Through divine love the New Humanity will learn the art of cooperative and harmonious life. It will free itself from the tyranny of dead forms and release the creative life of spiritual wisdom; it will shed all illusions and get established in the Truth; it will enjoy peace and abiding happiness; it will be initiated in the life of Eternity.

-Meher Baba

Taken from Discourses


[1] Sadguru

For more posts on Meher Baba see:   http://o-meditation.com/category/meher-baba/

To read more from Meher Baba see:   http://o-meditation.com/jai-guru-deva/some-good-books/downloadable-books/meher-baba/

1 Comment

Filed under Love, Meher Baba

Divine Love – Meher Baba

Love

The functioning of love and reason is of three types. In the first type, the sphere of thought and the sphere of love are kept as separate as possible, i.e., the sphere of love is practically inaccessible to the operation of reason; and love is allowed little or no access to the objects of thought. Complete separation between these two aspects of the spirit is of course never possible; but when there is an alternate functioning of love and reason (with both oscillating in their predominance) we have a love which is un-illumined by reason or a reason which is unenlivened by love. In the second type, love and reason are both simultaneously operative but they do not work in harmony with each other. But though this conflict creates confusion it is a necessary phase in the evolution of the higher state where there is a real synthesis of love and reason. In the third type of love this synthesis between love and reason is an accomplished fact with the result that both love as well as reason are so completely transformed that they precipitate the emergence of a new level of con-sciousness which (in comparison with the normal human consciousness) is best described as super-consciousness.

Infatuation, lust and greed might be looked upon as perverted and lower forms of love. In infatuation a person gets enamoured of a sensual object; in lust he develops a craving for sensations in relation to it; and in greed he desires to possess it.

In infatuation, the person is a passive victim of the spell of conceived attraction of the object; but in love there is an active appreciation of the intrinsic worth of the object of love.

Love is also different from lust. In lust, there is a reliance upon the object of sense and consequent spiritual subordination of the soul in relation to it; but love puts the soul into direct and coordinate relation with the Reality which is behind the form. Therefore, lust is experienced as being heavy and love is ex-perienced as being light. In lust, there is a narrowing down of life and in love there is an expansion in being. To have loved one soul is like adding its life to your own, your life is, as it were multiplied and you virtually live in two centres. If you love the whole world, you vicariously live in the whole world. But in lust there is the ebbing down of life and the general sense of hopeless dependence upon a form which is regarded as another. Thus, in lust there is the accentuation of separateness and suffering; but in love—there is the feeling of unity and joy. Lust is dissipation; love is recreation. Lust is a craving of the senses; love is the expression of the spirit. Lust seeks fulfilment but love experiences fulfilment. In lust, there is excitement; but in love there is tranquility.

Love is equally different from greed. Greed is possess-iveness in all its gross and subtle forms. It seeks to appropriate gross things and persons as well as the abstract and intangible things like fame and power. In love the annexation of the other person to your individual life is out of the question and there is a free and creative outpouring that enlivens and replenishes the psychic being of the beloved independ-ently of any expectation for the self. And we have the paradox, that greed which seeks for the self the appropriation of another object does in fact lead to the opposite result of bringing the self under the tutelage of the object; and love which aims at giving away the self to the object does in fact lead to a spiritual incorporation of the beloved in the very being of the lover. In greed the self tries to possess the object, but is itself spiritually possessed by the object; and in love the self offers itself to the beloved without any reservations, but in that very act it finds that it has included the beloved in its own being.

Pure love, which is awakened through the Grace of the Master is more valuable than any other method which may be adopted by the aspirant. Such love not only combines in itself the merits of all the discipline but excels them all in its efficacy to lead the aspirant to his Goal. When this love is born the aspirant has only one desire; and that one desire is to be united with the Divine Beloved. Such withdrawal of consciousness from all other desires leads to infinite purity; nothing purifies the aspirant more completely than this love. The aspirant is ever willing to offer everything for the Divine Beloved; and no sacrifice is too difficult for him. All his thoughts are turned away from the self and come to be exclusively centered on the Divine Beloved. And through the intensity of this ever-growing love he eventually breaks through the shackles of the self and becomes united with the Beloved. This is the consummation of love. When love has thus found its fruition it has become Divine.

Divine Love is qualitatively different from human love. Human love is for the many in the One and Divine Love is for the One in the many. Human Love leads to innumerable complications and tangles; but Divine Love leads to integration and freedom. In human love the duality of the lover and the Beloved persists; but in Divine Love the lover and the Beloved become one. At this stage, the aspirant has stepped out of the domain of duality and become one with God; for Divine Love is God. When the lover and the Beloved are one, that is the end and the beginning.

It is because of love that the contacts and relations between individual souls become significant; and it is love which gives meaning and value to all the happenings in the world of duality. But, while love gives meaning to the world of duality, it is at the same time, a standing challenge to duality. As love gathers strength, it generates creative restlessness and becomes the main driving power of that spiritual dynamic which ultimately succeeds in restoring to consciousness the original Unity of Being.

From Discourses

For more posts on Meher Baba see:   http://o-meditation.com/category/meher-baba/

To read more from Meher Baba see:   http://o-meditation.com/jai-guru-deva/some-good-books/downloadable-books/meher-baba/

1 Comment

Filed under Love, Meher Baba

The Nectar of Immortality – Nisargadatta Maharaj

nisargadatta_250Maharaj:

If one obtains and relishes the nectar of the Lord’s feet, the charan-amrita, the mind can be conquered. This means that the mind will no longer hold sway over us; its mastery imposed from childhood will no longer oppress us. This is called manojaya—victory over the mind. But this is made possible only with His Grace. Without Grace, we cannot relish the nectar.

However, only a true devotee, a bhakta, a god, can obtain the charan-amrita. But who and what is this devotee? It is nothing else but the consciousness, the sense of being, the knowledge that “we are,” which has appeared unknowingly and spontaneously in us. The consciousness is the charan-amrita, the nectar of the Lord’s feet.

The entire cosmos in its vibrant, stirring movement is represented by the consciousness, the feet of the Lord, and the whole universe is the body of the consciousness. But what is its relationship with all beings? It dwells in the core of all beings as the knowledge “I am,” the love “to be,” the charan-amrita.

One who drinks the nectar of the Lord’s feet is a true devotee. He abides in the knowledge “I am.” He is godly. Thus, when one sips continuously this nectar by witnessing the consciousness or the sense of being, one’s mind, which assesses and differentiates persons observed as males and females, gradually removes itself from the focus of attention, leaving the consciousness in its innate glory.

But how can such a state be attained? Only if one totally accepts the knowledge “I am” as oneself with full conviction and faith and firmly believes in the dictum “I am that by which I know ‘I am’.” This knowledge “I am” is the charan-amrita. Why is it called amrita--the nectar? Because, it is said, by drinking nectar one becomes immortal. Thus, a true devotee, by abiding in the knowledge “I am” transcends the experience of death and attains immortality. But so long as the mind remains unconquered, the experience of death is inevitable.

Although my talks go on and on with many visitors, my standpoint remains unchanged. Why? Because my standpoint is stabilized at the charan-amrita. It stays put in the consciousness, the source of concepts and language. Out of it emanates the language from its subtlest formation to the grossest vocal expression, as para, pashyanti, madhyama, and vaikhari.

If you could just give up all other spiritual efforts and disciplines and absorb yourself in relishing the charan-amrita, by abidance in the consciousness, the mind will release you from its clutches. At present, you meekly accept whatever the mind dictates as your own. If the mind goes into silence, where and what are you?

Once you subside into the consciousness, the factual state of Reality shall be revealed to you with the knowledge that will emanate out of you intuitively. like spring water. This will enable you to discern not what is real and unreal, but most importantly, to realize what “I am.”

What am I for myself alone? What is this life? Once these questions are resolved intuitively and the Reality emerges, the mind cannot predominate any longer. However, functioning of the mind will go on, but the quality of its functioning will be totally different. One who has attained such a state of the mind remains unaffected by any happenings, since the blabberings of the mind can have no effect. And who could be that one? Surely not an individual who is trapped in the mind-shell. But that one is the knowledge “I am”–the consciousness.

It is said that we should break off the shackles that attach us to the body and the world. What does that mean? Whatever is seen and perceived is at the bodily or worldly level. An attachment is developed with objects perceived, and then we identify with a body as ourselves and claim the objects as our own. Attachment is the nature of the mind, and it obstinately persists in these attachments. But if you drink the charan-amrita by stabilizing in the consciousness, everything will be resolved and you will be enlightened. You need not go to anybody to clear your doubts.

While doing my normal chores and singing bhajans in praise of God and so on, to you I appear to be deeply involved in these activities. But actually I remain apart from myself, bereft of the body and mind sense, and then witnessing of the activities happens to Me. I wonder if you have marked this! Many persons are related to me in some way or another. Although seemingly I hobnob with them, I am apart from them. For myself, I have fully realized what “I am,” and right now it is absolutely clear to me what and how ‘I am.” But what these persons think “they are,” only they know. They presume to have acquired knowledge, to have reached a spiritual status higher than others…and so forth. This is bound to be, because they are still slaves to their mind. In my case, it cannot happen. I have totally imbibed the nectar of the Lord’s feet–the  consciousness.

At present, all communications and functionings happen through the medium of the nectar–the consciousness. And what is this medium? It is the knowledge “I am.” It is represented by Lord Vishnu, the highest god who reclines blissfully on the coils of the serpent, sheshashayi, and hence is known as sheshashayi-Bhagavan.

Well it is nice to have such talks, but to imbibe and realize their essence is very difficult indeed. Why? Because you firmly believe that you are the body and live accordingly, while entertaining fond wishes that you will achieve something good in the world, and later still better. These expectations are primarily based on the misconceived notion that you are the body. This wrong identification, however, dissolves in the nectar of the Lord’s feet, when you totally subside in the consciousness and lose your individuality.

Dissolution of individuality is not possible without devotion to the Master–guru-bhakti–which in other words is again the consciousness, the guru-charan-amrita. Abidance in the consciousness removes all past and future problems, and stabilizes one in the present–Here and Now.

Consciousness is the sense of knowingness “I am” without words, and it appeared unknowingly and unsolicited. It is the manifest universal life force and, therefore, cannot be individualistic. It extends inside and outside, like the brilliance of a diamond. You see a dream-world inside you and a perceptible world outside you, provided the consciousness prevails. From the body level, you may say inside and outside the body, but from the standpoint of consciousness, where and what is inside and outside? Only in the realm of knowingness “I am”–the consciousness–can a world be, and so also an experience.

Hold on to this knowingness “I am,” and the fount of knowledge will well up within you, revealing the mystery of the Universe; of your body and psyche; of the play of the five elements, the three gunas and prakriti-purush; and of everything else. In the process of this revelation, your individualistic personality confined to the body shall expand into the manifested universe, and it will be realized that you permeate and embrace the entire cosmos as your “body” only. This is known as the “Pure Superknowledge”–shuddhavijnana.

Nevertheless, even in the sublime shuddhavijnana state, the mind refuses to believe that it is a non-entity. But as one subsides in the consciousness, one develops a firm conviction that the knowledge “you are”–the sense of your being–is the very source of your world. This knowledge alone makes you feel “you are” and the world is. Actually, this manifest knowledge, having occupied and permeated the cosmos, dwells in you as the knowledge “you are.” Hold on to this knowledge. Do not try to give it a name or a title.

Now coming to a very subtle situation, what is it in you that understands this knowledge “you are”–or from your standpoint “I am,” without a name, title or word? Subside in that innermost centre and witness the knowledge ” I am” and just be. This is the “bliss of being”–the svarupananda.

You derive pleasure and happiness through various external aids and processes. Some like to enjoy good food, some like to see a picture, some get absorbed in music…and so on. For all these enjoyments some outside factors are essential. But to abide in the “bliss of being” no external aids are required at all. To understand this, take the example of deep sleep. Once you are in deep sleep, no aids or treatments are called for and you enjoy a quiet happiness. Why? Because in that state identity with a body as male or female is totally forgotten.

Some visitors ask me, “Please show us a path that will lead to Reality.” How can I? All paths lead to unreality. Paths are creations within the scope of knowledge. Therefore, paths and movements cannot transport you into Reality, because their function is to enmesh you within the dimension of knowledge, while the Reality prevails prior to it. To apprehend this, you must stay put at the source of your creation, at the beginning of the knowledge “I am.” So long as you do not achieve this, you will be entangled in the chains forged by your mind and get enmeshed in those of others.

Therefore, I repeat, you stabilize at the source of your being and then all the chains will snap asunder and you will be liberated. You will transcend time, with the result that you will be beyond the reach of its tentacles and you shall prevail in Eternity. And this sublime state can be attained only by drinking ceaselessly the nectar of the guru’s sacred feet–the guru-charan-amrita. It is a state of ecstatic beatitude–the self subsiding blissfully in the Self. This ecstasy is beyond words; it is also awareness in total quietude.

The quintessence of the talk is clear. Your most important asset is the “knowledge” that “you are” prior to emanation of mind. Hold on to this “knowledge” and meditate. Nothing is superior to this, not even devotion to a guru–guru-bhakti–or devotion to God-Ishwara-bhakti.

Nisargadatta Maharaj – January 25, 1980

from The Nectar of Immortality. 1987 Joseph Nauwelaerts

For more posts on Nisargadatta Maharaj see:   http://o-meditation.com/category/nisargadatta-maharaj/

To read more from Nisargadatta Maharaj see:   http://o-meditation.com/jai-guru-deva/some-good-books/downloadable-books/nisargadatta-maharaj/

1 Comment

Filed under Love, Meditation, Nisargadatta Maharaj