The first question:
BELOVED OSHO
WHAT IS SO
ATTRACTIVE ABOUT MISSING?
Devaraj, it has a
tremendous attraction, because it is only through missing that the ego can survive. It is
only through searching, seeking, desiring, that the ego exists; it exists in the tension
between that which is and that which should be.
The moment the
"should" disappears, the ego collapses. Hence all ethical systems, all
moralities, are nourishments for the ego. The moral man is the most egoistic man in the
world. And the mechanism is very simple. Seeking, searching, you live in the future, which
is not; and the ego can exist only with that which is not, because it itself is not.
If you are in the
moment, in the present, the ego has no possibility of surviving even for a single moment.
The present is and the ego is not, like light is and darkness is not. Bring light in, and
darkness disappears. Even to say that it disappears is not right, because it was not there
in the first place, so how can it disappear? It was a pure absence. The absence of light,
that's what darkness is.
The absence of the
present, that's what the ego is. Not to be herenow, that's what the ego is -- not to be
herenow, to be somewhere else, seeking and searching for a faraway goal, looking at a
faraway distant star. The farther away the goal, the bigger the ego.
Hence people who
are not worldly have bigger egos than the so-called poor worldly people. Spiritual people
have bigger egos, naturally; their goal is very far away, distant, beyond death, above the
seven skies. God is their goal, or moksha or nirvana -- goals which look almost
impossible.
The possible goal
can give you only a small ego, and that too only for the time being. Once the goal is
achieved you will start feeling frustrated. That's what happens every day. You wanted a
beautiful house, now you have got it, and suddenly frustration sets in. The ego needs a
new goal to survive; now it starts fantasizing about a bigger palace.
You were seeking
and searching for a woman; now you have got her, and the moment you have got her you are
finished with her. It may take a few days for you to recognize the fact, that is another
matter, but you are finished with her. Now your ego needs another woman so that the
journey can continue.
The ego is
constantly journeying from the present to some nonexistential future. If you ask me, this
is my definition of samsara, the world. The ego journeying from the present to the future
is the world. And the ego not journeying at all, simply being herenow, is the end of
samsara: you are in nirvana, samadhi, enlightenment. Hence enlightenment cannot be reduced
to a goal. If you reduce it to a goal, you have missed the whole point.
All the buddhas of
all the ages have been telling you a very simple fact: Be -- don't try to become. Within
these two words, be and becoming, your whole life is contained. Being is enlightenment,
becoming is ignorance. But you have been taught to become this, to become that. And the
mind is so cunning, and the ways of the ego are so subtle that it even turns God, nirvana,
enlightenment, truth, into goals; it starts asking how to achieve them. They are not to be
achieved, they cannot be achieved; the achieving mind is the only barrier. They are
already here. You have to drop the achieving mind, you have to forget journeying from this
point to that, you simply have to relax and be, and all is attained.
Lao Tzu calls it
wu-wei, action without action. You have not moved a single inch, and you have arrived;
this is wu-wei. You have not gone anywhere, you have not even thought of going anywhere,
and you are already there. Suddenly the recognition comes, "I never lost the home, I
only fell asleep and started dreaming about achieving."
Those who give you
goals are your enemies. Those who tell you what to become and how to become it, are the
poisoners. The real master simply says, "There is nothing to become. You are already
that, it is already the case. Stop running after shadows. Sit silently and BE. Sitting
silently, doing nothing, the spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
The second question:
OSHO
BECAUSE I AM ONLY A
BEGINNER IN THE SEARCH FOR REALITY, COULD YOU DEFINE FOR ME THE FOUR TERMS: TRUTH, GOD,
SPIRITUAL, FACT.
Ken Jones, if you
are only a beginner in the search, please come back, don't go ahead. Don't become more of
an expert in the spiritual search, because the experts are the losers. Don't become more
knowledgeable, become more innocent. Drop all that you know, forget all that you know.
Remain wondering, but don't transform your wondering into questions, because once the
wonder is changed into a question, sooner or later the question will bring knowledge. And
knowledge is a false coin.
From the state of
wonder, there are two paths. One is of questioning -- the wrong path -- it leads you into
more and more knowledge. The other is not of questioning but enjoying. Enjoy the wonder,
the wonder that life is, the wonder that existence is, the wonder of the sun and the
sunlight and the trees bathed in its golden rays. Experience it. Don't put in a question
mark, let it be as it is.
Remain ignorant if
you ever want to become enlightened. Remain innocent, childlike, if you ever want a
communion with existence and reality. Remain in wonder if you want the mysteries to open
up for you. Mysteries never open up for those who go on questioning. Questioners sooner or
later end up in a library. Questioners sooner or later end up with scriptures, because
scriptures are full of answers.
And answers are
dangerous, they kill your wonder. They are dangerous because they give you the feeling
that you know, although you know not. They give you this misconception about yourself that
now questions have been solved. "I know what The Bible says, I know what the Koran
says, I know what the Gita says. I have arrived." You will become a parrot; you will
repeat things but you will not know anything. This is not the way to know -- knowledge is
not the way to know.
Then what is the
way to know? Wonder. Let your heart dance with wonder. Be full of wonder: throb with it,
breathe it in, breathe it out. Why be in such a hurry for the answer? Can't you allow a
mystery to remain a mystery? I know there is a great temptation not to allow it to remain
a mystery, to reduce it to knowledge. Why is this temptation there? -- because only if you
are full of knowledge will you be in control.
Mystery will
control you, knowledge will make you the controller. Mystery will possess you. You cannot
possess the mysterious; it is so vast and your hands are so small. It is so infinite, you
cannot possess it, you will have to be possessed by it -- and that is the fear. Knowledge
you can possess, it is so trivial; knowledge you can control.
This temptation of
the mind to reduce every wonder, every mystery, to a question, is basically fear-oriented.
We are afraid, afraid of the tremendousness of life, of this incredible existence. We are
afraid. Out of fear we create some small knowledge around ourselves as a protection, as an
armor, as a defense.
It is only cowards
who reduce the tremendously valuable capacity of wondering to questions. The really brave,
the courageous person, leaves it as it is. Rather than changing it into a question, he
jumps into the mystery. Rather than trying to control it, he allows the mystery to possess
him.
And the joy of
being possessed, and the benediction of being possessed, is invaluable. You cannot imagine
what it is, you have never dreamt about it -- because to be possessed by the mystery is to
be possessed by God.
Ken Jones, you say:
"Because I am only a beginner...."
You are fortunate
that you are only a beginner. There are many who have become experts; they will have to
come back home, and it is going to be a long long arduous journey. They have accumulated
so much knowledge that dropping it is going to be a difficult task. If you are really a
beginner, be happy. You have not gone far away, you are just beginning. Come back.
There is no need to
define these beautiful words, because they are not only words. You want me to define
truth. Do you know, has anybody ever defined truth? Is it definable at all? What is a
definition? A definition means a tautology -- you put the same words in a different way.
What are your definitions, in fact? Synonyms.
Just look at your
definitions and you will find you have been paraphrasing. But how can paraphrasing define
anything? The second thing that you think is the definition, in its own turn needs another
definition. Definitions are either tautologies or just stupid.
For example, ask
what the mind is and the knowers, the knowledgeable, say, "It is not matter."
And then ask them, "What is matter?" And they say, "It is not mind."
What kind of defining is going on? Mind is not matter; this becomes a definition. Matter
is not mind; this becomes a definition. Both remain indefinable; you have not defined
anything, you have simply shifted the problem from one place to another.
You can befool only
fools.
And the truth means
the whole, all that is, the total. All that is -- how can you define it? It is unbounded,
infinite. Definition means drawing a line around it, locating it, saying, "This is
it." But there is no way to define truth, because there is no way to draw a line
around it. It is infinite, it is eternal, it has no beginning, no end.
People who have
tried to define truth say, "Truth is that which is." But that is tautology. The
question remains the same, the mystery remains unsolved. "Truth is that which
is" -- what have you added? Have you made it a little simpler than before? You can
call it "that which is" or you can call it truth, or you can call it God, but
you are simply using names, words, labels, for something which is basically indefinable.
Truth cannot be
defined, although it can certainly be experienced. But experience is not a definition. A
definition is made by the mind, experience comes through participating. If somebody asks,
"What is a dance?" how can you define it? But you can dance and you can know the
inner feel of it.
God is the ultimate
dance. You will have to learn ecstatic dancing to experience God. God is the dance where
the dancer disappears. Then the experience arrives, showers on you, and you KNOW. But that
knowing is not knowledge, that knowing is wisdom.
Truth cannot be
defined. Lao Tzu says if you define it you have already made it untrue. He lived a long
life; it must have been really long because the story is that for eighty-two years he
lived in his mother's womb, so when he was born he was already eighty-two years old. Then
if he lived for at least eighty-two more years, he must have lived very long. But he never
wrote a single word.
His whole life his
disciples were again and again asking, requesting, "Write something. You are getting
older and older and older, and one day you will have to leave the body. Leave your last
testament." But he would laugh and not say a thing, or he would keep silent as if he
had not heard.
Then when he became
very old, he started moving towards the Himalayas. He said to his disciples, "Now I
am going to the Himalayas, never to return again. My whole life I have been a wanderer,
and the Himalayas are the best place to die. I lived beautifully, I lived the most
ecstatic life possible. I would also like to die most ecstatically, most aesthetically. I
would like to die in the silence of the Himalayas, in those beautiful mountains."
When he was leaving
the border of China, the guard at the border prevented him. He said, "I won't allow
you to leave the country unless you write something." He must have been a very
perceptive man, the guard. The world is in his debt for one of the greatest things that
has ever been written -- the Tao Te Ching. There is no other book comparable to it.
Finding no way to
avoid it, because the guard wouldn't allow him to go and he wanted to leave the country as
fast, as quickly, as possible -- death was coming closer and he wanted to die in the
silence of the Himalayas -- compelled to write, he sat in the guard's room for three days
and completed the book, Tao Te Ching.
But the first thing
that he wrote was, "Tao cannot be said. Once said, it is no more Tao."
You can understand
what he means. He is saying that if you read the first statement, there is no need to go
any further. "Truth cannot be said. Once said, it is no more true" -- this is
his declaration. Now, if you understand, the book is finished. What can be said about the
truth? Yes, it can be lived, experienced. You can love, live, be -- but definition is not
possible. If you want definitions you will have to go to a university. Professors define
what truth is, and each professor of philosophy defines it in his own way, and there are
millions of definitions, and all are false. No definition can ever be true.
What to say about
truth -- even the small experiences of life cannot be defined. What is love? Or what is
the taste of sugar on your tongue? How to define it? What is beauty when you see it in a
lotus flower?
One of the greatest
modern philosophers, G.E. Moore, has written a book, Principia Ethica, in which he tries
to define what good is. Of course, that is the first question in the world of ethics: what
is good? And for two hundred or two hundred and fifty pages, he tries hard this way and
that, and cannot define it. And he was one of the most perceptive people this century has
produced.
Defeated, tired,
exhausted, in the end he says good is indefinable. It is as indefinable as the color
yellow. If somebody asks, "What is yellow?" -- there is a marigold flower, and
somebody asks, "You call it yellow? What is yellow?" -- how are you going to
define it? What more can you say? Yellow is yellow, good is good, beauty is beauty. But
these are tautologies; you are not defining anything, you are simply repeating words.
What is truth?
There is no way to define it.
I am not teaching
philosophy to you, I am sharing my truth with you. Don't ask for definitions. If you have
the courage, then take a plunge into the experience that is made available here: take a
jump into meditation, and you will know. And still, even when you know, you will not be
able to define it.
And you ask,
"What is God?"
That is another
name for truth -- the lover's name. "Truth" is the name given by the meditator
to totality. "God" is the name given to totality, to truth, by a lover, by a
devotee. Both arrows point to the same phenomenon, but the lover can't think in terms of
abstract words. "Truth" is very abstract: you cannot hug truth, can you? You
cannot kiss truth -- or can you? You cannot say hello to truth, you cannot hold hands with
truth. "Truth" is impersonal; it is the word given by the meditator who does not
want to bring any personality into it.
"God" is
the name given out of love, out of a personal relationship with existence. The lover wants
to say "Thou," the lover wants to say "Hi," the lover wants to have a
communion, a dialogue. It is the same totality, but the lover makes it personal. Then
truth becomes God.
And you ask,
"What is spiritual?"
To be in
relationship with truth or God is to be spiritual. Remember, to be in relationship -- not
to talk about spirituality, not to follow a certain creed, dogma, church, but to be in
direct immediate relationship with existence is spirituality. To be in tune with the
whole, to feel the harmony and the joy and the sheer celebration of being here, that is
spirituality. It has nothing to do with going to the church or the temple, it has nothing
to do with reciting the Koran or The Bible or the Gita. It has nothing to do with any kind
of worship ritual, it has something to do with communion -- communion with the trees,
communion with the stars, communion with the rivers, communion with all that is. It is
communion with this multidimensional expression of God, it is having a dialogue with the
whole. The quality of mad love is needed, then you are spiritual. Spirituality is not a
head trip; it is a heart-to-heart dialogue, and ultimately a being-to-being dialogue.
And fourth, you
ask, "What is a fact?"
A fact is the truth
seen with unawareness, seen with blindness, seen with closed eyes, seen unintelligently,
unmeditatively. Then the truth becomes a fact.
For example, you
come across a buddha. If you look at him unconsciously he is just a fact, a historical
fact; he is born on a certain day and is going to die on a certain day. He is the body
that you can see with your eyes; he is a certain person, a personality. History can take
note of him, you can have a picture of him.
But if you look,
not with unconsciousness but with great consciousness, with awareness, with great light,
silence, then the fact is no longer there -- there is truth. Then Buddha is not somebody
who is born on a certain date, he is somebody who is never born and is never going to die.
Then Buddha is not the body, the body is just an abode. Then Buddha is not the confined
being that appears to you, he represents the total, the whole. Then Buddha is a ray of the
infinite, a gift of the beyond to the earth. Then suddenly the fact has disappeared; now
there is truth.
But history can
take no note of truth; history consists of facts. In India we have two different systems.
One we call history; history takes note of the facts. Another we call purana, mythology;
it takes note of the truth. We have not written histories about Buddha, Mahavira or
Krishna, no. That would have been dragging something immensely beautiful into the muddy
unconsciousness of humanity. We have not written histories about these people, we have
written myths. What is a myth? A myth is a parable, a parable that only points to the moon
but says nothing about it -- a finger pointing to the moon, an indication, an arrow,
saying nothing.
Go to a Jaina
temple and you will be surprised. You will find twenty-four statues of twenty-four great
enlightened masters, the twenty-four TIRTHANKARAS. And the most striking thing will be
this, that they all look absolutely alike. This is impossible -- there are not even two
persons absolutely alike in the world, not even twins are absolutely alike. So how was it
possible -- and the time span is big, thousands of years -- for twenty-four tirthankaras
to be exactly alike?
This is not
history. These statues don't depict the real persons, no, not at all. They are not
pictorial representations. Then what are they? They represent something of the inner, they
represent something of meditativeness, they represent something of inner stillness,
something of the being. Those twenty-four statues are just representations, visible
representations, of something which is invisible.
Sitting before
these statues, if you silently go on watching, you will be surprised. Something starts
happening inside you. The statue is a form of objective art; it synchronizes with the
inner form of your being. The posture of the statue synchronizes with your posture. If you
sit in the same posture -- with erect spine, half-opened eyes, just looking at the tip of
your nose, doing nothing, as if you are also a marble statue, all white, within and
without -- then you will know that you are not facing ordinary statues, you are
confronting great symbols. This is mythology.
Mythology is bound
to be poetic, because only poetry can give a few glimpses of the unknown.
It is said that
wherever Buddha moved, trees would start blooming out of season. Now, this is poetry, pure
poetry; it did not happen as a fact. But this shows something; there is no other way to
say it. It says whenever Buddha is contacted, even trees start blooming out of season --
so what to say about man?
It is said that
wherever Mohammed would move in the desert's hot sun, and there was fire everywhere, a
small cloud, a white cloud, would go on moving above him just to give him shade like an
umbrella. This is poetry, beautiful, but it is not a historical fact. A man like Mohammed
is protected by existence, a man like Mohammed is in every way cared for by existence. One
who has surrendered to existence is bound to be cared for by existence. One who has
trusted totally, how can existence be uncaring about him? To say this, there is this
metaphor of the cloud just hanging over his head wherever he would go.
Jesus dies on the
cross, and then after three days is resurrected. This is poetry, not history. This is not
fact, this is truth. It simply says that those who die in God and for God attain to
eternal life. Those who are ready to die for God are resurrected on another plane of
being; they lose the physical body but they gain the luminous body. They are no more part
of the earth but they become part of the sky; they disappear from time but they appear in
eternity.
But all the
religions have been trying to prove that these are facts. And in trying to prove that
these are facts they have simply proved that they are fools. These are not facts, these
are symbolic truths.
Whatsoever you see
around you is a fact. You see a tree, a green tree, full of sap and flowers -- it is a
fact. But if you meditate and one day suddenly your eyes open, open to the real, and the
tree is no more just a tree -- the green of it is nothing but God green in it, and the sap
running through it is no more a physical phenomenon but something spiritual -- if one day
you can see the being of the tree, the God of the tree, that the tree is only a
manifestation of the divine, you have seen the truth.
Truth needs
meditative eyes. If you don't have meditative eyes, then the whole of life is just dull
dead facts, unrelated to each other, accidental, meaningless, a jumble, just a chance
phenomenon. If you see the truth, everything falls into line, everything falls together in
a harmony, everything starts having significance.
Remember always,
significance is the shadow of truth. And those who live only in facts live an utterly
meaningless life.
The third question:
BELOVED OSHO
YOU HAVE SAID THAT
ENLIGHTENMENT IS ALWAYS TOTAL, NEVER PARTIAL. STILL YOU COMPARE YOUR STATE OF NO-MIND WITH
AN ORCHESTRA WHILE THAT OF KRISHNAMURTI IS COMPARED WITH THAT OF A SINGLE FLUTE PLAYER.
HAS NOT THE ENLIGHTENED ONE ACCESS TO ALL KNOWLEDGE? WHY THAT TUNNEL VISION OF
KRISHNAMURTI?
Henk Faassen, enlightenment is always total. If it is an orchestra it is a total
orchestra, if it is only a solo flute then it is an absolutely total solo flute. Existence
is always total, so is enlightenment always total. The small flower is as total as the
sun. Totality is a totally different phenomenon than quantity; it is concerned with
quality.
Krishnamurti's solo
flute is as total as my orchestra, my orchestra is not more total. Totality cannot be more
or less. You think in terms of quantity, that's why the question has arisen. I am talking
about quality. Each act of the enlightened person is total. Whether he is drinking tea or
painting a great painting, playing music or just sitting silently doing nothing, each act
is total. Krishnamurti is a solo flute player -- and a few solo flute players are needed
as much as orchestras are needed. They enhance the beauty of existence, they make life
richer.
Drop your mind that
goes on comparing in terms of quantity. Raise your level of consciousness a little higher
and start thinking of quality, and then there is no problem.
Krishnamurti is
doing what he can do best. I would not like him to become an orchestra, no. That would
impoverish the world. He should go on doing what he is doing; that gives color to life,
variety.
I cannot become a
solo flute player -- not that it is not beautiful, but it is simply not my way. I enjoy
being an orchestra. I would like Atisha to play with me, and Bahauddin and Kabir and Nanak
and Lao Tzu and Zarathustra and many many more. I would like to play with them all and
become part of this orchestra.
This is my way.
There is nothing higher or lower. Once you are enlightened, there is nothing higher or
lower; there cannot be. If a lotus flower becomes enlightened it will be a lotus flower.
If a rose becomes enlightened it will be a rose. They both have the same quality of being
enlightened, but the rose will remain a rose and the lotus will remain a lotus.
You ask me,
"You have said that enlightenment is always total, never partial."
Yes, it is never
partial. And Krishnamurti is not a partial flute player. He is a total flute player; he is
totally in his act, utterly in his act. He says he is fortunate that he has not read the
Vedas, The Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, Tao Te Ching. Why? -- because they might have
disturbed him, might have left a few traces behind, might have become part of his being.
He wants to be simply himself, in utter purity.
My approach is
totally different. I would like to have as big a company of enlightened people with me as
possible. It is a difficult company, because they are all such different people; to become
a host to all of them is troublesome. But I enjoy it. The more troublesome it is, the more
I enjoy it. It is a beautiful challenge. You cannot understand how difficult it is to have
Buddha, Mahavira, Mohammed and Moses staying together with you. Mahavira stands naked, and
Buddha does not like it at all. And because Buddha is not naked, Mahavira is not happy
either. To have all these people stay with you is a great challenge.
Krishnamurti lives
alone. It has its own challenge, but that is not my choice. I am not saying that my choice
has to be his choice, I am not saying that he has to do what I am doing. I am perfectly
happy doing my thing, and I am perfectly happy that he is doing his thing.
Many people have
asked me questions saying that I have spoken on dead masters, so many, but why don't I
sometimes speak on a living master?
Let Krishnamurti
die, then I will speak on him. There is a reason for it. I know how difficult it is even
to keep so many dead masters together, but you can manage with dead masters -- if I tell
Mahavira to stand in this corner, he has to stand in this corner. But a living master
won't listen; he will start meddling, he will start arguing with others. And sometimes I
need a little sleep too.
You say, "Has
not the enlightened one access to all knowledge?"
Enlightenment has
nothing to do with knowledge at all. The enlightened one has no access to knowledge. Yes,
he has every access to innocence -- and Krishnamurti playing his flute is as innocent as I
am with my orchestra. It is not a question of knowledge, it is a question of wisdom.
Wisdom is a totally different phenomenon -- wisdom is innocence. You can even call it
ignorance, that will do, but please don't call it knowledge. It is closer to ignorance
than to knowledge.
Socrates is
reported to have said in his last days, "I know only one thing, that I know
nothing." This is enlightenment, knowing only one thing, "I know nothing."
The moment all knowledge disappears, the ego disappears, the personality disappears, then
the separation between you and existence disappears. Again you are clean, pure, one with
the whole.
And you also ask,
"Why that tunnel vision of Krishnamurti?"
That you have to
ask Krishnamurti, not me. That is not my business. He loves it, that's how he has grown.
For centuries, for many many lives, he has been moving towards a tunnel vision. And the
tunnel vision has its own beauties, because whatsoever you see, you see very clearly
because your eyes are focused.
Hence the clarity
of Krishnamurti. Nobody has ever been so clear, so crystal clear. Nobody has ever been so
logical, so rational; nobody has ever been so analytical. His profundity in going into
things and their details is simply unbelievable. But that is part of his tunnel vision.
You cannot have everything, remember. If you want clarity you will need tunnel vision; you
will have to become more and more focused on less and less.
That's how they
define science: "Knowing more and more about less and less." And if science ever
succeeds in its ultimate goal, then we will have to say, "Knowing everything about
nothing." That can be the only logical conclusion of knowing more and more about less
and less. Where will it lead? It will lead to a point where you know all about nothing.
Science is a tunnel
vision. Krishnamurti is a scientific individuality, very scientific. Hence his appeal for
all those who love analysis, dissection, who love going into minute details. He is just
the opposite of Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu says, "Everybody seems to be so clear; only I am
confused."
A man of the
quality of Lao Tzu, a man of ultimate enlightenment, saying this: "Everybody seems to
be so clear about everything, except me. I am so confused, I am so muddle-headed, that I
don't know what is what. Everybody walks with such certainty, and I hesitate at each step.
Everybody goes so straight, without looking sideways. And I walk like a man in winter
crossing a cold, icy cold stream."
Lao Tzu is just the
opposite of J. Krishnamurti. He has no tunnel vision. His vision is so wide, so spread
out, it cannot be very clear. It is bound to be hazy, misty, but that too has its own
beauty. Krishnamurti's statements have logic. Lao Tzu's statements have poetry.
My vision is even
wider than Lao Tzu's. I include Lao Tzu and many more. Obviously Lao Tzu could not have
included me. Twenty-five centuries have passed; in those twenty-five centuries great
enlightened people have happened on the earth. I claim the whole heritage, as nobody has
ever claimed before.
Lao Tzu had never
heard about Krishna, Lao Tzu had never heard about Patanjali. Patanjali had never heard
about Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu or Lieh Tzu. Buddha had no awareness of Zarathustra or Moses.
Now the world has
become a small village, a global village, and the whole history of humanity is ours. I am
in a totally different situation. I know everything about Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu,
Confucius, Mencius, Milarepa, Marpa, Tilopa, Naropa, Bodhidharma, Mahakashyap, Sariputra,
Mahavira, Adinatha, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Francis, Kabir, Nanak, Dadu, Meera, Rabiya --
all. The whole world is available to me.
I see the whole
sky, all the stars, all the constellations; my vision is bound to be the most poetic. But
the deeper you go into poetry, the less and less logical it becomes. The deeper you go
into poetry, it becomes more and more love-like and less and less like logic. At the very
rock bottom of poetry, all clarity disappears. Nothing is clear, but everything is
beautiful, everything is mysterious. Nothing is clear but everything is simply fantastic.
Krishnamurti has
his way, and I am happy that he is in the world. He is at the other extreme. If he is
gone, I will miss him more than anybody else in the world.
But I can
understand your question, Henk Faassen. This is not the only question; you have asked many
more about the same thing. It seems it has hurt you deeply that I criticized Krishnamurti.
You don't understand me yet. This is my way of paying respects to him. This is my way of
declaring that there exists another enlightened person in the world.
If my orchestra
does not suit you, then the only alternative possible is the solo flute-playing of J.
Krishnamurti. There is no other, no third person who can be of any help to you. Either
Krishnamurti or me -- there is no other alternative. Right now there is no other
alternative.
Krishnamurti is
bound to criticize me; I can understand it. His standpoint is simple and clear, my
standpoint is a little more unclear. Sometimes I will appreciate him tremendously, because
I would like him to also become part of my orchestra. And sometimes I will criticize him,
because my own liking is not for solo flutes.
The last question:
BELOVED OSHO
I FEEL YOU SHARE A
LOT OF ESOTERIC POINTS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO WAY OF VALIDATING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WHAT
IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING ABOUT THE SIXTH OR THE SIXTEENTH JAINA TIRTHANKARA, OR OTHER
ESOTERIC INFORMATION, TO THE PERSON IN OSHKOSH OR BROOKLYN GOING TO WORK ON THE CROWDED
BUS OR SUBWAY EVERY DAY? WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF HEARING THAT JESUS WAS ONCE IN INDIA OR
THAT A ROSICRUCIAN SECT OF SPIRITS WORKING FROM THE OTHER SIDE POSSESSED HITLER?
David Light, fools
are everywhere -- as much in Oshkosh and Brooklyn as they are in Bombay and Poona. No
country has any claim on fools. And fools are always searching for something esoteric --
only nonsense appeals to them. And sometimes I talk nonsense, because I am not here only
to help those who are not fools. I am also throwing my net wider and wider; some fools
have to be caught by me too. They are good people!
Now just look,
David Light, from where have you come? How were you caught? Those stupid theories about
the sixth or sixteenth tirthankaras, or the Rosicrucian secret masters, Koothumi, K.H.,
directing Adolf Hitler and the whole Nazi movement....
There is a deep
urge in man to know things which are worthless, to know things which make you feel special
-- because only you know those things and nobody else does. Man wants to be special, and
nothing makes you more special than so-called esoteric knowledge. That is why esoteric
knowledge remains important. All kinds of rubbish go on in the name of esoteric knowledge
-- that the earth is hollow, that inside the earth there are great civilizations. And
there are people who still believe in it, and in many more such stories.
Man lives such a
dull and drab life that he wants some sensation. Those who are a little wiser, they read
scientific fiction or detective stories. Those who are not so wise, they read spiritual
fiction.
And these things
were said by me when I was surrounded by a certain group of fools. They were not
interested in anything else. And I have to respond to you; as you grow, my responses will
be higher and higher. The day you have understood the whole stupidity of the human mind I
will not need to talk to you; just sitting silently will be more than enough.
These things were
told by me to a certain group of people who were only interested in those things. It would
have been absolutely pointless to talk about anything else with those people. Now that
they have almost disappeared, and now that a totally different quality has come here, I
can go more into the world of the truth. But still I have to use words, and words distort.
Only silence
communicates the truth as it is. Please get ready as soon as possible, so that we can just
be together, merging into each other's energies, being lost in each other. And miracles
are possible. What I cannot say in years can be communicated in a single moment of
silence, and what can never be said can transpire when between me and you there is no
barrier of thought -- when my silence and your silence are just present to each other,
mirroring each other just as two mirrors mirror each other.
My real work has
not yet started. I am just preparing the ground, preparing the people who will be able to
take part in the real work. This is just the preliminary stage. So don't waste time, get
ready for great things, great things are waiting for you. But the only readiness from your
side will be a tremendous silence -- and then there will be no need to talk at all.
It is really a
torture for me to talk to you. You cannot imagine how difficult it is for me to force
myself to talk to you continuously. It is just like walking on a tightrope. Words have
disappeared in me; I have to bring them back again and again. It is arduous, tiring. But
it cannot be stopped unless you say, "I give up."
The day you are
able to say, "Now I am ready to be silent. I don't hope for anything, I am ready to
renounce hoping. I am ready to renounce all ideas of spirituality, God, truth, nirvana,
enlightenment, I would just like to enjoy being with you, this moment, here, now" --
then miracles will start happening.
Yes, out of season
you are going to bloom.
And remember, you
are entitled to all those miracles, they are your birthright.
Enough for today. |