I let go.
I let go.
My love affair with life
Still, I am not without doubts.
But the plunge forward!
A dance unpredictable.
And I allow all around…
Dissolve in through sound…
Ahh, Osho – Thank you.
A question on polarities:
Can any one being encompass it all?
Yes, Kavita, I am encompassing it all – so can you. Because being is vast. Being is neither male nor female. Bodies are male and female. Psychologies are male and female. But not being.
Being is simply being.
At the very core of your existence, there is no man, no woman. The consciousness is beyond polarity. When you are witnessing your body, if you are a man you will see a man’s body there as an object; if you are a woman, you will see a woman’s body as an object. But the witness is the witness, man or woman. The witness is neither. The witness is simply there – a witness, that’s all. A consciousness, an awareness.
That awareness comprehends all. When you become a witness, when you become a Buddha, all is comprehended. Then there is no question of polarities.
The world is not just polar. That is the meaning of the Christian idea of the Trinity and the Hindu concept of Trimurti. The world is not divided in two – world is divided in three. The three is very fundamental. The two is on the surface and the three is at the center. Man-woman, on the surface. Zen-Sufi, on the surface. But as you move deeper, as you dive deep into your being, and you reach the center, all disappears. One simply is. A kind of purity, a pure existence.
Kavita, it is possible – not only possible, it has to be made possible. That’s my work here. On the path, be a Sufi or a Zen. When you reach the center, forget all about it. When the goal is reached, the path has to be forgotten. These are divisions of the path.
One can climb up a mountain from many sides, can choose different routes. And when you are moving on different routes, you look as if you are moving in different directions, sometimes opposite also. One is going to the north, another is going to the south, but ultimately, when you reach to the peak, you will have come to the same place.
At the peak, Buddha is Christ, Christ is Krishna, Krishna is Mohammed, Mohammed is Zarathustra, Zarathustra is Lao Tzu. At the peak ALL distinctions dissolve.
So, Kavita, right now be Zen, be Sufi, and when you have reached to the peak be Zen/Sufi – then forget all about it! But on the path… one has to move on some path. And all paths are good, because they all lead to the same goal. All doors are good, because they lead to the same shrine.
I let go.
I let go.
My love affair with life
Still, I am not without doubts.
Don’t be worried about it! Doubts are perfectly natural on the path. If you are without doubts that means you have reached the peak. They disappear only at the peak. They have a certain purpose – they goad you, they keep you going.
Doubts are not necessarily hindrances. It depends on you, on how you use your doubts. They can become hindrances. If because of doubt you simply stop moving, you say, “Unless my doubt is dissolved I am not going to move,” then the doubt has become a rock. But if you say, “The doubt is there, but in spite of the doubt I am going to move, because that is the only way to resolve it…. Unless I reach higher I cannot resolve this doubt” – a better vision, from a height, will help.
Doubts are not resolved if you remain clinging to the same space where you are, because those doubts are created by that state of mind. If you remain clinging to that state, the doubts will persist; they will become stronger every day.
Doubts are not resolved by somebody else answering you. These are not philosophical doubts – these are existential doubts. They are resolved only by experiencing. When you move a little higher, they disappear. You have reached to another state of mind. In that state of mind they cannot exist. Suddenly they disappear, as if they have never been there.
In spite of the doubt, one has to go on moving. In fact, one has to use the doubt as a goading to move. Listen to the doubt and say to the doubt, “Okay, I will remember you, but the only way to solve you is that I should go a little higher in my consciousness. I should become a little more alert. It is my un-alertness that is creating you. It is my unconsciousness that is creating you, that is feeding you, nourishing you. It is my state of mechanicalness that is the cause of it.”
If you try to solve your doubts where you are, you can gather many, many answers from many, many sources. They will make you knowledgeable, but not really – they will fill you with information. But the doubt will remain somewhere. On the surface, you may start pretending that you know, but you will know that you don’t know. And it will gnaw at your heart.
You can learn the answers; you can start telling those answers to others, but your very existence, your very life-style, will show that you don’t know.
That is the difference between the Western and the Eastern philosophies. They should not be called by the same name, because their approaches are so basically different, so fundamentally different, so diametrically opposite.
The Western philosopher thinks, but never changes his state of awareness. He thinks where he is. He thinks hard, he thinks very logically. He tries in every way to solve the problem, and he finds many solutions. But those solutions don’t help his life. If they don’t even help his life, how can they help somebody else’s life?
For example: the English thinker and philosopher, David Hume, arrived at the same conclusion as Gautam Buddha, exactly the same. Had he been in the East he would have become a Buddha, but unfortunately he was in the West, in the very thick of the Western noe-sphere.
He arrived at the same conclusion, not by changing his consciousness, but only by logical argumentation. Buddha became enlightened, Hume remained unenlightened. Buddha arrived at a state of bliss; Hume remained crawling on the earth in the same way as of old. Buddha created a new tradition which has remained alive even today; twenty-five centuries have passed. Many people have bloomed because of Buddha.
What did Hume create? Hume also created great argumentation, and even today books are written on Hume, and the argument continues. But it is only argumentation; not a single human being has been transformed by it.
And the irony is that the conclusion is exactly the same. Buddha came to see that there is no self; that was his realization. He meditated. He went deeper and deeper into his being. He searched inside, each nook and corner, and he didn’t find anybody there. That was his release. The ego disappeared, and with the ego all its miseries and hells.
The ego was not found, so all the problems that were created by the ego evaporated. When the source evaporated, all the by-products evaporated of their own accord. When the ego was not found, there was silence – and that silence is beatitude, and that silence is benediction.
When the ego was not found, there was all light, radiant. The whole existence flowed in. Buddha became a void capable of containing the whole existence. He himself became transformed. And thousands of other people became transformed from his insight. Remember, it was an insight.
What happened to David Hume? He also came to the same point, but it was not an insight – it was an outlook. Remember these two words. Literally they are significant: insight, outlook. He arrived at the same conclusion, AS an outlook. He discussed, argued, pondered, thought, contemplated, concentrated – did everything on the problem, but never went in.
And he came to the point, exactly the same, at least in appearance the same, that there is no self. The self cannot exist. But it was not a great revolution in his life; it was just a beautiful conclusion in his treatise. But he remained the same man! Before the conclusion and after the conclusion there was not a bit of difference in the man. He continued to behave in the same way.
If you had insulted him he would have become angry, but not Buddha. That is the difference.
He would have become angry, although he says there is no self. He would have forgotten all his philosophy. That philosophy was not his insight. He would have said, “That is philosophy – that is aside. But when you insult me, I am insulted. And I am going to take revenge. You have to be answered!”
When Buddha was insulted, he smiled. He said, “You came a little late. You should have come ten years before, then I was there, very much. Had you insulted me ten years before, I would have reacted madly. You come a little late. I feel sorry for you, because now there is nobody to react. I hear what you are saying, but it simply passes through me. It comes in through one ear and it goes out through the other ear. There is nobody inside to catch hold of it. I am sorry. I feel compassion for you.”
This is the difference between the Eastern and the Western approaches. Western philosophy is rightly called philosophy – love of knowledge, love of wisdom. For Eastern philosophy, Hesse has coined a word which I like. He has coined a new word; he calls it philosia – it means love of seeing. Sia means to see. That is exactly the translation of the Eastern term for philosophy, darshan – to see. It is philosia – it is insight, it is seeing in.
Western philosophy is a search for knowledge, and Eastern philosophy or philosia is a search for knowing. Knowledge looks out; knowing looks in. Knowledge gathers information; knowing does not gather anything – it simply goes in to see who is there. ”Who am I?” Its inquiry is not objective, its inquiry is subjective.
Kavita, doubts will persist. They leave you only on the last rung, never before. Use them creatively. Each doubt has to be transformed into a goading. The doubt simply says you have to go a little further, a little ahead, a little higher. The doubt says, “I do not feel satisfied – whatsoever you have now is not satisfactory. You have to go a little deeper.”
Don’t be stopped by the doubt; that is not the function of the doubt. And don’t start arguing, and don’t start thinking, because by thinking you will become a David Hume, you will remain the same person.
My effort here is to create Buddhas. And unless you become a Buddha, doubts will continue. You can solve one doubt; it will assert itself from another corner. It is the same doubt in a new shape, a new form. You repress it here, it pops up there. You will go mad. No need. Take note of the doubt, thank the doubt, and say, “Okay, so I will go a little further so you can be solved.”
It is like this:
A man was sitting on a tree. His friend was sitting underneath the tree. The man on the tree was picking some fruits, and the man underneath the tree was waiting for the fruits and collecting whatsoever was falling. The man on the tree said, “I see a bullock cart coming.” He was high on the top of the tree; he could see far away.
And the man underneath the tree looked to the side where the man was pointing and he said, “I doubt – I don’t see. There is no bullock cart. What are you talking about? Can you deceive me? I have eyes, I am not blind. There is no bullock cart coming! ”
And the man on the top said, “Yes, it is coming!”
And they started arguing. Is the argument going to help? Can the man on the tree convince the man who is not on the tree that the bullock cart is coming? Howsoever clever he is in his arguments, how can he prove to the man who cannot see the bullock cart?
What did the man do? First he argued, tried in every way, saying, “It is coming. It is painted red.
One bullock is black one bullock is white, this and that,” and everything he described. “And the man has a beard,” and all. But it was in vain.
Then he recognized the truth: “How can he see? His vision is limited.” So he called him; he said, “You come up. You climb up the tree, and I will show you the bullock cart.”
Now, if the man underneath the tree says, “I will come up only if you convince me that the bullock cart is there,” then there is no way. But he climbed up the tree, and he saw the bullock cart, and the doubt was resolved. And there was no more argumentation. He apologized. He said; “I feel sorry. I unnecessarily argued with you. It was not a question of argument. You had a far better vision from here.”
This is what the Buddhas have been doing down the ages. They say, “We have a far better vision from here. From this vantage point you will be able to see what is. Come closer to us. Don’t go on arguing.”
Not that Buddhas cannot argue – they can certainly argue and they can argue better than you. But it is pointless! They can silence you through their arguments, but they cannot convince you. They can destroy all your arguments, but even that will not help – you will not be able to see the bullock cart. And the whole point is how to see it, because only seeing is believing.
Kavita, go on climbing the tree. I am calling you. I can see. You cannot see yet. Doubts will persist. Let those doubts help you to climb up faster, sooner. Let it become an urgency, those doubts, make it an urgency. Doubts in themselves are not wrong – it all depends on how you use them. They can become blessings .
From The Perfect Master, V.1, Discourse #8
Copyright© OSHO International Foundation