Tag: Consciousness

It Is What I Am – Rupert Spira

Dear Rupert,

When I was a child, I used to think, when in bed before going to sleep: “how is it possible that the universe has come into existence? If something exists, something else is the originating cause.” Going backwards, I always arrived (and I still arrive now) at a conclusion: “Something exists forever. But this is impossible to my logic… so nothing exists.” Many times I felt, just for an instant, a sudden vacuum when concluding that nothing exists. But then I noticed that I was there, thinking and conscious, so I existed!!!! My logic says that nothing exists and never existed, but I am here writing this.

This contradiction has opened my mind to any possibility. If I cannot understand how is it possible that anything exists, then anything can be possible, and the Truth (the reality) can be anything. When I found out years later about Young’s double slit experiment and other paradoxes in quantum physics, I was not surprised at all. In fact, all phenomena are simple details, what matters is the substance that is behind them.

My question: non-dual teachings resonate with what I just related. Even the nothingness that is totality at the same time sounds like the paradox of something uncaused. Do you, in your consistent openness and enlightenment, “understand” (or whatever word you use) this paradox? Is it possible to penetrate this mystery?

Thanks and kind regards,

Javier

Dear Javier

Thank you for your beautiful question which goes to the very heart of the matter.

You say, “When I was a child, I used to think, when in bed before going to sleep, ‘how is it possible that the universe has come into existence?'”

Let us look first of all at this ‘universe’ that is considered to have come into existence. The ‘universe’ is normally considered to be an infinitely vast whole which we, as separate perceiving entities, perceive partially and intermittently.

This ‘universe’ is considered to have existed before any of these apparently perceiving entities were present to perceive it. That is, it is considered to have existed before perception was possible and even when so called perceiving entities had appeared in this universe it is still considered to exist when it is not being perceived.

In fact this ‘universe’ is considered to have given birth, at a certain stage of its evolution, to the Consciousness with which it is known or perceived. However, it is believed to have existed prior to the birth of this Consciousness. In other words the ‘universe’ is considered to exist prior to and independently of Consciousness.

However, this universe that is conceived to have existed prior to Consciousness, has never been experienced. Perceptions are experienced and subsequently thought strings together in imagination an infinite number of such perceptions and creates out of them ‘the universe.’ However, such a ‘universe’ exists only in imagination. It is a presumption.

Now let us look first of all at the validity of this fundamental presumption. What evidence is there for such a universe? Has it ever been experienced? Could it ever be experienced?

If we agree to begin with that experience must be the test of reality, then every presumption or thought model must be subjected to the scrutiny of experience in order to be validated.

So, has anyone ever experienced the universe as it is conceived? We can bring this investigation much closer by taking any simple object such as the table in our room and ask the same questions about it:

There is a perception of the table. If there are several people in the room, there will be several perceptions of the table. From these perceptions we build a model of a ‘whole table,’ ‘the thing in itself’ that is considered to be the sum total of all possible perceptions, that exists independently of its being perceived and cannot by definition ever be perceived in its imagined totality.

Has anyone ever experienced such a table? Have you ever experienced such a table? Could you? Could anyone?

The answer is obviously ‘No.’ It is fundamental to see the truth of this simple and startling fact of experience: no one has ever or could ever experience an object, an other, a world, a universe as it is normally considered to exist or conceived to be.

The universe as such is imagined. This is not a proof that such a universe does not exist, but it is a proof that there is no evidence that it does.

* * *

So, it does not make sense to ask questions about a universe that we have never experienced. It is like asking questions about a pink elephant.

Having said that, asking questions about what we SEEM to experience is good because if we pursue them thoroughly, they lead us to what we IS experienced.

So let us now come closer to the truth of our experience:

Imagine an everyday occurrence such as walking into your kitchen, making a cup of tea and leaving again.

Our normal view is that we, as an entity located in and as the body, enter the kitchen which was there prior to our entering it, unexperienced so to speak. When we leave the kitchen, we imagine that it remains as it was prior to our entering it, that is, unexperienced.

Let us look more closely: the kitchen neither conceives nor perceives itself to be ‘a kitchen.’  Both conceiving and perceiving are faculties of the mind.

Therefore in the absence of mind, the kitchen cannot exist either as a concept or a percept.

So, when it is neither conceived or perceived, in what form could it exist? To exist it must have a form. However in the absence of mind, that ‘form’ cannot be a perception, that is, it cannot be a sight, a sound, a smell, a sensation or a taste.

In other words, conception and perception are faculties or qualities of mind. They are not faculties of the kitchen. It is the mind that conceives of a ‘kitchen’ and gives ‘it’ its name and it is the mind that perceives and gives ‘it’ its form.

Now what is this ‘it’ independent of the mind? What are its qualities?

We have no doubt that when the ‘kitchen’ is experienced, there is SOMETHING present. There is experience. In other words, whatever the ‘kitchen’ actually IS in its own right, divested of those qualities of name and form that the mind superimpose upon ‘it,’ is present. Whatever that is, it has no objective qualities, because all objective qualities are supplied by mind. In other words, whatever ‘it’ is, is both non-objective and present. That is, we can be sure that BEING is present in the experience of the ‘kitchen.’

The experience of the ‘kitchen’ is also, by definition, known, and as all knowing takes place in Consciousness, we can also be sure that Consciousness is present in the experience of the ‘kitchen.’

Thus we have arrived at the simple conclusion, drawn from our own experience, that Being and Consciousness are present in the experience of the ‘thing in itself,’ whether that thing is a kitchen, a table or a universe.

We can also go further and observe from experience that the experience of the ‘kitchen,’ and indeed all experience, is always only one experience, not two, and can therefore conclude that Being and Consciousness are one and the same.

In other words, what IT IS is made fundamentally out of Being/Consciousness.

* * *

Now let us keep going.

This Being/Consciousness does not, in our experience, ‘come into existence.’ Nobody has ever or could ever experience the appearance of Being/Consciousness because Being/Consciousness would have to be ‘there’ present to witness and therefore claim such an appearance.

Moreover, if we look now at the ‘me’ that walks into the kitchen’ we can explore it in exactly the same way that we previously explored the ‘kitchen.’ And if we do so we arrive at the same startling conclusion. That is, all the apparently objective qualities that we attribute to this ‘me’ are supplied by mind. They are not inherent in ‘me.’ The body does not know it is a body, let alone a ‘me.’ Only the mind says so.

In other words, if we divest ‘me’ of those qualities that are supplied by mind, that is, thinking, sensing and perceiving, we are left with the same experience of Being/Consciousness.

In other words, what I AM is made fundamentally out of Being/Consciousness.

* * *

In other words we have arrived at the fundamental equation of experience that IT (the body, object, world, universe or other) IS WHAT I AM.

Now Being/Consciousness is in our experience, which means in its own experience, ever-present. It cannot nor could it ever know its own absence.

So the fundamental substance of the body, object, world, universe or other is Being/Consciousness and the particular qualities that seem to differentiate different objects, bodies, worlds etc from one another are supplied by mind.

However, in the absence of mind, there is no time or space, both of which turn out on investigation to be concepts.

Therefore the body, object, world, universe or other cannot be said to have come INTO existence. From where would they have come? And at what time?

Rather we have seen from experience that the substance of the universe etc. is Being/Consciousness which is ever-present. And all apparent qualities of mind arise within this Being/Consciousness. There is nowhere outside of this Being/Consciousness from which they could have come. And the substance out of which this mind is made can only be the substance of Being/Consciousness, just as ice forming in water can only be made of whatever ingredients that are present in the water.

The only thing that is present in Being/Consciousness is Being/Consciousness. Therefore it is this very Being/Consciousness that takes the shape of the mind and from here appears as the multiplicity and diversity of bodies, people, objects, worlds, universes, particles, others etc.

However in order for this apparent multiplicity and diversity to seem real the homogeneous, singular oneness of its real substance (Being/Consciousness) must be overlooked or forgotten.

In other words, the true nature of Being/Consciousness must be forgotten, denied, veiled or imagined non-existent, for objects, the world and others etc. to appear to come into existence.

In short the universe comes into existence (that is, it seems to take on its own separate reality) at the very moment that our true nature of Being/Consciousness is forgotten. And how is Being/Consciousness forgotten if it is ever-present and there is nothing in its experience besides itself?

The answer is that is it never truly forgotten. However it SEEMS to be. It seems to forget or veil itself by taking the shape of mind and then, that apparent mind identifies the ‘I’ that is inherent in the Being/Consciousness with one little part of the totality, that is with a body.

In other words, Consciousness, as it were, forgets itself, forgets the Knowing of its own Being and rises instead as the dualising mind, in the form of the ‘I’ entity. At this moment, ‘everything-I-am-not’ springs into apparent existence as the universe, objects, others or world.

However, the ‘I’ entity and the universe, objects, others and world etc. are nothing but this very Being/Consciousness taking the shape of name (thinking) and form (perceiving) and seeming to be something other than itself.

* * *

So to go back to the example of walking into the kitchen…. nobody walks into a kitchen in time and space….

There is Being/Consciousness. It is this Being/Consciousness that takes the shape of a sensation called the body which a subsequent thought identifies as ‘I.’

This Being/Consciousness takes the shape of the body, then the walls, then the floor, then the kitchen, then the kettle, then the water, then the tea…..on and on. And woven into this constantly seeming morphing of Being/Consciousness is a train of thought that conceptualises all this experience as ‘me’ a body, walking into a kitchen, that was always here, and makes a cup of tea in a kettle that exists along with everything else independent of its being known……

But in fact there is just Being/Consciousness, that is, just ‘I,’ always in the same place which is a placeless place, always at the same timeless nowness, taking the shape of sensing, perceiving and thinking…..always only being itself, never giving birth to anything other than itself….giving its own substance to every appearance.

‘I’  body-ing, ‘I’ wall-ing, ‘I’ floor-ing, ‘I’ kitchen-ing, ‘I’ kettle-ing, ‘I’ water-ing, ‘I’ tea-ing, ‘I’ etc-ing, etc-ing, etc-ing…..

So it is not that the universe, objects, others, the world etc is not real. Every experience is real but its reality is that of Being/Consciousness. In other words IT IS WHAT I AM.

* * *

You say, “Something exists forever. But this is impossible to my logic… so nothing exists.”

Don’t start from logic, start from experience. You are right that nothing objective, that is, no thought, sensation or perception, has lasted forever in your experience.

Nor have you or anyone ever experienced the vast expanse of time that is conceptualised as ‘forever.’ However, you have and do continually experience your own Being. In fact you have never experienced its absence, nor could you.

It is your experience that you, Being/Consciousness, are ever-present. That is, its own Ever-presence is its own intimate experience.

However, in order to interpret its own Ever-presence as the existence of an independent universe existing ‘for ever’ in time, Being/Consciousness has first to seem to forget itself. It does this, as I said before by taking the shape of dualising mind.

With the arising of dualising mind, the Ever-Presence of Being/Consciousness seems to be veiled and is replaced by the idea and apparent experience of a separately existing universe that lasts ‘forever.’

In other words the Ever-presence of Being/Consciousess is appropriated by mind and conferred upon an imaginary universe that is considered, as a result, to last ‘forever’ in time.

However, it only seems to be veiled from the point of view of the dualising mind. It is never truly veiled from itself. There is nothing in its own experience, apart from itself, with which it could make a veil in order to screen itself from itself. Such a veil would be made only out of itself.

So yes, ‘nothing (no thing) exists’ if by a ‘thing’ we mean something existing in its own right in time and space. However, the substance of all apparent things, does not exist, but rather IS eternally, that is, not ‘forever’ in time, but always now.

This is what Parmenides meant when he said, “That which is never ceases to be. That which is not never comes into existence.”

* * *

You say, “Many times I felt, just for an instant, a sudden vacuum when concluding that nothing exists. But then I noticed that I was there, thinking and conscious, so I existed!!!!”

Yes, when we have been invested for decades in the apparent reality of the separate self and the separate, distant, outside world it can be a tremendous shock to understand that its SEEMING reality is made only of mind and lasts only as long as the current thought, image, sensation or perception lasts, that is, for a moment. However, its REAL reality is made of Being/Consciousness and is the substantial, homogeneous, ever-present reality of our experience.

It is as if all the ground has been pulled from under our feet. We grasp for something solid to hold on to, something known. But we find nothing objective. It feels like a vacuum.

However, we do not find nothing. We find our Self, Being/Consciousness, the Isness of things and the Amness of self, the only true security, our real home.

However, you do not exist. You ARE. To exist means to ‘stand out from.’ You do not stand out as an object from anything. You are existence itself from which all apparent things that seem to exist are made.

It is your Being that gives seeming existence to all apparent objects.

Nothing exists in its own right but Presence IS, and is the ever-present substance of all seeming things.

* * *

This goes to the very heart of the matter. Normally we think that the existence or being of a thing and the knowing of that thing are two, are separate.

But they are not. To know a thing is to be that thing. That is Consciousness’ mode of knowing a thing: to be that thing.

It is only the mind that separates Being and Knowing or Being and Consciousness into two different things. In reality there is no such separation between the two. In fact they are not two.

The only way to know another is be that other. The only way to know an object is be that object. The only way to know the kitchen is be the kitchen. The only way to know the world is be the world.

It is ‘I,’ Being/ Consciousness, that takes the shape of the thinking, imagining, sensing and perceiving. It is ‘I,’ Being/Consciousness, that takes the shape of a thought that identifies myself with a particular sensation called the body and in doing so imagines another substance that is not myself, called matter, out of which everything that is seemingly not myself, that is, the world, is made.

Consciousness creates the apparent world, object or other, by taking the shape of the dualising mind and thereby SEEMINGLY forgetting its own Self.

And conversely as Consciousness remembers or recognises its Self the apparently separate world, object, self or other dissolves.

* * *

You say, “My logic says that nothing exists and never existed, but I am here writing this…” You are right ‘nothing exists and never existed’ but you are not here writing this or reading this. YOU, Being/Consciousness, ARE. You remain eternally unchanging yourself, knowing and being only yourself, never becoming anything other, such as a thing, object, self or world, but taking the shape of that which SEEMS to be a thing, object, self or world.

You say, “This contradiction has opened my mind to any possibility.”

Yes, why not? Just as all possible words are contained within the twenty-six letters of the alphabet, so all possibilities are contained within Being/Consciousness. But they are not contained within it like chocolates in a box. Rather there is only one homogeneous substance which, having no shape, has the capacity to take all possible shapes, but never at any time becomes anything other than itself.

You say, “In fact, all phenomena are simple details, what matters is the substance that is behind them.”

Yes, but the substance of all phenomena is not just behind all appearances. It is in the foreground as well. There is only that. There is only one homogeneous substance, always itself, always in the same place, that is, in itself, being only itself, knowing only itself, loving only itself.

You say, “Non-dual teachings resonate with what I just related. Even the nothingness that is totality at the same time sounds like the paradox of something uncaused.”

Yes, Being/Consciousness is uncaused. There is nothing else present which could be its cause and nothing else present which it causes.

A cause requires at least two things: a cause and an effect. It also requires time. We find neither in experience. Multiplicity and time only come into apparent existence when the reality of our experience is forgotten.

You ask, “Do you, in your consistent openness and enlightenment, “understand” (or whatever word you use) this paradox? Is it possible to penetrate this mystery?”

It is not possible to penetrate this mystery with the mind because the mind is simply the current thought or image. The current thought or image knows nothing. It is known.

Nor does the mind understand. All understanding takes place beyond the mind. The mind is simply the formulation of the understanding. It is not the understanding itself.

Understanding is always the non-objective experience of the Knowing of Being.

So the mystery can never be understood by the mind. However, you ARE the mystery. It is too close to you to be known or penetrated.

It is a mystery only for the mind. For itself it is not a mystery. If it were a mystery it would be somehow unknown or unexperienced. In which case whatever is being experienced, for instance, the kitchen, the taste of tea or these words, would be something other than the mystery. But what would they be made of? There is nothing other than Being/Consciousness out of which they could be made.

There is the Knowing of Being.

When the dualising mind rises to apparently split this Knowingofbeing into two apparent things, the experience is known as unhappiness. When the dualising mind subsides and Knowing tastes again its own Being, the experience is known as love, happiness, peace, beauty or understanding.

With love,

Rupert

This was first seen on the site:

http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/page.aspx?n=4e853c0f-b2b8-4705-a262-cfc24d3fd9b2

The Person Is The Past – Alexander Smit

Alexander: There was a moment in your life, probably when you were three of four years old, when you began to experience yourself as something different from the perceivingness. A moment in which you made a swingover to an “I,” that is to say, to a “person,” a self consciousness.

What  you know about yourself is what you remember about yourself. The person, the “I,” consists of nothing but memory pictures from the past. Unlike the images which you make of yourself, awareness does not need any memory. Therefore, all that you know about yourself, and that which you take yourself to be, is old; it is the past. Memory cannot perceive anything new, whereas awareness can. That which you take yourself to be and with which you may identify yourself, are curdled experiences consisting purely and simply of memory pictures. Your so-called experiences are always past. Necessarily the past, for what you know about yourself is derived from memory and is memory. The memory is able to retrieve through images that which is past. But something that is past is not the reality. At best, it is a mental reality. That reality, however, is only short-lived and will eventually dissolve in the awareness.

What sort of reality does the person, composed by you from the past, possess? The reality which you attribute to that past consists of thoughts, mental images, ideas, and concepts. Those images seem to overshadow the reality that you are actually living. Because of that you are living in a world of delusion instead of in the reality. Only the power of discrimination can free you from that. That is why Advaita emphasizes viveka so much, the ability to discriminate between what is delusion and what is reality.

The person, that “somebody” which you have created, cannot be replaced by the concept of “nobody.”

Visitor: That is precisely the point. What I have done is to replace the “somebody” by a “nobody.”

A: It is sufficient to see that what you call the “somebody” or the “person”—that is to say, all the material with which you could identify yourself—is the old, the memory, pictures, and that these do not have any reality. They do have some form of reality, but that reality, in turn, is being attributed by other images again. The reality you are actually living is free from delusion.

V:  I can see that.

A: It isn’t a question of your seeing it: It’s a question of your being there—always.

V: I remember quite well, when I first came here, that you said, “There has got to be a knowing.” My question is: Who knows it?

A: Do you need a “who” in order to know that? At best, the knowing is conscious of a “who,” but there certainly isn’t a “who” that is conscious of the knowing.

V: That knowing happens through the body.

A: Now, if the body is dead, then what does the body know?

V: Then the knowing also isn’t there.

A: So the knowing is the body? The body is still there after death, but the knowing has gone. The knowing does have something to do with the body, but it is not the body. When someone dies, the one who is afraid of dying will disappear. For then it is actually happening, so he needn’t be afraid of it anymore. The one who has the fear of passing away will disappear along with the passing away. It can never take long. You needn’t be afraid of death—the fear will go together with death. If you are afraid to lose your finger, then the fear will have disappeared the moment that you have actually lost it. Those fears are not substantial, not real. In the reality fear disappears. More people have died from the fear of death that through death itself…

V: I am still left with the question of whether the knowing isn’t actually tied up with a “somebody.”

A: No, it isn’t.

V: You are saying. Things happen within the consciousness.

A: Yes, but you can’t make consciousness into an object, into a thing. By making a noun of it, it would seem as if qualities may be attributed to it.

V: When Self realization takes place, will there be a “somebody” then who knows it?

A: It is that very “somebody” which will disappear with Self realization. But there isn’t going to be a “nobody” to take its place.

V: Then who knows?

A: There is only the knowing. There isn’t a “somebody” who knows, nor is there a “nobody” who knows. There is only knowingness, love, consciousness. Once a person came here. After one meeting he said, “I know enough. I get it.” “All right,” I said, and I never saw him again.

To see it only once is sufficient. Knowing is sufficient unto itself. Then there is always something that has to go with it—stories, dramas, ideas, philosophy, etc. Ignorance always needs to be supported, because it cannot stand on its own. The knowing-ness which you are, doesn’t need any support. No guru, no disciple, no commentary, no confirmation, not a single reflection.

Self realization is self-sufficient; that is the beauty of it. The whole guru-disciple relationship also is transcended along with it. The reality—that which you really are—is sufficient unto itself. It doesn’t need anyone’s confirmation, not even the confirmation of the teacher or the guru. But until the last moment you will not stop to seek the grace, the blessing, the approval, the confirmation of the guru as the father.

Only the reality which you are actually living suffices. Self realization is self sufficient. That realization can never be confirmed by anything from outside, by an authority, by an outsider. Someone who is truly Self realized doesn’t run into the trap of self complacency, thinking, “I’m enlightened, I don’t need anybody anymore.” It is very subtle . . . Profound knowing will ultimately become silence.

You have to understand that the “person” is obsessive. You can’t tell the memory, “Stop producing images!” Memory simply produces what it produces. In fact, it is producing a three-dimensional delusion. There is only one thing which is staying out of the delusion, and that is the perceivingness. No wonder that is where the emphasis needs to be put. From the delusion you will never be able to realize what that perceivingness is. The will has no grip on the memory and, therefore, not on the “person,” either. They can’t just disappear.  Memory simply continues to deliver. You may forgive but not forget. To forget is not an act of the will. The brains are simply doing their job. That is how it works; that’s the reality.

Thus I see only one possibility, and I’m asking you: Are you able to see that which is beyond memory? That is the perceivingness, the knowingness. That is why Advaita would like to see you moving into that direction.

V: What matters—looking at it from the subject—is to shift the point of gravity.

A: To shift the point of gravity from constantly trying to get a grip on the knowingness from the delusion—to the knowingness itself, to the real essence. That is what matters in these meetings.

V: And all the whirlings produced by the memory are to be viewed from the perceivingness as being more or less irrelevant.

A: No, no, no! That again is a judgment, and undesirable involvement. What matters is the fact that you are choicelessly aware. The word “choiceless” isn’t just anything: It means to be without discrimination, without preference or aversion. Without judgment, for the perceivingness is choiceless.

V: So you let everything pass by?

A: Let me put it this way: Whoever realizes the perceivingness cannot but live and look from that. The possibility to judge remains completely available, but condemnation will prove to be impossible.

V: Everybody is pushing you into the reality value of the person. Is it possible to avoid that?

A: No, it isn’t. Try to see that you are not a person yourself. That is sufficient and that will do the job.

-Alexander Smit

Alexander Smit at 25.

Taken from Consciousness.

This excerpt was originally seen in Inner Directions Journal, Spring/Summer 2005.

For more from Alexander Smit look here.

The Unknowable Self – Osho

The eyes cannot approach it, neither can speech nor mind. We do not, therefore, know it, nor do we know how to teach it. It is different from what is known and it is different from what is unknown. Thus we have heard from our predecessors who instructed us about it.

What speech cannot reveal but what reveals speech – know thou that alone as Brahman and not this – anything objective – that people worship here.

What mind does not comprehend but what comprehends the mind – know thou that alone as Brahman and not this that people worship here.

-Kenopanishad

The deepest mystery of existence is the phenomenon of knowledge. You can know everything except your own self. The knower cannot be known because to know something means to reduce it to an object. The very process of knowledge depends on duality. I can know you because I am here, inside, and you are there, outside. You become an object. But I cannot know my self because I cannot make my self an object. I cannot encounter my self in any objective way. I cannot put my self in front of me. And if I could put my self in front of me then that which is put in front of me would not be my self. How can that which can be put in front of me be my self? Really, the inner one which will look at it will remain my self.

Self is subjective and this subjectivity cannot be made objective. Hence, the paradox: that which knows all cannot know itself; that which is the source of all knowledge remains unknowable. If you can understand this, then this sutra will reveal much. This is one of the most profound sutras. It goes deeper than all that the mystics have said. It says self-knowledge is impossible. You have heard, it has been preached, it has been told everywhere, “Know thyself.” But how can you know your self? You can know everything other than you. One point will always remain unknown, unknowable. That point is you.

The word self-knowledge is not good at all. Knowledge of the self is not possible. But this may create a deep pessimism in you. If knowledge of the self is not possible, then the whole of religion becomes absurd because this is what religion is meant to do – to give you self-knowledge. Then there must be some other meaning to the word self-knowledge. Then there must be something, a hidden dimension, through which you can know the self and still not make it an object. Knowledge must be possible in an altogether different sense.

In the world, whatsoever we know is objective and the subject remains unknowable, the knower remains unknowable. But can this knower be known? This is the basic question, the basic problem. If there is only one way of knowing – that is objective knowledge – then it cannot be known. Hence, all the scientific thinkers will deny that the self exists. Their denial is meaningful. All those who are trained to think in terms of object, of objectivity, they will say there is no self.

Their saying this means that they cannot conceive of another type of knowing. They think that there is only one type of knowing and that is objective. The self cannot be made objective; hence, it cannot be known. And that which cannot be known cannot be said to exist. How can you say that it exists? The moment you say that it exists you have said that you have known it. You cannot assert its existence. If it is not known, not only not known but also unknowable, then how can you say that it exists? […]

The very word science means knowledge. And if something is unknowable, science will not approve of it, science will not agree to it. Science means that which can be known. Only then is science not mystical. It cannot fall into absurdities. For science, the very word self-knowledge is absurd. But still, religion is meaningful because there is another dimension of knowing.

Try to understand that dimension of knowing where the known is not reduced to an object. For instance, if a lamp is burning in a dark room, everything in the room is lighted, is known through the light of the lamp. But the lamp is also known by its own light. Everything else – chairs, furniture, the walls, paintings on the walls – they are known through the light. But through what is the light itself known?

The light is self-enlightening: just by its presence it reveals others and it reveals itself also. But these two revelations are different. When the chair is known through the light, the chair is an object. The light falls on it and if the light disappears the chair cannot be known. The knowledge of the chair depends on the light but the knowledge of the light itself doesn’t depend on the chair. If you remove everything the light will still be light. There will be nothing to reveal but it will go on revealing itself. The revelation of the light is self-revelation.

Similar is the case with the inner phenomenon, the inner self. Everything is known through it but it itself is known not by anything else – it is a self-revealing phenomenon. It reveals itself. Self-knowledge doesn’t mean that the self is known by someone else because then the someone else will be the self. So whatsoever is known in an objective way cannot be the self. Always the knower will be the self. But how can this self be known? The self is a self-evident, self-revealing phenomenon; nothing else is needed to know it. You need not reduce it to an object.

Really, when all objects are removed from the mind, when all the furniture is removed from the mind, suddenly the self reveals itself. It is self-revealing. Really, that is the difference between matter and consciousness: matter is not self-revealing and consciousness is self-revealing; matter has to be known by someone else and consciousness knows itself. That is the basic difference between matter and consciousness. There are trees but if there is no conscious being they cannot be revealed; they need someone’s consciousness so that they can be revealed.

There are rocks, beautiful rocks, but if there is no consciousness they will not be beautiful because then no one will become aware that they are there. Their existence will be mute. Even those rocks will not be able to know that they exist. Existence will be there but there will be no revelation of it.

A small child comes playing near the rock: suddenly the rock is revealed. Now it is not a mute existence. Through the child the rock has become assertive. Now the tree is revealed. Now everything around the child becomes alive in a new meaning. The child has become a source of revelation. Everything around him becomes alive. Hence, the deeper your consciousness, the deeper you reveal existence.

When a buddha is born the whole existence celebrates in him because of such a deep consciousness. All that is hidden in matter becomes manifest. It was never known before. Just by the presence of an enlightened person, the whole existence around him is enlightened. Everything becomes alive, feels through him. Consciousness reveals others, but there is no need to reveal it for another consciousness. It is self-revelatory.

Take it from another angle: everything needs proof because everything can be doubted. But you cannot doubt the self; therefore, the self never needs any proof. Can you doubt the self? […] No proof is needed, no argument is needed. It is self-evident.

Mahavira denied God: he said there is no God. But he couldn’t say there is no self. Then the very self became divine for him. He said, “Only the self is God.” And that is true: in you, the self is the nearest thing to divine existence. That is why it cannot be doubted. It is self-evident, self-revealing, self-enlightening.

This is the second way of knowing. The scientific way is to know a thing as an object. The religious way is to know the subject as the subject. In a scientific way, knowledge has three parts: the knower, the known and the knowledge. The knowledge is just a bridge between the knower and the known. But the religious knowing does not have three parts. The knower is the known and the knower is the knowledge. This knowing is not divided into three. It is one, it is undivided.

Now we will enter the sutra:

The eyes cannot approach it, neither can speech nor mind. We do not, therefore, know it, nor do we know how to teach it. It is different from what is known and it is different from what is unknown. Thus we have heard from our predecessors who instructed us about it.

The eyes cannot approach it, neither can speech nor mind. The eyes can approach everything else because everything else is in front of the eyes and the self is not in the front. The self is behind the eyes, only the self is behind the eyes. Everything else is in front. You can encounter everything through the eyes but you cannot encounter the self because it is not in front; that is one thing. So eyes cannot be used to see it. Really, you will have to become blind to see it. Not actually, but the eyes must become so vacant, non-seeing, so closed, not functioning, only then will you know it. Eyes cannot approach it. You will have to come to it without eyes. You will have to come to it just like a blind man.

So really, a blind man and a man with eyes are not different as far as the self is concerned. As far as the world is concerned the blind man is at a great loss; he cannot know anything. But as far as the self is concerned, he is not at any loss – not at all. And if he is a wise man, his blindness may be a help to him.

That is why we in India have called blind men pragya chakshu – wise eyes. It is not that every blind man is wise but potentially he is nearer to the self than those who have eyes, because those who have eyes have wandered far away through the eyes into the world. They have gone very, very far away. You can move on through the eyes to the very end of the world. And science goes on creating more powerful eyes for you so that you can see minute parts, atomic phenomena, and so that you can see to distant stars.

Science goes on removing you from the self. So the more an age becomes scientific, the less it comes to religious knowledge. Now you have more powerful instruments with which to go away, and you have gone – far away from your self.

Senses have become powerful. Really, science is doing nothing but creating more powerful senses for man: your hand can now reach to the moon; your eyes can now reach to distant stars. Every sense has been magnified, and this goes on.

A blind man is closed in himself; he cannot go out. But he can go in, if he is not disturbed by the fact that he is blind and if he is helped by the society to know that this is not a misfortune but a blessing in disguise.

That is what we mean when we call blind men pragya chakshu. We say, “Don’t be worried about the ordinary eyes. You can gain those inner eyes through which you can know yourself, so do not be worried about them. Forget them completely. You are not losing anything because no one gains anything through the eyes. You can move within easily because the other door is closed.”

Eyes are your doors for going out. Through eyes you are moving, through eyes the desire, through eyes the illusion, through eyes the projection – through eyes moves the whole world. But the innermost cannot be approached through the eyes. You will have to become blind. Not that you have to throw away your eyes but that your eyes must become vacant, objectless, without dreams. Your eyes must become empty – empty of things, empty of pictures, empty of reflections.

If you can look into the eyes of an enlightened one, you will see they are totally different. A buddha looks at you and still he is not looking at you. You do not become a part of his eyes. His look is vacant. Sometimes you may get scared because you will feel that he is indifferent to you. He is looking at you so vacantly, not paying any attention to you.

Really, he cannot pay any attention to you. The attention is lost now; he has only awareness. He cannot be attentive to anything exclusively because that exclusiveness is created by desire. He looks at you as if not looking. You never become a part of his eyes. If you can become a part of his eyes, then you will become a part of his mind – because eyes are just the door for the mind; they go on collecting the outer world into the inner. Eyes must become blind. Only then can you see your self.

This sutra says that the eyes cannot approach it; it is unapproachable by the eyes. But we go on asking how to see God and we go on saying that unless we see God we cannot believe. You cannot see; seeing is of no help. You can see only the world. God cannot be seen. And if someone says that he has seen God, he is in illusion. He has seen a vision, a dream – a beautiful dream, a holy dream, but still a dream. So if you say that you have seen Krishna and you have seen Rama and you have seen Jesus, you are dreaming – good dreams, beautiful dreams, but still dreams. You cannot see him. Eyes are of no help there. Through the eyes he cannot be approached. You must become blind to see him.

When you lose your eyes – really, when there is no desire to see – your eyes become vacant. Suddenly it is revealed within. It doesn’t need any eyes to see it; it is self-revelatory. Generally, things are not self-revelatory; hence, eyes are needed. It is self-revelatory! Really, in a deeper sense, when you see through the eyes he is seeing through the eyes, not the eyes themselves. That is another dimension to be known.

When I look at you are my eyes looking at you? Eyes are just windows. I am looking at you through the eyes. Eyes are just windows; I am standing behind them. If I stand in the window and look out to the hills, will you say that the window is looking at the hills? The window will not be mentioned at all. I am looking through the window. Eyes are just apertures, windows. The consciousness looks through them and there is no need for this consciousness to look at itself through the eyes. The eyes are for others. The eyes are devices to look at the other. For your self no eyes are needed.

For example, if I want to look at the hills I will look out of the windows, but if I want to look at my self there is no need for the window. I can close the window. There is no need for it because I am not outside the window, I am inside it. For everything else eyes are helpful. Everything can be approached through them; only the self cannot be approached through them.

The eyes cannot approach it: remember this! Then the false question of, “How can I see God?” will drop. You will not create that question or create around that question a false search. You will not ask where you can see him, where he can be found. He is nowhere, and really, eyes are irrelevant for him. He is hidden behind, within. Close your eyes and he will be revealed.

But just by closing the physical eyes he may not be revealed because just by closing the physical eyes you are not closing anything. The world you have gathered in goes on and you go on looking at it. I can close my eyes and still I can see you there. Then the eyes are not vacant. Then the eyes are still filled. When all the pictures disappear, all the impressions disappear, the eyes are vacant. And when the eyes are vacant you can approach it, you can approach the inner.

. . . Neither can speech nor mind. Verbalization will not help; intellectual thinking will not help. Whatsoever you can think will not be it because thinking is also outgoing, thinking is also for objects. Science insists on thinking; religion insists on no-thinking. Science insists: “Make thinking more rational, then the nature of things will be revealed more accurately.” And religion says: “Do not think, then the nature of the self will be revealed to you.” They are diametrically opposite.

Religion says, “Stop thinking, drop thinking, drop thoughts. They are the barrier.” And science says, “Make thinking more logical, accurate, keener, analytical, rational. Do not bring any type of faith into it; do not bring any type of emotion into it; do not get involved in it. Let it be impartial – logical to the very extreme. Only then will the nature of things be revealed.” And both are right. As far as the world is concerned science is true and as far as the inner subject is concerned religion is true.

But you can fall into a fallacy, and that fallacy is worldwide, universal. A scientist, when he comes to feel that the keener the thinking, the more he reaches to the innermost core of a thing, starts thinking that the same method should be used for the inner search also. The fallacy has started. That method cannot be of any help for the inner search. And really, if the scientist insists on using the same method as he uses in science, the same experimental, objective methodology, then he will come to conclude that there is no self. Not that there is no self but that the method of the scientist is to reveal things; it cannot reveal the self. He will just bypass it. Because of that method he will miss it.

That which is helpful in the world is a hindrance for the inner. The same fallacy has been committed on the opposite pole also. When a religious person reaches the inner self through non-thinking, he starts believing that through non-thinking the nature of the world can also be revealed.

The East has committed that fallacy very deeply; that is why the East couldn’t create any science. You cannot create science through non-thinking. The East has been absolutely nonscientific. There were great minds born here but they couldn’t create any science. They discussed and discussed, philosophically they were superb, but nothing happened in the outside world. Nothing can happen.

The West has now created a great edifice of science, persons like Einstein. But the inner search remains nil. Even when Albert Einstein was dying, he felt frustrated. He had penetrated into the mystery of things in the universe, and he had come to reveal one of its deepest cores – the theory of relativity. But he came to realize that although he had known many things never known before, as far as his own self was concerned it still remained a mystery. Nothing has been known about it. The methods are opposite because the directions are opposite.

To know a thing, you have to move out, to know your self, you have to move in. To move out you have to move in thought: thought is an outgoing process. To move in you have to stop thoughts, cease thinking. Non-thinking is an in-moving process.

This sutra says: . . . Neither can speech nor mind. The mind will not be of much help. Only meditation can be of help. Meditation is to create a ‘no-mind’ within you. Remember this: meditation is to create a no-mind within you; hence, my emphasis on going completely mad so that the mind is dropped. The mind always resists madness. The mind says, “What are you doing? Are you crazy?”

The mind always wants clear-cut logical things. The mind always asks, “Why are you doing it?” And if you cannot answer why, the mind will say, “Stop!”

But life answers no whys. If you fall in love, the mind says, “Why have you fallen in love?” And then you create some idea around it: because the face of the girl is so beautiful . . . This is not the case. Really, the face of the girl looks beautiful because you have fallen in love, not the vice versa. It is not that the face is beautiful and that is why you have fallen in love; otherwise, everyone will fall in love with your girl – but no one is falling. It is not that the face is beautiful but that your love gives it beauty. Your love creates a beauty around it.

That is why you go on laughing about others’ lovers. You think that man is crazy, going mad, falling for that type of girl. You feel repulsed and he feels attracted. You think he is crazy. No, he is not crazy because love is not a logical phenomenon. You fall in love. We call it a falling because you fall from the head. It is not a rising in love, it is a falling because the head sees it as a fall. You have lost your reason; you are going mad.

Love is a sort of madness. Really, life itself is a sort of madness. If you go on asking why, you cannot live for a single moment. If you go on asking, “Why breathe? Why get out of bed today? Why?” there is no answer; “Why go to sleep?” – there is no answer; “Why go on eating every day? Why go on loving the same person every day?” – there is no answer. Life is answerless. You can raise the questions but there is no one to answer them.

Life is a sort of madness. Reason is death, it is not life. The more you become rational, the more dead you will be because again and again you will ask why . . . and there is no answer. Then you will not do anything and then you will go on ceasing, shrinking. Life is a mad expansion and in meditation we are moving deeper and deeper into life – to the very depth, to the very central core.

The mind has to be left behind. That is why I say do not ask why – just move. And whatsoever comes to you spontaneously, allow it to happen. If you allow it, in the beginning the mind will say, “Do not do it. What will others think? What will they say? A man like you, so rational, dancing like a child? crying and weeping and screaming like a madman? Do not do this!” The mind will go on checking you and you will need courage not to listen to your mind because the mind cannot approach it. You have to put it aside.

The mind is a device to deal with the world. It is of no use for you. You exist before the mind; you exist deeper than the mind; the mind has come to happen to you. It is just on the periphery. We have different types of minds, but our being is not different. The mind is a gathering, an earning. A child is born; he is born without a mind. He is a simple being, then by and by the mind goes on being created around him. He will need a mind to move in society, to work, to survive – he will need a mind.

The mind is an instrument. That is why every society will create a different type of mind. If you are born in an aboriginal village, hidden in the hills, not knowing any technology of the modern world, oblivious of whatsoever is contemporary, your parents will give you a different type of mind because you have to move in a different world. If you are born in the East, you have a different type of mind, if you are born in the West, you have a different type of mind. Even if you are born in the same village and you are a Christian you will have a different type of mind and if you are a Mohammedan, you will have a different type of mind.

Mind is a creation, a cultivated thing. But the being without mind is the same everywhere. If you penetrate deeply, then another thing will be revealed: if you are a human being, you have one type of mind and the tree standing just outside the window also has a mind – a different type. As far as being is concerned, you and the tree have similar beings. Only the mind differs.

Because the tree has to exist among trees, she has to create a mind, an instrument, to exist among them. You do not need that type of mind. That is why you feel that trees do not speak – you do not know their language. You think animals do not speak; they do not have any language. Really, the case is that because you cannot understand them, you think they have no language. They have their own language. They have their own mind, which is suited to their milieu, suited to their atmosphere, suited to their society.

Mind is a device to survive in the outer world; it is not needed within. And if you carry it, you cannot move within. With the mind you will move out, you cannot move within. Drop the mind, put it aside. Say, “Now you are not needed. I am moving withinwards – you are not needed.”

We do not, therefore, know it, nor do we know how to teach it.

That which can be known by the mind can be taught by the mind. But if it is impossible to know it by the mind, how to teach it? – because the teaching is going to be through the mind. So the Brahman, the absolute, the self, cannot be taught; it is impossible to teach it. Then what am I doing? Or what is a Buddha or a Christ or a Krishna doing? What are they doing if it cannot be taught? And what is the seer of the Upanishad, Kena, doing if it cannot be taught? It cannot be taught, that is absolutely true, but still something can be done.

A situation can be created in which it becomes infectious. It cannot be taught, but the ‘infection’ can be given to you. In a particular situation you can become infected by it. So the whole phenomenon of master and disciple is not a teaching phenomenon. The master is not really teaching anything. The master is just trying to pull you into a situation, to push you into a situation where it can happen to you.

All the devices of yoga and tantra are just to create a situation in which the thing can happen. I can lead you into a situation where you will become aware of a different sort of reality but that reality cannot be taught. Can you teach a blind man what light is? You cannot! Whatsoever you do, you will not be able to teach it. But one thing can be done: you can treat his eyes; the eyes can be operated upon. And if the blind man comes to see, he will know what light is.

Light can be experienced but cannot be taught to a blind man. And we are just like blind men as far as the inner reality is concerned. Your inner eyes can be opened toward it but you cannot be taught it.

That is why faith has been the corner-stone of all religious phenomena. The blind man must have faith; otherwise, he will not allow you to operate on his eyes. He will say, “You may destroy my eyes.” He has none, but he will become scared: What are you going to do? And if he thinks you are going to operate, that you are going to do surgery, he will say, “Do not touch my eyes. You may destroy them. And how am I supposed to know that when you have operated there will be light? And what is light? First tell me. First prove what light is and whether light exists at all. Unless you prove this, I cannot allow you to operate on my eyes.”

And there is no doctor who can prove that there is light. The doctor can only say, “Have faith in me.” Nothing else is possible, no argumentation is possible. The doctor can only say, “Trust in me. Even if you are not going to gain anything; one thing is certain: you are not going to lose anything because you have no eyes to lose.”

That’s what Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus have been saying: “Have faith. And you have nothing to lose, so why get so worried? What can you lose believing in me? What do you have? If you have anything, then escape from me as fast as possible. But you have nothing – nothing to lose – but you are so worried.” People come to me and they say, “How can I believe?” I tell them it is not a question of how because the ‘how’ needs answers. Faith means you have nothing to lose, so why not experiment? Why not try? […]

I say I have known it but I cannot teach you. I can lead you to the point where you will become aware that it exists but I cannot teach you. There is no language to teach it, no mind to teach it. There is no way to teach it, no symbols to teach it. Whatsoever you know, it cannot be translated into that knowledge. It is beyond it. I have known something and I can take you to that point where you will also become aware of it. Then you will say, “It is!”

The mind cannot know it; therefore, we do not know it because whatsoever we know, we know through the mind. Our whole knowledge consists of mind and mind and nothing else. So we cannot know it, nor do we know how to teach it.

It is different from what is known and it is different from what is unknown.

That creates a deeper problem again. It is different from the known . . . obviously, because if it were not different from the known, then you would have known it already.

Whatsoever you know, it is not it. And the way you know, you cannot know it; otherwise you would have known it by now, because you have been in existence for millions and millions of lives. But you have been missing it again and again. And buddhas go on talking about it and you go on listening to them about it and nothing happens.

It is different from the known and it is different from what is unknown.

. . . Because the unknown can be known. ‘Unknown’ means just that which is not known yet. Use the same methods of knowledge and someday it will be known.

Science divides the world into two: the known and the unknown – there is nothing else. Science says the ‘known’ and the ‘unknown’. The known is that which we have come to know and the unknown is that which will be known sooner or later. Religion brings a third category: the unknowable. Religion says there is something which is known, something which is unknown, and something which is unknowable. If there is something which is unknowable, only then is religion possible; otherwise, science is enough. The unknown will go on being reduced to the known.

It is conceivable that one day science will come to the point when there is only one category: the known. By and by, the unknown will become known. At a point somewhere there will be nothing unknown. It can be conceived of through science. But religion says there is something which is neither like the known nor like the unknown: it is unknowable. Whatsoever you do you cannot know it. So when everything becomes known, still the unknowable will be there – the mystery, the mysterious, the mysterium, will remain.

Why insist that it is unknowable? Why not say that it is unknown? – because the known is through the mind and the unknown will become known through the mind and it is behind the mind. Whatsoever you do by the mind, you will never approach it. You will have to drop the mind. And with the mind the known drops and the unknown also because those two are the dimensions of the functioning of the mind. The known and the unknown are the workings of the mind. When the mind drops, both have dropped and you have entered the third dimension. This third dimension is of the unknowable. you are there in that dimension; the self is there.

But the rishi says a very beautiful thing:

Thus we have heard from our predecessors who instructed us about it.

He says, “Thus have we heard from our own masters.” He knows himself also; he can say, “I have known this. This is what I have known.” There is no difficulty in saying it. But he says, “This is what we have heard. Our masters have said it.”

This has a quality of its own – the Indian heritage, the Indian attitude of saying things, the Indian way of always being humble, not assertive. So Buddha says, “Whatsoever I am saying was known before me by other buddhas. This is nothing new.” This is the emphasis. The emphasis is that this is nothing new, nothing original. And really, truth cannot be original; only untruth can be original. You can invent lies, but you cannot invent truth – or can you?

Truth cannot be invented. Truth is eternal, timeless. So it is absurd to say that I have discovered it. You only rediscover it; you never discover it. It has been discovered again and again, millions of times. It has been known again and again, millions of times. You always rediscover it; you never discover it.

To emphasize this fact the rishis say, “It has been said so by those who preceded us. It has always been known.” He doesn’t claim any originality. That claim belongs to the ego. That claim that “This is my discovery” belongs to the egoistic mind. Really, the ego always feels hurt if you say this is nothing original. If someone says something and you say this is nothing original, he will feel hurt. If someone writes a book and you say, “This is nothing original; it has been written many times by so many people, so why have you unnecessarily labored on it?” he will feel hurt. Every author, every thinker, tries to prove somehow that whatsoever he is saying is original. This is a new disease.

In the West, if you are not saying anything original then what is the use of saying it? Why are you saying it? Do not say it. In the East, quite the opposite has been the case. If you are saying something original, then the East will say: “Wait and ponder over it. Do not assert it, do not say it, because if it is original then something must be wrong with it; otherwise, someone must have known it before. The truth is eternal. If it is original, then something must be wrong with it! You wait! Do not tell anyone; otherwise, you will be in difficulty because you will be proved to be a liar. Wait, ponder, meditate. The world has existed so eternally, beginningless . . . how can you conceive that you come to know an original truth which was not known before? It is impossible!”

But it happens because our span of knowledge is very little. It is just like this: in the season the trees will bloom, the flowers will come. These flowers cannot know about the flowers of the last season. They cannot know because they have never met them. They will think themselves so unique, so original: “We have never been on this earth; this earth has become so beautiful because of us. Because we bloom, the whole existence has bloomed with us.”

They do not know that this has been going on eternally. Every year the season comes and the flowers bloom. But the flowers cannot meet with each other, so every flower thinks that he has come for the first time. This gives him a flavor, an ego. He feels he is something, somebody.

The Eastern emphasis has always been that truth is eternal; you can only rediscover it. Many have known, many will know. You are just a part of a long procession. It is your season, so you have bloomed – but other buddhas have bloomed. It is just like when you fall in love: you think this type of love has never been, that something new has entered into existence. No lover can believe that anyone ever could have loved in the way he loves his beloved.

And this is good as far as it goes. This is good! How can you believe otherwise when you are in love? You think others have loved but not this way; others have loved but it was not such a deep intense thing. It has never happened; it is original.

And the same is with thoughts: when a thought appears on your mind, you think such a thought never happened before. But thoughts are just like clouds: they gather in the sky every year, then they disappear and then they gather again. The world moves in a repetitive circle.

So Indians, particularly wise Indians, have always been emphasizing that whatsoever they say is nothing new; it has all been said before. This is a very deep non-egoistical attitude, and there is a very deep wisdom hidden in it. How can truth wait for me to be discovered? How can it wait for me to discover it? It was discovered again and again. But you discover it and it gets lost again because it cannot be transferred.

If I have come to a truth, I cannot give it to you. It cannot be transferred because truth is not a thing. It is a happening in the being; it cannot be transferred. So the truth that I rediscover will be rediscovered again. And when you rediscover, it you will feel something new has happened, something original. But if you know and if you can feel a non-egoistical way of life, then you will know that the rishi is right: it has been said before, known before.

What speech cannot reveal but what reveals speech – know thou that alone as Brahman and not this – anything objective – that people worship here.

What speech cannot reveal, but what reveals speech . . . You cannot say it, you cannot speak it but through speech it is being expressed. Really, without it you cannot speak, without it you cannot see, without it you cannot feel. It is your life! You cannot speak about it, but he is the speaker; you cannot see it anywhere, but he is the seer; you cannot think about it, but he is the thinker; you cannot do anything without it because he is the doer. So whatsoever you do, he is revealed. You cannot reveal it but whatsoever you do he is revealed because he alone is. Brahman means life: he alone is.

What speech cannot reveal but what reveals speech – know thou that alone as Brahman and not this – anything objective – that people worship here.

People go on worshipping idols. They make God an object also because we cannot feel comfortable unless something is there in front of us. We feel uncomfortable, uneasy. A God unknown, unknowable, is difficult. We create an idol and then we put the idol in front of us and worship it.

This is stupid in a way because you created the idol and now you are worshipping it as the creator. You worship the idol as if the idol created you. You created the idol; the real creator is hidden behind. Really, God is not in the worshipped object, it is in the worshipper. It is not in the object to which you pray, it is in the innermost source from where the prayer bubbles up, from where the prayer comes up. It is always within. But for us something becomes significant only when it is without because we have become fixed in a mode where everything to be, must be objective. That creates the problem, so we have created temples and churches and mosques just to objectify that which cannot be objectified. But human stupidity is such . . .

Mohammed preached that he cannot be objectified; you cannot make any idol of him. He was right. He was saying what the Upanishad was saying. But what have the Mohammedans done? They thought it was their duty to destroy idols, to destroy temples, to set them on fire. Because he cannot be objectified, so wherever he is objectified, “Destroy the object.”

See the human stupidity: Mohammed was trying to say that you can forget the object and move within. But they did not forget the object, they became obsessed with the object again. “Move and destroy!” So someone is worshipping God in a stone, and someone is destroying the stone, but both are attached to the stone in their own ways, and both think that the stone is very significant – one to worship it and the other to destroy it. One feels that if he does not worship this stone, he will not be religious, and one feels that if he does not destroy this stone, he will not be religious. The stone is for both very significant. We go on moving to the object. Either we love or we hate, but the object remains there.

The emphasis of those who have known is to forget the object and remain with the subjectivity alone. Do not create any object, any image, any name, any form. Do not create anything. The creator is already there; you cannot improve upon it. Do not do anything. Just move within and know it.

What mind does not comprehend but what comprehends the mind – know thou that alone as Brahman and not this that people worship here.

Mind cannot comprehend him, but he can comprehend the mind. Mind is included in him – everything is included; even the stone is included in him. But the stone cannot include him: this is the point. Draw a big circle and then draw a small circle in it. The big circle includes the small circle; the small circle is part of the big circle, but the small circle cannot include the big circle.

Your mind is included in the divine, but your mind cannot include the divine. It is a part, and the part cannot include the whole. The whole comprehends all, includes all. And when a part starts saying, “I include the whole,” the part has gone mad, the part has gone neurotic.

You – whenever you try to comprehend that, the total, through the mind, you are doing something absurd. It is impossible! A drop of water cannot include the ocean, but the ocean includes it. And if the drop of water says, “I am the ocean,” then the drop has gone crazy. But this drop of water can become the ocean. If this drop of water drops into the ocean, loses the boundaries, loses the finiteness, the limitations, then that drop has become the ocean.

The mind cannot say, “I know.” The mind can drop into the oceanic totality and then it is included there.

Whatsoever we worship is just a game. It is good: if you feel good worshipping, then it is good. It is a good game and I never intend to destroy anybody’s game. If you worship, if you feel good going to a church, it is good: go on doing it. But remember that you are missing the basic point: the ultimate is within the worshipper. So while you worship do not focus your eyes on the worshipped object. Focus yourself within on the worshipper. There it will be revealed, there it is hidden.

-Osho

From The Supreme Doctrine, Discourse #4

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 in the U.S. online from Amazon.com and Viha Osho Book Distributors. In India they are available from Amazon.in and Oshoworld.com.

The Illusion of Materiality – John Levy

THE ILLUSION OF MATERIALITY

1. Materiality. Our notion of materiality coincides with the twin illusions that objects exist independently of their being perceived; and that these objects, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, consist of three dimensions. In order to understand how the notion of a three-dimensional object arises, it will be necessary first to understand how we form the notion of extension in length and breadth.

2. Length and Breadth. Extension, in length, in breadth, or in both together, is an idea formed by our memory of discontinuous though successive sensations which, from the commonsense standpoint, may appear either as physical or mental. These sensations give us the impression that we have perceived a surface. But there has been no immediate perception of a surface. As an example, let the reader behold this printed page, held at reading distance.1 He will notice that the eyes or the page must be moved if more than a very limited portion is to be seen: and that while he observes one portion, he cannot observe the others. Thus the impression of having seen a page is not the product of a single, comprehensive glance. It derives from the memory of several distinct glances. At this stage, we may usefully recall that if the percipient is repeatedly and similarly affected by a more or less constant group of sensations, he forms the notion of a specific object.

3. Depth. Having found extension in length and breadth to be a notion, let us now consider extension in depth, or from a surface inwards. Our knowledge of this dimension likewise cannot be the result of direct perception, for sensations are of surfaces. Nevertheless, the idea of depth is inherent in the notion we have of surfaces, a surface without substance being quite inconceivable , whatever abstraction-mongers may tell us.

4. The Physiological Aspect of Tridimensionality. The notion of depth has its physiological basis in two parallel factors: the conventions of the sense of touch and binocular vision, the second being impossible without the first. Binocular vision ‘provides the stereoscopic effect, the appreciation of depth and distance ; this depends on the fact that the images of an object formed by each eye are slightly different and that these two images are presented simultaneously to the brain without appearing double’. So that we may understand in what way two distinct images, that is to say, two distinct perceptions, come to appear in consciousness as one, let us examine a similar process performed in the brain with respect to tactile sensations, since it can easily be verified. ‘The skin offers a good instance of how our conventional reading of sensations “the words of a sensory language”, depends merely upon habituation. A pencil slid between the tips of the middle and index finger is felt as one stimulus because these surfaces are normally adjacent and we have learnt to fuse their sensations ; but, if the fingers are crossed, surfaces which are never normally in contact are brought together and a pencil placed between them is now felt as double. In this case, association does not occur automatically, as is normal; instead the two sensations appearing as one, two separate sensations are experienced. If we did not have the testimony of our eyes or the knowledge of the experiment we were making, the two sensations would remain, and in fact they are, quite discrete. This should now be applied to the faculty of grasping, in which the physic logical basis of tridimensionality certainly lies. But it must be clear from these considerations that the physiological aspect of perception cannot be separate from the psychological. This will be dealt with in due course.

5 . Continuity. The response to sensory stimuli that exceed a certain minimum threshold continues for a brief period after the event. Ultimately this response is cerebral and belongs to the domain of biochemistry. In normal circumstances, distinct groups of sensations and their prolongation, succeed one another with sufficient rapidity to make them appear as though they formed an unbroken line. There will, however, be no difficulty in understanding that objective continuity is an illusion, if what was said regarding the interval between two thoughts be borne in mind. We do not normally take note of this interval because we wrongly assume that when nothing objective is present to consciousness, what subsists is nothingness and no consciousness. The sense of continuity cannot therefore be derived from the objective, physiological side of perception ; it is derived from the single, immutable and non-temporal consciousness in which all perceptions occur, as we shall see in a later chapter.

6. The Psychological Origin of Tridimensionality. When our attention goes outward, we become conscious of sensations and instinctively perform the mental process described in the second article of this chapter, completing it with another, which is to imagine what we cannot possibly perceive, namely, the other side or the inside of the surface we perceive notionally.2 We then gain the impression of having perceived a three-dimensional object. Our habit of combining tactile with visual and other sensations is due partly, if not wholly, to the fact that we are able to have the feeling of, or touch, those parts of our body we cannot see : analogy does the rest. As an illustration of how we create the appearance of the world, we need only look at a painting and ask ourselves where the recognition of nonexistent objects in a non-existent space comes from. It does not come from the coloured canvas : it comes from our habit of associating physically experienced and imaginary sensations to form ideas. The solid world of the five senses is created by us in the same way.3

7. The Aim of This Analysis. I have given a very simplified account of a complex process, for this work, as already stated, is written from a point of view and with a purpose differing essentially from the standpoint of empirical science. My aim here is to separate from the objective side of human experience the conscious principle that informs it. The meaning of sensory perception and of memory will be discussed at a later stage when we come to analyse the nature of desire.

8. Summary. From all these considerations, it is evident that materiality is an illusion created by the combination through memory of visual and tactile sensations, whether these are experienced as physical or mental, relative to actual and imaginary movements of the perceiver’s body and senses.

1 I say ‘at a reading distance’, because it often happens that what afterwards is called a surface falls within the field of a single visual or tactile focus of attention. In such cases, we either look or feel more minutely, or else, and this is the most usual, we unwittingly call on past experience to supply imaginitively the sensations that combine to form the notion of a surface or an object.

2In practice we do not always actually see or feel in imagination the other side or the inside of a surface, the idea of materiality being so much a part of our mental habit that we do not need to. In sensory perception, as in ratiocination, even those who are least developed among us often arrive at conclusions by an elliptical process which is probably the best measure of good and bad brains. While this method is being practiced, it may be necessary to disentagle ourselves at first from this pragmatically useful unreliable short cut.

3 As a further illustration and towards completing what was said about the attribution of life and consciousness to others (Ch. VIII), let me cite the sound- film. Out of the mechanical play of light on a screen and the vacuous sound- waves that fill the hall during its projection, we create for ourselves, as in a dream, a living world in which we participate entirely, by running up and down the whole vast gamut of thought and feeling.

-John Levy

From The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta. Sentient Press

The entire book can be downloaded here.

The Object is Consumed in the Joy of Our Being – Jean Klein

We must investigate, get to know ourselves, what we generally understand to be our body and psyche. Most of the time we live in reaction and double reaction, for example, when we react in anger we may also try to remain calm and collected. We try many different escape routes. By such means we constantly limit our possibilities and turn in a vicious circle.

The only way out is to simply observe. This allows us to take note of our physical reactions, our mental attitudes and patterns and our motivations at the exact moment they appear. It involves no evaluation, no analysis which is based on memory. At first the observer might find it difficult to be impersonal, to free himself from evaluating. He tends to emphasize the object and thus become its accomplice. Later, however, observing itself is emphasized and becomes more natural, more frequent. There comes a time when a neutrality installs itself between the observer and what he observes, and both poles lose their driving force. There is silence, we no longer nourish the conditioned object.

What is the primary motivation for our actions?

At certain moments, when alone, we feel a great lack deep within ourselves. This lack is the central one giving rise to all the others. The need to fill this lack, quench this thirst, urges us to think and act. Without even questioning it, we run away from this insufficiency. We try to fill it first with one object then with another, then, disappointed, we go from one compensation to another, from failure to failure, from one source of suffering to another, from one war to another.

This is the destiny to which a large part of humanity devotes itself. Some resign themselves to this state of being which they judge to be inevitable. Others at first deluded by the satisfaction brought about by these objects come to realize that they give rise to a surfeit and even to indifference. Some are brought to take a closer look. The object fully satisfies us for a short time during which we are back in our intrinsic nature, fulfillment. At the moment of fullness there is no awareness of an object. Thus the object cannot be the cause of our experience. It is essential to come to know these moments of joy without object.

We habitually attribute a cause to joy, we turn joy into an object because memory links the two together, but in reality they are of two entirely different natures. Thus we realize that the object is consumed in the joy of our being.

Is it true that when we look at our surroundings from silent awareness they find their natural state of harmony?

It is only through silent awareness that our physical and mental nature can change. This change is completely spontaneous. If we make an effort to change we do no more than shift our attention from one level, from one thing, to another. We remain in a vicious circle. This only transfers energy from one point to another. It still leaves us oscillating between suffering and pleasure, each leading inevitably back to the other. Only living stillness, stillness without someone trying to be still, is capable of undoing the conditioning our biological, emotional and psychological nature has undergone. There is no controller, no selector, no personality making choices. In choiceless living the situation is given the freedom to unfold. You do not grasp one aspect over another for there is nobody to grasp. When you understand something and live it without being stuck to the formulation, what you have understood dissolves in your openness. In this silence change takes place of its own accord, the problem is resolved and duality ends. You are left in your glory where no one has understood and nothing has been understood.

You have said that the only reason objects exist is so as to point to the ultimate perceiver, what we really are. Don’t you think that there exist objects which, by their very nature, put us in direct contact with the Ultimate? I was thinking of works of art, for these seem to me to stem directly from the heart of the artist.

When talking of works of art, we must first of all distinguish between true works of art and what we might call artistic works. A work of art always arises from the background: consciousness. Be it music, painting, architecture, poetry or sculpture, it is always seen by the artist in an instant, like a flash of lightning, as it surges forth from deep within him. Afterwards he elaborates it, gives it body and form, in time and space. The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci was undoubtedly conceived in perfect simultaneity. We can say the same of the Art of the Fugue by Bach and of certain of Mozart’s compositions. An artist worthy of this name is never preoccupied by the material he uses, nor even by the subject matter or the anecdotal side of his work. His only interest is to arrange the different elements in perfect harmony so that they all fuse together and no longer impress the viewer as separate objects. The objective side of his work is thus eliminated. Tagore said that the aim of a true work of art is to give a form to what escapes definition. Then the viewer will no longer be seduced by the material used nor even by the anecdotal content; instead he will be immediately plunged into a non-state which is the aesthetic experience. Later he will qualify the object as beautiful because it stimulated awareness of his own beauty. We can thus see that a work of art is really but a vehicle, a means by which we are led towards the experience. It is truly creative. We feel what the artist himself felt at the time of creation: a spontaneous offering free from all desire for approval.

All objects point to the Ultimate, but the difference between an ordinary object and a work of art is that the ordinary object is passive in its pointing towards the Ultimate whereas the work of art is active.

You said that the object stimulates our own beauty but I thought beauty had no cause…

Apparently a beautiful object stimulates our own beauty because sense perception functions in time and space. But in the moment of living the beauty there is no object nor experiencer present. It is a timeless moment, where you live yourfullness. So cause and effect are only on the relative level.

They are simply concepts because they cannot be experienced simultaneously. Consciousness is always one with its object. There are never two—always one.

What gives the object this power?

Only a work of art born from beauty, in simultaneity, can point to beauty. Beauty is the same in all. When the artist spontaneously offers his most profound nature and through his talent finds its nearest expression, it awakens in the viewer, the listener, his own profundity. But when you live in beauty and look from beauty, everything points in different ways to your wholeness. Living is no longer from the divided mind. All belongs to your fullness.

But I am not sure everybody is capable of being openly receptive to these works of art.

Before encouraging people to find beauty in a work of art, we must first teach them how to see, how to listen. We will soon realize how difficult this is: listening and seeing are arts in themselves. To arrive at aesthetic experience we must be totally receptive, welcoming, free from memory, so that we are open to the play of color, sounds, rhythms and shapes. This openness, seeing, is the light underlying all sensations and sooner or later, we find ourselves knowingly in this light. Looking at a work of art in this way is truly creative. There is no analysis in it. Each time we are struck by it, it brings us back to our real Self.

As one comes closer to you, at some point or other you encourage your friends to learn to appreciate beauty in art and music and our surroundings. You obviously feel this is a very important “sadhana.” How exactly can an appreciation of art help us ask “Who am I?” more effectively?

All our senses, sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell have been channelled or dispersed towards personal defense and aggression, used as tools to maintain the person. Through artistic appreciation the qualities of sensitivity and receptivity are awakened. Energy is sustained and the sense organs find their organic multi-dimensionality. In real listening the ear does not grasp the sound but remains totally relaxed and receptive to sound, silence and rhythm. It becomes a creative tool for the transmission of sound to the whole body. The senses no longer function fractionally but the body is one whole sense organ. Without this welcoming openness, global feeling and sensitivity, the question “Who am I?” remains intellectual. If it is ever to become a living question it must be transposed on every level of our being. The openness in the living question is the doorway to the living answer.

-Jean Klein

From I Am, Chapter one, Non-Duality Press 

To read more from Jean Klein see:  http://o-meditation.com/category/jean-klein/

Focused “I Am” Meditation – Nisargadatta Maharaj

Focused ‘I am’ Meditation

1. The ‘I am’ came first, it’s ever present, ever available, refuse all thoughts except ‘I am’, stay there.

2. Just stay put firmly and establish yourself in the ‘I am’, reject all that does not go with ‘I am’

3. Consistently and with perseverance separate the ‘I am’ from ‘this’ or ‘that’, just keep in mind the feeling ‘I am’

4. Only the ‘I am’ is certain, it’s impersonal, all knowledge stems from it, it’s the root, hold on to it and let all else go.

5. You are sure of the ‘I am’, it’s the totality of being, remember ‘I am’ and it’s enough to heal your mind and take you beyond.

6. The ‘I am’ is, it’s ever fresh, all else is inference, when the ‘I am’ goes all that remains is the Absolute.

7. Give all your attention to the ‘I am’, which is timeless presence, the ‘I am’ applies to all, come back to it repeatedly.

8. Hang on to the ‘I am’ and go beyond it, without the ‘I am’ you are at peace and happy.

9. Hold on to the ‘I am’ to the exclusion of everything else, the ‘I am’ in movement creates the world, the ‘I am’ at peace becomes the Absolute.

10. Immortality is freedom from the feeling ‘I am’, to have that freedom remain in the sense ‘I am’, it’s simple, it’s crude, yet it works!

11. The ‘I am’ is unreal and real, unreal when identified with body, real when wordless and used to go beyond.

12. The ‘I am’ has brought you in, the ‘I am’ will take you out, the ‘I am’ is the door, stay at it! It’s open!

13. You have to be there before you can say ‘I am’, the ‘I am’ is the root of all appearance.

14. The ‘I am’ is the permanent link in the succession of events called life, be at the link ‘I am’ only and go beyond it.

15. The ‘I am’ is the sum total of all that you perceive, it’s time‐bound, the ‘I am’ itself is an illusion, you are not the ‘I am’ you are prior to it.

16. The ‘I am’ is your greatest foe and greatest friend, foe when binding to the illusion as body, friend when taking out of the illusion as body.

17. The beginning and the end of knowledge is the ‘I am’, be attentive to the ‘I am’, once you understand it, you are apart from it.

18. You must meditate on the ‘I am’ without holding on to the body‐mind, the ‘I am’ is the first ignorance, persist on it and you will go beyond it.

19. Your Guru, your God, is the ‘I am’, with its coming came duality and all activity, stay on the ‘I am’, you are before the ‘I am’ appeared.

20. The ‘I am’ concept is the last outpost of the illusion, hold on to it, stabilize in the ‘I am’, then you are no more an individual.

21. Without doing anything you have the knowledge ‘I am’, it has come spontaneously and unwillingly on you, stay there and put an axe to the ‘I am’.

22. Your only capital is the ‘I am’, it’s the only tool you can use to solve the riddle of life, the ‘I am’ is in all and movement inherent in it.

23. Only be the ‘I am’, just be, the ‘I am’ has appeared on your homogeneous state, the one free of the ‘I am’ is liberated, you are prior to the ‘I am’.

24. Worship the indwelling ‘I am’ in you, it is the ‘I am’ that is born, it is the ‘I am’ that will die, you are not that ‘I am’.

25. Remain focused on the ‘I am’ till it goes into oblivion, then the eternal is, Absolute is, Parabrahman is.

26. The knowledge ‘I am’ is the birth principle, investigate it and you’ll finally stabilize in the Absolute Parabrahman.

27. All knowledge including the ‘I am’ is formless, throw out the ‘I am’ and stay put in quietude

28. Prior to birth where was the ‘I am’? Don’t contaminate the ‘I am’ with the body idea, I as the Absolute am not the ‘I am’

29. In the absence of ‘I am’ nothing is required, the ‘I am’ will go with the body, what remains is the Absolute.

30. You must not only have the conviction that ‘I am’ but also that you are free from the ‘I am’.

31. Remember the knowledge ‘I am’ only and give up the rest, staying in the ‘I am’ you would realize that it is unreal.

32. Understand that the knowledge ‘I am’ has dawned on you and all are its manifestations, in this understanding you realize you are not the ‘I am’.

33. When this concept ‘I am’ departs there would be no memory left that ‘I was’ and ‘I had’ those experiences, the very memory will be erased.

34. With the arrival of the primary concept ‘I am’, time began, with its departure time would end, you the Absolute are not the primary concept ‘I am.

35. When you know both the ‘I am’ and the ‘I am not’ then you are the Absolute which transcends both knowingness and no‐knowingness.

36. Appearance and disappearance, birth and death these are qualities of ‘I am’, they do not belong to you, the Absolute.

37. Out of the nothingness, the ‘I am ‘ or beingness has come, there is no individual, the knowledge ‘I am’‐ not the individual – has to go back to its source.

38. By meditating on the knowledge ‘I am’ it gradually settles down at its source and disappears, then, you are the Absolute.

39. Go on to know the ‘I am’ without words, you must be that and not deviate from it for even a moment, and then it would disappear.

40. With the dropping off of the primary experience ‘I am’ all experiences would vanish and only the Absolute remains.

41. On your true state has arisen this subtle principle ‘I am’, which is the cause of all mischief, no ‘I am’, and no question of mischief.

42. Whatever you try to become that is not you, before even the words ‘I am’ were said, that is you.

43. The root habit is the ‘I am’ and it has arisen from the domain five elements and three qualities which are unreal.

44. Abide in the knowledge ‘I am’ without identifying with the body, how did you function before the arrival of the knowledge ‘I am’?

45. The state of being, that is the message ‘I am’, without words, is common to all, change begins only with the mind‐flow.

46. The belief in the ‘I am’ to be something as a body, as an individual is the cause of all fear, in the absence of the ‘I am’, who is to fear what?

47. Try to stabilize in the primary concept ‘I am’ in order to lose that and be free from all other concepts, in understating the unreality of the ‘I am’ you are totally free.

48. Sitting quietly, being one with the knowledge ‘I am’, you would lose all concern with the world, then the ‘I am’ would also go, leaving you as the Absolute.

49. Putting aside everything, stabilize in the ‘I am’ ‐ as you continue with this practice – in the process you will transcend the ‘I am’.

50. The very core of this consciousness is the quality ‘I am’, there is no personality or individual there, reside there and transcend it.

51. Worship the knowledge ‘I am’ as God, as your Guru, the message ‘I am’ is there, the mind‐flow is there, stay in the ‘I am’ realize you are neither.

52. Presently you are sustaining the memory ‘I am’, you are not that ‘I am’, you are the Absolute, prior to that ‘I am’.

53. You feel the ‘I am’ due to the five elements and three qualities, when they go the ‘I am’ goes but you are still there.

54. Keep focused on the ‘I am’ till you become a witness to it, then you stand apart, you have reached the highest.

55. This knowledge ‘I am’ has come out of the state prior to it and now is the cause of all suffering, before the ‘I am’ came you were happy, so revert.

56. When you remain in the ‘I am’ you will realize everything else is useless, then you are Parabrahman, the Absolute.

57. One who abides in that principle by which he knows ‘I am’, then he knows all and does not require anything.

58. Just sit and know that ‘you are’, the ‘I am’ without words, nothing else has to be done, shortly you will arrive to your natural Absolute state.

59. Erroneously you have handed over this knowledge’ I am’ to the body thereby reduced the limitless to the limited, hence you are afraid of dying.

60. You have to realize that you are not the body nor the knowledge ‘I am’, you as the Absolute are neither nor do you require them.

61. Inquire into the validity of the fundamental concept of your individuality the ‘I am’ and it will disappear, then you are Parabrahman, the Absolute.

62. The essential thing to be convinced about is that the original concept ‘I am’ is false, only accept that which is conducive to this development.

63. Before you occurred to yourself as ‘I am’ you were the highest ‐ Parabrahman – now, until the impurity of ‘I am the body’ goes stay put in the ‘I am’ quietude.

64. Your fall started with the appearance of ‘I am’, then you blundered by embracing the body as ‘I am’, all that gathered thereafter is unreal.

65. This is no joke, but you can become Parabrahman right now! You are Parabrahman right now! Just focus your attention on the ‘I am’.

66.Who has the knowledge ‘I am’? Somebody in you knows the knowledge ‘I am’, ‘you are’, who is it?

67. Who can know the illusory state ‘I am’? Only a non‐illusory state can do so, it’s the Awareness, the Parabrahman, the Absolute.

68. The primary concept ‘I am’ is dishonest, a cheat, it has deceived you, into believing what is not, sharply focus on the ‘I am’ and it’ll disappear.

69. Finally you have to transcend the ‘I am’ to enter the concept‐free Parabrahman state, where you do not even know you are!

70. The Absolute or the Parabrahman is prior to the ‘I am’, it’s the unborn state, so how can it have the knowledge ‘I am’?

71. Presently whatever you know is the ‘I am’ which is a product of the five elements, three qualities or the food body, but you are none of these.

72. One who has realized the knowledge ‘I am’ which means transcending it as well, for him there is no birth or death nor any karma.

73. The primary illusion is only this knowingness ‘I am’; it is liberation when the knowingness is transformed to non‐knowingness.

74. You are even before even you could say the words ‘I am’, witnessing happens to the state prior to your saying the words ‘I am’.

75. When the body dies the ‘I am’ goes into oblivion, only the Absolute remains, stay put there, nothing happens to you the Absolute.

76. From non‐being to being, how is it known? It’s by the knowledge ‘I am’, stay there in the ‘I am’, then you’ll revert from being to non‐being.

77. Right now, here, you are the Absolute, the Parabrahman, very firmly hold on to the ‘I am’, ever abide in it and it’ll dissolve, then you are as you are.

78. On the state of non‐beingness, beingness as the ‘I am’ has occurred, who is that is not important, the ‘I am’ is important, stay there.

79. First came the ‘aham’ as ‘I am’, then ‘aham‐akar’ (identification with body, ego), now revert back to ‘aham’, dwelling there realize ‘aham‐brahmasmi’

80. You are neither the ‘I am’ nor the activities carried out by the beingness, you as the Absolute are none of these.

81. With the transcendence of the knowledge ‘I am’, the Absolute prevails. The state is called Parabrahman, while the knowledge ‘I am’ is Brahman.

82. How were you prior to the message ‘I am’? In the absence of the message ‘I am’ only my eternal Absolute state prevails.

83. Who would have witnessed the message ‘I am’, if your prior state of non‐beingness were not there?

84. A true devotee, by abiding in the knowledge ‘I am’, transcends the experience of death and attains immortality.

85. Hold on to this knowingness ‘I am’ without words and every secret of your existence would be revealed to you.

86. What is it in you that understands this knowledge ‘I am’ without a name, title or word? Subside in that innermost center and witness the knowledge ‘I am’.

87. Totally accept the knowledge ‘I am’ as oneself and with full conviction and faith and firmly believe in the dictum ‘I am that by which I know I am’.

88. Reality prevails prior to the knowledge ‘I am’; you must stay put at the source of your creation, at the beginning of the knowledge ‘I am’.

89. When one is established in the final free Absolute state, the knowledge ‘I am’ becomes ‘non‐knowledge’.

90. The first witnessing is that of ‘I am’, the primary prerequisite for all further witnessing, but to whom is the first witnessing of ‘I am’ occurring?

91. The borderline of ‘I am’ (beingness) and ‘I am not’ (non‐beingness} is the precise location where the intellect subsides, its’ the ‘maha‐yoga’ state, be there.

92. Recognize the Atman by understanding the knowledge ‘I am’, the Atma‐jnana, which is all pervading, limitless and infinite.

93. To abide in the knowledge ‘I am’ is one’s true religion, give the highest honor due to it, doing so you will not undergo suffering or death.

94. Who says ‘I was not’ and ‘I would not be’ like the present ‘I am’? He is the one who was, is, and would be forever.

95. When you say ‘I was not prior to conception’ you actually mean not like the present ‘I am’, but the one to discern the absence of the present ‘I am’ was there.

96. Catch hold of the knowledge ‘I am’ in meditation and the realization would occur that ‘I ‘ the Absolute am not the ‘guna’ ‘I am’.

97. Do nothing but stay in the knowledge ‘I am’ – the ‘moolmaya’ – the primary illusion, then it will release its stranglehold on you and get lost.

98. In deep meditation, infused only with the knowledge ‘I am’, it would be intuitively revealed to you as to how this ‘I amness’ came to be.

99. The knowledge ‘I am’ means consciousness, God, Guru, Ishwara, but you the Absolute are none of these.

100. There is no ‘I am’ anymore, It’s the Parabrahman only…

Here you can see more posts on Nisargadatta Maharaj.

And here you can read more from Nisargadatta Maharaj.

God-Realization – Meher Baba

To realize the Self is to realize God

To arrive at true Self-knowledge is to arrive at God-realization. God-realization is a unique state of consciousness. It is different from all the other states of consciousness because all the other states of consciousness are experienced through the medium of the individual mind; whereas the state of God-consciousness is in no way dependent upon the individual mind or any other medium. A medium is necessary for knowing something other than one’s own Self. For knowing one’s own Self no medium is necessary.

In fact, the association of consciousness with the mind is definitely a hindrance rather than a help for the attainment of Realization. The individual mind is the seat of the ego, or the consciousness of being isolated. It creates the limited individuality, which at once feeds on and is fed by the illusions of duality, time, and change. So, in order to know the Self as it is, consciousness has to be completely freed from the limitation of the individual mind. In other words, the individual mind has to disappear, but consciousness has to be retained.

Consciousness and mind intertwined

Throughout the past life history of the soul, its consciousness has grown with the individual mind; and all the workings of consciousness have proceeded against the background of the individual mind. Consciousness has therefore come to be firmly embedded in the individual mind and cannot be extricated from this setting into which it has been woven. The result is that if the mind is stilled, consciousness also disappears. The intertwining of the individual mind and consciousness is amply illustrated by the tendency to become unconscious when there is any effort to stop mental activity through meditation.

Explanation of sleep

The everyday phenomenon of going to sleep is not essentially different from the lull experienced during meditation, but it is slightly different in its origin. Since the individual mind is continuously confronted by the world of duality, it is involved in ceaseless conflict; and when it is wearied by its unrelieved struggle, it wants to lose its identity as a separate entity and go back to the Infinite. It then recedes from the world of its own creation and experiences a lull, and this lull is also invariably accompanied by the cessation of consciousness.

Resuming wakefulness

The quiescence of mental activity in sleep entails the complete submerging of consciousness; but this cessation of mental life and conscious functioning is only temporary because the impressions stored in the mind goad it to renewed activity. After a while the stimuli of the impressions result in stirring the mind and reviving the conscious functioning that is performed through its medium. So the period of sleep is followed by a period of wakefulness; and the period of wakefulness is followed by a period of sleep, according to the law of alternating activity and rest. As long as the latent impressions in the mind are not completely undone, however, there is no final annihilation of the individual mind or emancipation of consciousness. In sleep the mind temporarily forgets its identity, but it does not finally lose its individual existence. When the person awakens, he finds himself subject to his old limitations. There is a resurrection of consciousness, but it is still mind-ridden.

Obstacle of ego

The limited mind is the soil in which the ego is securely rooted, and this ego perpetuates ignorance through the many illusions in which it is caught. The ego prevents manifestation of infinite knowledge, which is already latent in the soul; it is the most formidable obstacle to the attainment of God. A Persian poem says truly, “It is extremely difficult to pierce through the veil of ignorance, for there is a rock on the fire.” Just as a flame cannot rise very high if a rock is placed upon it, a desire to know one’s own true nature cannot lead to the Truth as long as the burden of the ego is placed on consciousness.

Success in finding one’s Self is rendered impossible by the continuation of the ego, which persists throughout the journey of the soul. In old age, an aching tooth can give untold trouble because it is not easily uprooted, although loose within its socket. In the same way the ego, which might become feeble through love or penance, is yet difficult to eradicate. It persists till the very end. Though it becomes looser as the soul advances on the path, it remains till the last stage, which is the seventh plane of involution of consciousness.

Difficulty of overcoming ego

The ego is the center of all human activity. The attempts of the ego to secure its own extinction might be compared to the attempt of a person to stand on his own shoulders. Just as the eye cannot see itself, the ego is unable to end its own existence. All that it does to bring about self-annihilation only goes to add to its own existence. It flourishes on the very efforts directed against itself. Thus it is unable to vanish altogether through its own desperate activity, although it succeeds in transforming its own nature. The disappearance of the ego is conditioned by the melting away of the limited mind, which is its seat.

Parallel between sleep and God-realization

The problem of God-realization is the problem of emancipating consciousness from the limitations of the mind. When the individual mind is dissolved, the whole universe relative to the mind vanishes into nothingness; and consciousness is no longer tied to anything. Consciousness is now unlimited and unclouded by anything and serves the purpose of illumining the state of infinite Reality. While immersed in the bliss of Realization, the soul is completely oblivious of sights or sounds or objects in the universe. In this respect it is like sound sleep, but there is an infinite difference that distinguishes God-realization from sound sleep.

During sleep the illusion of the universe vanishes, since all consciousness is in abeyance; but there is no conscious experience of God, since this requires the complete dissolution of the ego and the turning of full consciousness toward the ultimate Reality. Occasionally, when the continuity of deep sleep is interrupted for brief intervals, one may have the experience of retaining consciousness without being conscious of anything in particular. There is consciousness, but this consciousness is not of the universe. It is consciousness of nothing. Such experiences parallel those of God-realization, in which consciousness is completely freed from the illusion of the universe and manifests the infinite knowledge that was hitherto hidden by the ego.

Difference between sleep and God-realization

In sleep, the individual mind continues to exist, although it has forgotten everything including itself; and the latent impressions in the mind create a veil between the submerged consciousness and infinite Reality. Thus during sleep, consciousness is submerged in the shell of the individual mind; but it has not yet been able to escape from that shell. Though the soul has forgotten its separateness from God and has actually attained unity with Him, it is unconscious of this unity. In God-realization, however, the mind does not merely forget itself but has (with all its impressions) actually lost its identity. The consciousness, which was hitherto associated with the individual mind, is now freed and untrammeled and brought into direct contact and unity with the ultimate Reality. Since there is now no veil between consciousness and the ultimate Reality, consciousness is fused with the Absolute and eternally abides in it as an inseparable aspect, promoting an unending state of infinite knowledge and unlimited bliss.

God-realization a personal attainment

The manifestation of infinite knowledge and unlimited bliss in consciousness is, however, strictly confined to the soul that has attained God-realization. The infinite Reality in the God-realized soul has explicit knowledge of its own infinity. Such explicit knowledge is not experienced by the unrealized soul, which is still subject to the illusion of the universe. Thus if God-realization were not a personal attainment of the soul, the entire universe would come to an end as soon as any one soul achieved God-realization. This does not happen because God-realization is a personal state of consciousness belonging to the soul that has transcended the domain of the mind. Other souls continue to remain in bondage, and they can only attain Realization by freeing their consciousness from the burden of the ego and the limitations of the individual mind. Hence the attainment of God-realization has direct significance only for the soul that has emerged out of the time process.

What was latent in Infinite becomes manifest

After the attainment of God-realization, the soul discovers that it has always been the infinite Reality that it now knows itself to be, and that its regarding itself as finite during the period of evolution and spiritual advancement was in fact an illusion. The soul also finds out that the infinite knowledge and bliss it now enjoys have also been latent in the infinite Reality from the very beginning of time, and that they merely became manifest at the moment of Realization. Thus the God-realized person does not actually become something different from what he was before Realization. He remains what he was; and the only difference Realization makes in him is that previously he did not consciously know his own true nature, and now he knows it. He knows that he has never been anything other than what he now knows himself to be, and that all he has been through was but the process of finding his Self.

Two types of advantages

The whole process of attaining God-realization is just a game in which the beginning and the end are identical. The attainment of Realization is nevertheless a distinct gain for the soul. In general there are two types of advantages: one consists in getting what one did not previously possess, the other in realizing fully what one really is. God-realization is of the second type. However, this creates an infinite difference between the soul that has attained God-realization and the soul that has not. Though the God-realized soul does not possess anything new, its explicit knowledge of all that it really is, has been, and will ever be, makes God-realization all important. The soul that is not God-realized experiences itself as being finite and is constantly troubled by the opposites of fleeting joys and sorrows. But the soul that has Realization is lifted out of them and experiences the infinite knowledge and the unlimited bliss of being God-conscious.

Value of God-realization

In God-realization the soul drops its separate consciousness and transcends duality in the abiding knowledge of its identity with the infinite Reality. The shackles of limited individuality are broken; the world of shadows is at an end; the curtain of Illusion is forever drawn. The feverishness and the agonizing distress of the pursuits of limited consciousness are replaced by the tranquility and bliss of Truth-consciousness. The restlessness and fury of temporal existence are swallowed up in the peace and stillness of Eternity.

-Meher Baba

Taken from Discourses   Discourses-Meher Baba

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

To read more from Meher Baba see downloadable books.

Unborn Children – Nisargadatta Maharaj

11th December 1979

Maharaj:

In sleep consciousness is dormant, when you get up consciousness says, ‘I had a good sleep’. You can give it any name you like –body, mind but it is an attribute that was dormant in sleep, it is not the senses telling you. The food-body will always have desires; beingness is the fragrance of the same body. Prior to it I did not know myself; it was an experience less state, suddenly the eight clues (five elements and three gunas) of experience and knowingness were fed lots of information – birth, body and so forth, with all this I started suffering. My Guru initiated me into an inquiry about myself. Did I experience my birth and parents? I hadn’t, so I rejected it. In the process I started investigating my own beingness; it was a temporary state, so I have disposed it off. I am free from fear now as I know this state will go. I have no fear of my beingness because I will experience the same (the going of beingness). Because of concepts I considered myself a personality and due to this conceptual state my true state suffered.

Just as I admonish you, I listen to my friends, their thoughts talk to me, even visions appear, I tell them to shut up. I admonish thoughts and visions. Will anybody quarrel with his thoughts? When these foreign or alien thoughts are kept aside, the Self starts sprouting and imparting knowledge. Then it is the realized principle that prevails which was never created, but behaves as though created. Who observes or witnesses then? ‘I the Absolute’ If there are no thoughts then there is no fear, and then the Self sprouts.

In the absence of beingness, what have I been doing? My unborn children, what are they doing? The same that I did prior to the appearance of this beingness. World, mind and all are expansive, how did this calamity occur- with the arrival of beingness? So I must investigate the cause of the trouble that is, beingness. Think how you came into this body complex instead of investigating the world.

The body falls down but what happened to me? For that principle for which you get no reply, is perfect, whatever answer you get is wrong. If I think of this world, why should I not inquire about prior to consciousness? If I tackle this question, I must investigate what is this principle of ‘I am’? I would prefer to play with that child not born because eternal Parabrahman and unborn children are alike.

You want to have knowledge. What do you mean by that? Hold on to that principle which  understands, recognizes thoughts, and then be quiet. For your sake, what are you? Investigate that. Forget who is torturing whom; stabilize in your most confidential being as ‘you are’. What are you?

Investigate the problems of manifest world can be solved later. There is no right answer to ‘who are you?’ no answer is the most correct one; any reply you get is not eternal. That eternal, unborn principle is now talking which has been accused of birth. ‘I feel I am guilty’. Whatever guilt you accept you have to suffer. In a country not visited a robbery occurs, the Police arrest you here. If you accept, you suffer, maybe a life term. I don’t accept the charge; I have not visited that place. I am not a robber. I plead that – ‘my only guilt is that I accept that I am born’. Give it up! I was not born on my own with my knowledge; I had no knowledge of my beingness. The Absolute has no scope, it’s unborn. Prior to my appearance ( beingness) it never occurred to me that I was, so where is the scope for feeling guilty either? If you had wisdom, you would reject beingness. No body means no knowingness, no consciousness, in the original state the five elements and the three gunas are not there.

The one, who assimilates what I say now, has no reason to be unhappy. The world is full of emotional unhappiness. A worm spawns out of decomposed food. I am not that worm, although made of food, beingness is a product of food.

In order to realize the Self, catch hold of the knowledge that ‘you are’. Do so at the feet of your Guru- your beingness means ‘Iswara’ that is Guru too, that is the Self. Feet means ‘charan’, char – to move- that gives you movement, that principle [beingness] starts movement. The merging of the individual with the universal comes to be by Sadhana (practice).

The five senses of action and five senses of knowledge do they act on their own? The five elements give rise to the five senses of knowledge. For manifestation, eight of them – the five elements and three gunas produce the essence. The Sattva guna produces the manifest world of forms, the knowledge that ‘I am’ is simultaneously created. What is created is the knowledge of existence; the individual assumes that this knowledge belongs to him. There is individual existence in this room. But the whole manifest world is Ishwara, Ishwara is like a city, He is there. As you believe that you are an individual, you die, the difference is that the individual dies while Ishwara, the entire manifestation, does not die; it has no limitations like those of the individual.

I am experiencing the manifest world but prior to it I experience the ‘Bindu’, the point. When I am that Bindu, everything is, the world also is. The Bindu and the world are not two. ‘Bin’ means without and ‘du’ means two, so, no duality. Bindu – the point of ‘I amness’, I experience that. What is it? It is the very experience of the five elements and the three gunas – the whole universe. That is my intimate relationship with that ‘I am’ only –Bindu only.

You go on pilgrimages so that good should happen to you as an individual. But you are not an individual, you are the manifest world. That ‘you are’ means the entire world, whatever manifestation you enjoy is universal. This knowledge is for the few rare ones, but instead of that manifestation ‘you are’, you hang on to individuality.

Whatever is observed in the manifest world is your own Self, The observer is ‘I am’.  It is a receptacle of the five elements and three gunas. The entire universe is in activity because of the three gunas. The play of the entire world is based on the five elements and three gunas. But you cling to your body; the body is also a play of the five elements and three gunas. The whole universe is in full play, it is like urination. You are one drop if you consider yourself to be an individual. A drop of ocean is salty and the salty taste is the knowledge ‘I am’. Suppose that drop dries, the ocean does not care – a drop of ocean drying on the rock. Similarly in the five elemental play you are a drop, either survive or die, the elemental ocean is unconcerned. But how to understand this manifest nature? Be the taste, understand the taste. Millions of drops dry up but the ocean is unconcerned. Millions die but how the five elements are concerned?

Because you limit yourself to the body, you suffer. The realized one can entertain no idea of good to himself, for him even if the entire world is destroyed, nothing happens. The realized one is, of course, no more a person. There is nothing else except the core of your Self –Bindu, nothing else is. Only Krishna said there is nothing else. You meditate incessantly to achieve Samadhi but this knowledge will sprout from you only. Since I am prior to that (consciousness) I talked of Bindu.

Now what happens to consciousness, when you are prior to it? In the waking state, how do you find out as though you are asleep? What do you do in deep sleep?

Visitor: Just be.

M: Do you enjoy that ‘just be’?

V: No.

M: Your beingness is not enjoying being is deep sleep. Are you aware of being male or female in deep sleep? Find out what you are, you know ‘you are’, find out, then, whatever are its requirements you will know. The subtle food essence is life; Subtler still is the quality of knowingness. The knowledge ‘you are’ is like a particle of the sky, it is more subtle than space, and it can recognize space.

V: What connection has it with life?

M: The whole life is endured and sustained by the knowledge particle, ‘I am’. Without ‘I am’ there is no life. They are interdependent, not one without the other. I am prior to the ‘I am’, which is true, eternal and immutable. Beingness, world and body are time bound, your life is not forever, it rises and sets like the waking and sleeping states alternate. The totality of manifestation thrives as long as the beingness is there. Rainwater has no taste, but out of it you get so much, you add ingredients to it and drink. I give you pure food but you find it tasteless so you pollute it, you add salt to the food for taste’s sake.

-Nisargadatta Maharaj

Taken from I Am Unborn, Chapter 6

Here you can see more posts on Nisargadatta Maharaj.

And here you can read more from Nisargadatta Maharaj.

Osho on O-theism

The following is an interview with Kirk Braun, a reporter for the Portland newspaper The Oregonian, which took place in Osho’s Lao Tzu House, Rajneeshpuram, Oregon in 1983. I have taken the liberty of substituting the word O-theism for Rajneeshism as Osho himself substituted Osho for the name Rajneesh to illustrate that He who is speaking is not limited to the body seen (never born, never died), O-theism is not limited to the body teaching, nor even time nor place.

Q: What is your vision for the future of O-theism?

Osho: O-theism is not a religion like Christianity, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, etc. The name should not be misunderstood. It simply shows a poverty of language – to be exactly true, O-theism is a religionless religion. In other words it is a kind of religiousness, not a dogma, cult or creed but only a quality of love, silence, meditation and prayerfulness. Hence it can never end.

It is not beginning with me. It has always existed, and it will always exist. It is the very essence of human evolution, of culture consciousness. Buddha, Jesus or Krishna are nothing but expressions of this spirit, but it was not possible in those days for religion to be manifested as well as it can be now. Because Jesus did not know about Buddha, Buddha did not know about Lao Tzu, and Krishna was also unaware of Lao Tzu, etc.

I have traveled all the paths and have looked at the truth from all the windows. What I am saying is going to last forever because nothing more could be added to it.

Buddha was not so sure of his religion. He said that his religion would last for 5,000 years, and that too only if he didn’t allow women to join his commune. And when women entered his commune he said, “Now the religion will only last 500 years.”

All of these people have talked about some aspect of truth and their disciples have understood it as the whole truth. I am talking about the whole truth so the future of my religion is infinite. All other religions will disappear into it as all the rivers disappear into the ocean.

Q: Will the world make any progress in the area of human understanding?

Osho: Certainly. In fact, the time in which we are living is of tremendous importance. A revolution in human consciousness is no more a luxury; it has become an absolute need as there are only two alternatives – suicide or a quantum leap in consciousness, which Nietzsche called superman. And I absolutely believe that nobody wants to choose suicide. Up to now man has been surviving without transformation because there was no urgency for change. Nuclear weapons have brought a great urgency for a choice of now or never. There is a simple law that life wants to survive, so in my vision humanity is going to take the same significant change that the monkeys made when monkeys became human.

Q: Do you think O-theists will survive the predicted nuclear holocaust and if so, how?

Osho: As I said earlier monkeys took a jump and became human beings, but not all monkeys did. The remaining ones are still monkeys so let me put your question in a different way.

I will not say that all O-theists will survive the holocaust, but I can say with an absolute guarantee that those who will survive will be the O-theists and the remaining will be monkeys or commit suicide. In fact, the remaining don’t matter.

[NOTE: This was first published in The Rajneesh Times, 19th August 1983 while Osho was in silence.]

See related post O-theism.

The Stages of the Path – Meher Baba

All persons have to pass through the state of bondage, but this period of bondage is not to be looked upon as a meaningless episode in the evolution of life. One has to experience being caged if one is to appreciate freedom. If in the entire span of its life a fish has not come out of the water even once, it has no chance of appreciating the value of water. From its birth till its death it has lived only in water, and it is not in a position to understand what water really means to its being. But if it is taken out of water even for a moment, it longs for water and becomes qualified by that experience to appreciate the importance of water. In the same way, if life were constantly free and manifested no bondage, man would miss the real significance of freedom. To experience spiritual bondage and know intense desire to be free from it are both a preparation for the full enjoyment of the freedom that is to come.

As the fish that is taken out of the water longs to go back in the water, the aspirant who has perceived the goal longs to be united with God. In fact, the longing to go back to the source is present in each being from the very time that it is separated from the source by the veil of ignorance; but the being is unconscious of the longing till it, as an aspirant, enters the spiritual path. One can in a sense become accustomed to ignorance, just as a person in a train may get accustomed to the darkness of a tunnel when the train has been passing through it for some time. Even then there is a definite discomfort and a vague and undefinable sense of restlessness owing to the feeling that something is missing. This something is apprehended from the very beginning as being of tremendous significance. In the stages of dense ignorance, this something is often inadvertently identified with the variegated things of this mundane world.

When one’s experience of this world is sufficiently mature, however, the repeated disillusionments in life set one on the right track to discover what is missing. From that moment the individual seeks a reality that is deeper than changing forms. This moment might aptly be described as the first initiation of the aspirant. From the moment of initiation into the path, the longing to unite with the source from which he has been separated becomes articulate and intense. Just as the person in the tunnel longs for light all the more intensely after he sees a streak of light coming from the other end, the person who has had a glimpse of the goal longs to hasten toward it with all the speed he can command.

On the spiritual path there are six stations, the seventh station being the terminus, or the goal. Each intermediate station is, in its own way, a kind of imaginative anticipation of the goal. The veil that separates man from God consists of false imagination, and this veil has many folds. Before entering the path the person is shrouded in this veil of manifold imagination, with the result that he cannot even entertain the thought of being other than a separate, enclosed, finite individual. The ego-consciousness has crystallized out of the working of the manifold false imagination; and the conscious longing for union with God is the first shaking of the entire structure of the ego, which has been built during the period of the false working of imagination.

Traversing the spiritual path consists in undoing the results of the false working of imagination, or dropping several folds of the veil, which has created a sense of unassailable separateness and irredeemable isolation. Thus far, the person had clung firmly to the idea of his separate existence and secured it behind the formidable walls of thick ignorance, but from now on he enters into some kind of communication with the larger Reality. The more he communes with Reality, the thinner becomes the veil of ignorance. With the gradual wearing out of separateness and egoism, he gains an increasing sense of merging in the larger Reality.

The building up of a sense of separateness is a result of flights of imagination. Therefore the breaking through of the self-created sense of separateness and being united with Reality is secured through reversing the false working of imagination. The act of getting rid of imagination altogether may be compared with the act of awakening from deep sleep. The different stages in the process of ridding oneself of false imagination might be compared with the dreams that often serve as a bridge between deep sleep and full wakefulness. The process of getting rid of the manifold working of false imagination is gradual and has seven stages.

The shedding of one fold of the veil of imagination is decidedly an advance toward Light and Truth, but it does not amount to becoming one with Reality. It merely means renouncing the more false imagination in favor of the less false imagination. There are different degrees of falseness of imagination corresponding to the degrees of the sense of separateness constituted by ego-consciousness. Each stage in the process of ridding oneself of false imagination is a definite wearing out of the ego. But all intermediate stages on the path, until final realization of the Goal, consist in leaving one flight of imagination for another. They do not amount to cessation of imagination.

These flights of imagination do not bring about any real change in the true being of the Self as it is. What changes is not the Self but its idea of what it is. Suppose in a daydream or fantasy you imagine yourself to be in China while your body is actually in India. When the fantasy comes to an end, you realize that your body is actually not in China but in India. From the subjective point of view, this is like returning from China to India. In the same way, gradual non-identification with the body and progressive identification with the Oversoul is comparable to the actual traversing of the path, though in fact the different intermediate stages on the path are all equally creations of the play of imagination.

The six ascending stages are thus all within the domain of imagination. However at each stage, breaking down the sense of separateness and discovering a merging in the larger Reality are both so strong and clear that the person often has a pseudo sense of Realization. Just as when a person climbing a mountain comes upon a deep valley and is so fascinated by the sight of it that he forgets the real goal and believes for a time that he has arrived at his goal, the aspirant also mistakes the intermediate stages for the goal itself. But a person who is really in earnest about climbing the mountain realizes after a while that the valley has to be crossed, and the aspirant also realizes sooner or later that the intermediate stage has to be transcended. The pseudo sense of Realization that comes at the intermediate stages is like an individual dreaming that he has awakened from sleep although he is actually still asleep. After becoming awake he realizes that his first feeling of awakening was really a dream.

Each definite stage of advancement represents a state of consciousness, and advancement from one state of consciousness to another proceeds side by side with crossing the inner planes. Thus six intermediate planes and their states of consciousness have to be experienced before reaching the seventh plane, which is the end of the journey and where there is final realization of the God state. A plane is comparable to a railway station where a train halts for some time, and the state of consciousness is comparable to the movements of the passenger after getting down at the station.

After entering a new plane of consciousness, a person usually takes some time before he can freely function on that plane. As there is a radical change in the total conditions of mental life, the person experiences a sort of paralysis of mental activity known as samadhi. When the pilgrim enters a new plane, he merges into the plane before he can experience the state characteristic of that plane. Just as a pilgrim who is tired by the strain of a journey sometimes goes to sleep, consciousness-which has made the effort of ascending to a new plane-goes through a period of lowered mental activity comparable to sleep. However, samadhi is fundamentally different from sleep. A person is totally unconscious in sleep; whereas in samadhi he is conscious of bliss or light or power, although he is unconscious of his body and surroundings. After a period of comparative stillness, the mind begins to function on the new plane and experiences a state of consciousness that is utterly different from the state it has left behind.

When the aspirant enters a new plane, he is merged into it; and along with the slowing down of mental activity, he experiences a substantial diminution in the ego-life. This curtailment of the ego-life is different from the final annihilation of the ego, which takes place at the seventh plane. But like the final annihilation at the seventh plane, the different stages of the curtailment of the ego at the intermediate six planes deserve special mention owing to their relative importance. In the Sufi spiritual tradition, the final annihilation of the ego is described as Fana-Fillah. And the earlier samadhi of the six planes of duality have also been recognized as kinds of fana, since they also involve a partial annihilation of the ego.

Through all these fanas of ascending order there is a continuity of progression toward the final Fana-Fillah, and each has some special characteristic. When the pilgrim arrives at the first plane, he experiences his first fana, or minor annihilation of the ego. The pilgrim is temporarily lost to his limited individuality and experiences bliss. Many pilgrims thus merged think they have realized God and hence get stuck in the first plane. If the pilgrim keeps himself free from self-delusion or comes to realize that his attainment is really a transitional phase in his journey, he advances further on the spiritual path and arrives at the second plane.

The merging into the second plane is called fana-e-batili, or the annihilation of the false. The pilgrim is now absorbed in bliss and infinite light. Some think that they have attained the goal and get stranded in the second plane, but others who keep themselves free from self-delusion march onward and enter the third plane. The merging into the third plane is called fana-e-zahiri, or the annihilation of the apparent. Here the pilgrim loses all consciousness of his body and his world for days and experiences infinite power. Since he has no consciousness of the world, he has no occasion for the expression of this power. This is videh samadhi, or the state of divine coma. Consciousness is now completely withdrawn from the entire world.

If the pilgrim advances still further, he arrives at the fourth plane. The merging into the fourth plane is called fana-e-malakuti, or the annihilation leading toward freedom. The pilgrim experiences a peculiar state of consciousness at the fourth plane, since he now not only feels infinite power but also has plenty of occasion for the expression of that power. Further, he not only has occasion for the use of his powers but has a definite inclination to express them. If he falls prey to this temptation, he goes on expressing these powers and gets caught up in the alluring possibilities of the fourth plane. For this reason the fourth plane is one of the most difficult and dangerous to cross. The pilgrim is never spiritually safe, and his reversion is always possible until he has successfully crossed the fourth plane and arrived at the fifth.

The merging into the fifth plane is called fana-e-jabruti, or the annihilation of all desires. Here the incessant activity of the lower intellect comes to a standstill. The pilgrim does not think in the ordinary way, and yet he is indirectly a source of many inspiring thoughts. He sees, but not with the physical eyes. Mind speaks with mind, and there is neither worry nor doubt. He is now spiritually safe and beyond the possibility of a downfall; and yet many a pilgrim on this exalted plane finds it difficult to resist the delusion that he has attained Godhood. In his self-delusion he thinks and says, “I am God,” and believes himself to have arrived at the end of the spiritual path.

But if he moves on, he perceives his mistake and advances to the sixth plane. The merging into the sixth plane is called fana-e-mahabubi, or the annihilation of the self (lover) in the Beloved. Now the pilgrim sees God as directly and as clearly as an ordinary person sees the different things of this world. This continual perception and enjoyment of God does not suffer a break even for an instant. Yet the wayfarer does not become one with God, the Infinite.

If the pilgrim ascends to the seventh plane, he experiences the last merging, which is called Fana-Fillah, or the final annihilation of the self in God. Through this merging the pilgrim loses his separate existence and becomes permanently united with God. He is now one with God and experiences himself as being none other than God. This seventh plane Fana-Fillah is the terminus of the spiritual path, the goal of all search and endeavor. It is the Nirvikalpa state, which is characteristic of conscious Godhood. It is the only real awakening. The pilgrim has now reached the opposite shore of the vast ocean of imagination, and he realizes that this last Truth is the only Truth and that all the other stages on the path are entirely illusory. He has arrived at the final destination.

-Meher Baba

Taken from Discourses

For more posts on Meher Baba see Meher Baba category.

To read more from Meher Baba see downloadable books.