The first question:
BELOVED OSHO
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SANNYASIN AND ONE WHO IS NOT, YET LIVES WITH A DEEP COMMITMENT TO
TRUTH.
Lynne Stevens, do you know what truth is? Otherwise, how can there be a commitment?
Commitment is possible only if you know. The sannyasin is one who knows that he knows not,
the sannyasin is one whose commitment is not to truth but to the inquiry into truth. And
the inquiry is possible only with someone who knows, who has arrived. The sannyasin is one
who is committed to the person, or to the no-person, around whom he feels the vibe of
truth, the vibe of authenticity.
Lynne Stevens, your
commitment to truth is just an idea. Your truth is just a word, a mind trip. If you want
to make it a real pilgrimage you will have to be a disciple -- and to be a disciple is to
be a sannyasin.
To be a disciple
means to be ready to learn, ready to go into the unknown with someone who has been in it.
Alone, very rarely one has attained to truth. Not that it has not happened -- alone, also,
it has happened, but very rarely, just an exception; otherwise one has to learn in
communion with a master.
Then too, it does
not happen easily. It is an arduous journey. Dropping the clinging to the known is not
easy. That is our whole investment, that is our whole identity. Dropping the clinging to
the known is dropping the ego, is committing a kind of spiritual suicide; alone, you will
not be able to do it. Unless you see somebody who has committed that suicide and still is
-- in fact for the first time is.... You will have to look into those eyes which have seen
truth, and a glimpse of the truth will be caught through those eyes. You will have to hold
hands with someone who has known, receive the warmth and the love... and the unknown will
start flowing into you.
That's what it
means to be with a master, to be a disciple. If you are really committed to truth you are
bound to become a sannyasin. If your commitment to truth is an inquiry then you will have
to learn the ways of learning. And the first thing to learn is to surrender, to trust, to
love.
The sannyasin is
one who has fallen in love with a person, or a no-person, where he feels a gut feeling:
"Yes, it has happened here." To be with someone who has known is contagious --
and truth is not taught, it is caught.
Your truth is
nothing but an idea in your mind -- maybe a philosophical inquiry, but a philosophical
inquiry is not going to help. It has to become existential, you have to give proofs in
your life that you are really committed. Otherwise you can go on playing the game of
words, beautiful games of theories, systems of thought -- and there are thousands. You can
also make a private system of thought of your own, and you will think this is truth.
Truth is not of
your making, truth has nothing to do with your mind. Truth happens, and it happens only
when you have become a no-mind. But how are you going to become a no-mind? On your own you
will remain the mind. You may think about the no-mind, you may philosophize about the
no-mind, you may read the scriptures about no-mind, but you will remain a mind. On your
own, seeking and searching, your ego will feel very good -- but that is the barrier. It is
like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.
If somewhere you
find help is available, don't miss it -- because the opportunity is rare, the buddhafield
is rare. Only once in a while, somewhere, a buddha arises, a bodhichitta happens. Then
don't miss the opportunity. If your commitment is really towards truth, you cannot avoid
becoming a sannyasin. It is inevitable, because no-mind is learned only by sitting by the
side of a no-mind.
If you sit by my
side, slowly slowly your mind will start dispersing like the morning mist. Slowly slowly a
silence will start penetrating you -- not of your doing, but coming on its own. A
stillness will pervade you.
And the moment you
are utterly still, not even a thought moving inside you, that is the moment of
illumination. For the first time you have a glimpse of truth -- not the idea of truth, but
truth itself.
The second question:
BELOVED OSHO
MY FEELINGS TELL ME
THAT UNTIL I KNOW YOU, I CAN'T TRUST. AND YET YOU SAY UNTIL I TRUST YOU, I CANNOT KNOW
YOU. WHAT TO DO?
William, there are two kinds of knowing. One is from a distance: you remain aloof, you
remain an observer, a spectator. That's what scientific knowing is; you need not get
involved in it, in fact you should not get involved. You should be very objective, you
should not allow your subjectivity to interfere with your observation. You should simply
be there like a mechanical watcher. You should not be a human being, you should be just a
computer.
And this is
certain, that sooner or later science is going to be taken over by computers, robots,
because they will be more scientific. There will be no subjectivity in them, they will
simply see the fact. The fact will not be interfered with in any way, it will remain
utterly objective.
That is the way of
science -- knowing from a distance, keeping aloof, detached. That's how the scientist will
know a rose flower, that's how the scientist will know the sunset, that's how the
scientist will know the beauty of a woman or a man.
But the problem is,
something essential is bound to be missed, something very fundamental, something which is
the core of the whole thing. The scientist can know the roseflower -- he can know of what
it is constituted, he can know all the chemicals, etcetera, but he will never know the
beauty of it. He will remain blind to the beauty; his very approach, his methodology,
prohibits him.
If you are detached
you cannot know beauty. Beauty is known only when you fall en rapport, when the observer
becomes the observed, when there is no wall between, when every wall has been transformed
into a bridge. When there is a kind of melting, when you become the flower and the flower
becomes you, then there is a totally different kind of knowing -- the way a poet knows. He
will know beauty, he will not know the chemicals. He will not know the objective flower,
he will know something far deeper. He will know the spirituality of the flower, the spirit
of the flower.
And the mystic, his
knowing is the highest form of poetic knowing, the ultimate form of poetic knowing. The
poet is there only for moments. Sometimes he is a poet, he meets, he mingles, merges into
the flower; sometimes he becomes a detached observer. Hence poetry is a kind of mixture of
both the knowledges.
Scientific
knowledge is purely objective, mystic knowing is purely subjective, poetic knowing is
between the two, a mixture of both -- a little bit of science, a little bit of religion.
But basic knowing can be divided in two, the scientific and the mystic.
Now it depends on
you, in what way you want to know me.
You say: "My
feelings tell me that until I know you I can't trust you."
These are not
feelings -- there you are misunderstanding yourself. These are thoughts, these cannot be
feelings; that's a sheer misunderstanding. This is the way thoughts speak. Thoughts always
say, "Be careful, cautious, move logically" -- and of course this is very
logical: how can you trust me if you don't know me? It is a logical statement. It is not a
statement from your gut level; it cannot be, because gut feelings are very illogical. Gut
feelings will say to you the same as I am saying: trust and you will know.
So the first thing
to be said is: these are not your feelings, these are your thoughts. You watch again, you
go into these so-called feelings again, and you will find they are not coming from the
heart, they are coming from the head. The head says, "First know, then trust."
And this is a great
strategy, if you believe in the head and its dictation -- "First know, then you can
trust." Then you will never trust, because knowing cannot happen without trust,
mystic knowing cannot happen without trust. Scientific knowing is possible, but scientific
knowing is not applicable here.
You can know me
scientifically. My doctor comes to examine my body; he knows me in a way. You don't know
me in that way, you know me in a totally different way. My doctor is afraid to come to
listen to me, because he does not want to lose a patient. If he listens to me, then I will
be the doctor and he will be the patient! He comes and he is in a hurry to escape.
Once it happened
that he was holding my hand -- I had some trouble with my thumb -- and something happened
to him which was not scientific. Outside the room, he told Vivek, "He is God, he IS
God!" -- but since then I have not seen him, he has simply disappeared. Something
nonscientific, something which was not of the head.... He felt me for a moment but became
frightened.
Watch. If your head
is saying these things, these are not feelings. Feelings cannot say these things, because
this is not the language of feelings. Feelings say: "Fall in love, and then you will
know." Thoughts say: "Doubt, inquire, make certain. When everything is
absolutely proved and you are convinced, rationally convinced, then you can trust."
And the logic appears very, very clean, there seems to be no trick in it. There is! The
trick is that through scientific knowing you cannot know the mystery that is confronting
you, you cannot know the poetry that is showering on you, you cannot see the beauty and
the grace that is available to you.
You will see my
body, you will listen to my words, but you will miss my silences. And they are my real
messages. You will be able to see me as I appear on the surface, but you will not be able
to penetrate into me as I am at the center.
Knowing the
circumference is possible scientifically, but by knowing the circumference of a person
love does not arise. And the relationship between the disciple and the master is the
crescendo of love, the highest peak of love. Love cannot go higher than that; that is the
ultimate in love.
These are your
thoughts, not feelings. And if you listen to thoughts you cannot have any communion with
me. You will listen to my words, you will listen to my arguments, you will become more
knowledgeable, you will go perfectly satisfied that you have something with you. And all
that is nonsense. Those words that you have accumulated, the knowledge that you have
gathered, are of no use at all.
It is not a
question of gathering information here, it is a question of imbibing the spirit; the only
way is to trust. It is only through trust that knowing happens.
Science uses doubt
as its method, religion uses trust as its method. That is their fundamental difference.
Doubt is irrelevant in the world of love, just as trust is irrelevant in the world of
things. In the world of I-it, only doubt is significant: you cannot trust things, the
scientist cannot just sit there in trust waiting for something to happen. Nothing will
happen. He has to doubt, inquire, investigate, dissect. He has to use his mind, his logic,
then only some conclusions can be arrived at.
And those
conclusions will always remain approximate, they will always remain conditional, because
in the future more facts may be known and the whole thing would have to be changed again.
They cannot be categorical.
So trust is not the
point, it never arises in the world of science; doubt remains the base. If sometimes you
come to a conclusion, the conclusion does not become your trust, does not become your
faith. It remains an hypothesis.
An hypothesis means
that up to now whatsoever has been known supports this theory. It is only up to now; we
can't say anything about tomorrow. Tomorrow more facts may be known, and certainly when
more facts will be known the hypothesis will have to be adjusted, and the theory would
have to be changed.
Science goes on
changing every day; it is temporal, it lives in the world of time, because mind is time.
Mind cannot live without time; mind is momentary, temporal.
The world of
religion functions in a totally different dimension, on a different level. It begins in
trust, in love, then a totally different kind of knowing happens.
When you love a
woman, you know her. You know her not as the gynecologist knows her, you know her in a
totally different way. You don't know her physiology, you don't know her material
existence, but you know her spiritual presence. Love, only love, is capable of knowing the
spiritual presence. You fall in love not with the physical body, you fall in love with the
spiritual presence of a person. But that is available only in trust.
In science, trust
is utterly useless. In religion, doubt is utterly useless.
So, William, it is
up to you. If you have come here to study what is happening here scientifically, then you
are welcome. You can go according to your own thoughts -- don't call them feelings,
please. You can go on according to your head -- don't call it your heart, it is not. You
are welcome: be here, study, observe, come to certain conclusions -- but they will remain
hypotheses.
But if you have
come to be transformed, not to be informed only, then you will have to understand that
there is a different door. And that door is trust. Trust is an absurd phenomenon,
logically absurd. That's why logic always says love is blind, although love has its own
eyes, far more deep-going... still, to logic it is blind.
Logic ridicules
love, and love smiles knowingly at the whole foolishness of logic.
If you have come
here with a logical approach... study, observe, come to some conclusions, but they are not
going to transform you; that much you must be aware of. If you have come to be
transformed, then fall in love. Then forget the head, then let there be a contact
heart-to-heart, spirit-to-spirit. Then there is no need to be too much concerned with what
you see, your whole concern should be with what you feel. Then you should not be too much
concerned in collecting information, but being in celebration with me.
Then don't take
much note of what I say, take note of what I am. Listen to my silences, the pauses, the
gaps, the intervals -- I am more there. Then you will become aware of a totally different
world existing here, the buddhafield. It is an energy field; you have to be open and
vulnerable to it, only then it can permeate you, pervade you, overwhelm you.
The third question:
BELOVED OSHO
YOU SAID THE OTHER
DAY THAT NO ONE IS INTERESTED ANY MORE IN QUESTIONS LIKE "WHO CREATED THE
UNIVERSE?" BUT A RECENT EDITION OF TIME MAGAZINE DEVOTED CONSIDERABLE SPACE TO AN
ARTICLE ENTITLED "IN THE BEGINNING: GOD AND SCIENCE."
THE BASIC THEME OF
THE ARTICLE WAS THAT SCIENCE AND RELIGION HAVE BEEN BROUGHT CLOSE TOGETHER BY THE
"BIG BANG" THEORY OF CREATION IN WHICH THE UNIVERSE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME
INTO BEING THROUGH A VAST FIREBALL EXPLOSION, FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MILLION YEARS AGO.
TIME SAYS THAT THIS
SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE THE STORY WHICH THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN TELLING ALL ALONG, NAMELY
THAT THE UNIVERSE BEGAN IN A SINGLE FLASHING ACT OF CREATION.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED, THAT IT HAD A BEGINNING? AND WHY DO YOU
ASSERT THAT IT DID NOT? IS IT NOT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WHEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION
AGREE?
Subhuti, the first thing to remember is, for three hundred years religion has been losing
its territory continuously. First, religion tried to destroy science. It was unable to do
it -- because you cannot destroy truth, and science was truer, as far as the objective
world is concerned, than religion. In fact religion has no authority to say anything about
the objective world.
When you are ill
you go to the physician, you don't go to the poet. The poet has no authority; he may be a
great poet but that is irrelevant when you are ill. He may be a great poet, but when
something goes wrong in your bathroom you don't call him, you call a plumber. The plumber
may not be a poet at all, but the plumber is relevant there. You don't call Albert
Einstein -- he may be a great physicist, but what does he know about plumbing?
Religion was
proving to be utterly wrong. It was wrong about the objective world. Once science started
investigating the objective, organized religion was very much afraid. If there had been a
Jesus he would not have been afraid, he would simply have said, "About the objective,
listen to science." If a Buddha was there he would have said, "Listen to
science."
But there was no
buddha in the West where science was growing. And people like Galileo and Copernicus and
Kepler were tortured in every possible way because organized religion, the church, became
very much afraid: what they were saying was going against their scriptures.
The scientists were
saying that the sun does not go around the earth -- and The Bible says it does. The
scientists were saying the earth goes around the sun... now, if The Bible can be wrong in
one thing, then why not in others? That was the problem, that was the fear.
The person who said
that the earth goes around the sun was called to the court by the Vatican. Galileo had to
appear, in his old age -- he was more than seventy, ill, on his deathbed, but he was
forced to come to the court to declare there that whatsoever he had said is wrong.
He must have been a
man of great humor. He said, "Yes, if it offends you, I declare that whatsoever I
have said is wrong -- that the earth does not go around the sun, but the sun goes around
the earth."
Everybody looked
happy, and then Galileo said, "But sir, nothing will change by my statement. The
earth will still go round and round the sun -- my statement makes no difference! If you
are offended by my statement I can take it back, I can refute it. If you want me to write
another treatise, I can write that too. But nothing will change by that. Who cares about
my statement? Neither the sun nor the earth."
Organized religion
tried to kill science -- they could not, because truth cannot be killed. Slowly slowly
science has possessed the whole territory of the objective world. Then the natural
tendency of mind... science started claiming that which could not be claimed by it.
Science created the same fallacy as organized religion, which was saying, "About the
objective world also, we are right." They were not. They are right about the
subjective world; about the interiormost being of existence they are right. But they are
not right about the circumference of it, that is not their dimension. But they were
claiming that they are right about both.
The same started
happening with physicists, chemists and other scientists. In the beginning of this
century, science became very arrogant -- the same type of arrogance, just the authority
shifted from the priests to the scientists. The scientists started saying, "There is
no God and there is no soul and there is no consciousness, and all that is rubbish."
This type of
arrogance has always remained with man. We have not yet learned anything. This is again
the same game being played. When science became very arrogant, naturally religion became
defensive. It was losing, it became defensive. So anything that is discovered by science
religion tries to appropriate. It tries somehow to make it fit with itself, because the
only possibility for it to survive now is if it proves itself to be scientific.
In the beginning it
was just the opposite. If a scientist was to survive, the only way was to prove that
whatsoever he has found is according to the scriptures, that it proves the scriptures,
that it is not against.
Now the whole thing
is just vice versa. Now if religion wants to exist in the world, it has continuously to
look up to science. Whatsoever science discovers, religion immediately jumps upon and
tries to prove, "This is what we have been saying all along."
This "Big
Bang" theory has nothing to do with the religious attitude and the religious theory
of creation. In the big bang theory there is no God, it is all an accident; it is not
creation, remember, because there is no creator in it.
But religion is
very defensive, continuously searching for anything to cling to. The big bang theory says
that in a sudden explosion, in a great flash of light, the world was created. Jump on it;
you can always find some way, some logical way. You can say, "Yes, this is right,
this is what we have been saying all along. God in the beginning said, 'Let there be
light' -- and now the theory says there was a great explosion, the world was suddenly
created."
But the basic thing
is missing -- don't be deceived. Religion has been saying that God said, "Let there
be light." The base is not the light, the base is God saying, "Let there be
light." That God is missing in the big bang theory: there is no God, it was a sudden
accident, not creation.
And one more thing:
this big bang theory is not totally accepted, there are many other theories. These are all
guesses; they are not proved yet, nothing is proved. In fact I don't think that it can
ever be proved how the world came into existence. It is impossible, because nobody was
there to witness it, you cannot find an eyewitness, so all that they can do will be just
guesswork.
And it happened
fifteen or twenty billion years ago. You cannot even be certain whether Krishna ever
existed or not, just five thousand years ago. You cannot be certain even about Jesus,
whether he was really an historical person or is just a myth -- and he was only two
thousand years ago. Do you think you can be certain about something that happened twenty
billion years ago? All guesses.
And still I say the
world was never created, there was no beginning.
Why do I say that
there was no beginning? Subhuti, it is so simple. Even if you believe in the big bang
theory, there must have been something that exploded. Do you think nothing exploded? If
there was something, x, y, z, -- any name, I am not much interested in such nonsense
things, x, y, z, whatsoever it was that exploded -- if something was there before the
explosion then the explosion is not the beginning. It may be A beginning but it is not the
beginning.
And when I say
there has never been any beginning, I mean the beginning. Something was always there --
whether it exploded or whether it grew slowly, in one day or in six days or in one single
moment, doesn't matter. There must have been something before it, because only something
can come out of something. Even if you say there was nothing, and it came out of nothing,
then your nothing is full of something, it is not really nothing.
Hence I say there
has never been any beginning and there will never be any end. Maybe a beginning, maybe
many beginnings and maybe many ends, but never the first and never the last. We are always
in the middle. Existence is not a creation but a creativity. It is not that it begins one
day and ends one day. It goes on and on; it is an ongoing process.
That's why,
Subhuti, I say that all these guesses are useless and there is no need for them and they
serve no purpose. This was Buddha's approach too. Whenever somebody would ask a question
like, "Who created the world?" -- whether the world was ever created or is
uncreated -- Buddha would answer by other questions. He would ask, "If who created
the world is decided, is it going to help your enlightenment? Is it going to help you
become more silent, more meditative, more aware?"
Certainly the
person would answer, "It is not going to help. Who created the world doesn't matter.
It will not help my enlightenment and it will not make me more meditative."
Then Buddha said,
"Then why bother about all this? Think of things which can help you to become more
meditative, think of things which can help you become free of all the ego-clinging, think
of things which can ultimately lead you into the state of samadhi."
My approach is also
the same: these are all irrelevant questions. And because of these irrelevant questions
there has been so much controversy down the ages and thousands of people have wasted their
lives discussing who created the world, when exactly, what was the date -- and so on, and
so forth.
I think these
people were neurotics. I don't think them healthy, normal, sane people. Who cares? For
what? It does not matter at all, it is immaterial.
The fourth
question:
BELOVED OSHO
WHAT IS THE SECRET
OF A JOKE?
The sudden unexpected turn, that is the secret of a joke -- the revelation. You are
expecting something and it doesn't happen; what happens is so totally absurd and yet has a
logic of its own... it is ridiculous and yet not illogical. That's what suddenly becomes a
laughter in you. You see the ridiculousness of it, and also the logic of it. It is
unexpected -- if it is expected, then it doesn't bring laughter to you. If you know the
joke then it doesn't bring laughter to you, because now you know, everything is expected.
Two insects were living in a cemetery. One said to the other: "Want to make love in
dead Ernest tonight?"
Now, poor dead Ernest...!
An Englishman on his first trip to America went to one of
those stand-up comic nightclubs for the first time. After he had had a couple of drinks,
the lights dimmed and Henny Youngman stepped into the spotlight and greeted the crowd with
his famous trademark gag: "Take my wife... please."
The crowd
belly-laughed. The Englishman was impressed. "By Jove," he said to himself,
"I must remember that and try it on the chaps back home."
Now, when somebody
says, "Take my wife," you are expecting he will say, "for example."
"Take my wife, for example." But he is saying "Take my wife," and then
the silence, the little pause..."please." That is unexpected.
Some weeks later,
back in London, he stepped to the microphone at a meeting of his club and, with great
confidence, snapped out: "Consider my wife. Please."
Now the whole thing is lost. Just a single word makes it a beauty.
The secret of the
joke is that it brings you to a point where you are expecting, expecting, expecting that
this is going to happen; then it never happens. And what happens is so sudden... and
because you were expecting something you were coming to a tension, and then suddenly
something else happens, and the tension has come to such a climax that it explodes. You
are all laughter. It is a tremendous release, it is great meditation. If you can laugh
totally, it will give you a moment of no-time, no-mind. Mind lives logically with
expectations, laughter is something that comes from the beyond. Mind is always guessing
what is going to happen, groping. And something happens which is absolutely contrary to
its expectations: it simply stops for a moment.
And that is the
moment when the mind stops, when laughter comes from your belly, a belly laugh. Your whole
body goes into a spasm, it is orgasmic.
A good laugh is
tremendously meditative.
An English gentleman went to his surgeon saying, "Old
chap, I have this damned desire to be an Irishman. Can you perform some operation to make
me one?"
"Well,"
replied the surgeon, "it is a fairly risky business, you know. We have to remove
ninety percent of your brain."
"Do it,"
replied the Englishman.
When he awoke from
the operation he found his bed surrounded by long-faced doctors. His surgeon stepped
forward, saying, "Terribly sorry, old chap, but during the operation the old scalpel
slipped and we accidentally removed one hundred percent of your brain!"
"Ah, na
fuckin' worries mate!"
The fifth question:
BELOVED OSHO
WHAT IS YOUR
MESSAGE IN SHORT?
Parinirvana -- better known in the commune as Paribanana -- Buddha's message in short is:
Be a light unto yourself. And mine? Be a joke unto yourself!
The sixth question:
OSHO
WHY AM I ALWAYS
THINKING OF MONEY?
What else is there to think about? Money is power. Everybody else is thinking of money,
don't be worried. Even those who are thinking of the other world... they have different
coins but they are also thinking of money. Money represents power, with money you can
purchase power.
Your saints are
also thinking of money -- they call it virtue. By virtue you can purchase a better house
in heaven, a better car, a better woman. A few people are not that greedy, they are
thinking only of the money that is current in this world. A few people are more greedy,
they think of the other world. And if you are thinking of virtue to attain to paradise,
what is it except money?
A man stops
thinking about money only when he starts living in the present. Money is the future; money
is security for the future, a guarantee for the future. If you have a good bank balance
your future is safe. If you have a good character, even life after death is safe.
The whole world is
thinking in terms of money. Those who think in terms of power politics are thinking in
terms of money, because money is nothing but a symbol for power. That's why you can go on
accumulating more and more money, but the desire never leaves you to have still more --
because the thirst for power is unlimited, it knows no end.
And people are
thirsty for power because deep down they are empty. Somehow they want to stuff that
emptiness with something -- it may be money, power, prestige, respectability, character,
virtue. Anything will do; they want to stuff their inner emptiness.
There are only two
types of people in the world: those who try to stuff their inner emptiness, and those very
rare precious beings who try to see the inner emptiness. Those who try to stuff it remain
empty, frustrated. They go on collecting garbage, their whole life is futile and
fruitless. Only the other kind, the very precious people who try to look into their inner
emptiness without any desire to stuff it, become meditators.
Meditation is
looking into your emptiness, welcoming it, enjoying it, being one with it, with no desire
to fill it -- there is no need, because it is already full. It looks empty because you
don't have the right way of seeing it. You see it through the mind; that is the wrong way.
If you put the mind aside and look into your emptiness, it has tremendous beauty, it is
divine, it is overflowing with joy. Nothing else is needed.
Only then a person
stops thinking about money, stops thinking about power, stops thinking about paradise --
because he is already in paradise, because he is already rich, because he is already
powerful.
But ordinarily,
Ramdas, it is not just to do with you; everybody thinks in some way or other about money.
Two mothers were talking. One said to the other, "I
haven't seen you in a long time. How is your son and what is he doing?"
She replied,
"My son is a famous actor in Hollywood and he's making a fortune. He just built a new
home that cost three hundred thousand dollars. What is your son doing?"
Said the other
mother, "My son is doing even better. He is gay and lives in Hollywood; he just moved
in with an actor who has a three-hundred-thousand-dollar home."
A young woman has
decided to put aside some money for a rainy day and informs her husband that each time
they make love she will expect him to put five dollars in the piggy bank.
That night, as he
begins to make advances, she reminds him of her requirement. He finds that he has only
four dollars in his wallet and so the wife agrees to only four-fifths of a love affair.
However, as her passion mounts, she offers to lend him a dollar until the next day.
Rachel is pregnant and Sammy, her husband, a very
temperamental man, suffers from the pains of celibacy.
Rachel, who manages
the household, takes pity on him and gives him a hundred liras to visit the red-light
district.
When Sarah, the
neighbor, sees Sammy running out of the house, she calls him, "Where are you running
to like that? You look so very happy!"
Sammy shows her the
money and tells her that he is going to spend it on a beautiful young girl.
"Give me the
money!" proposes pretty Sarah. "You won't regret it, you will see!"
Rachel soon comes to know about it. Very indignant, she explodes,
"The bitch! When she was pregnant last year, I did the same for Isaac, her husband,
for nothing!"
People are continuously thinking of money and money and money. It is nothing special to
you, Ramdas, you are a normally abnormal person, as neurotic as everybody else.
But please come out
of this neurosis. Live the moment, drop the future, and money loses its glamor. Live the
moment with such totality and abandon, as if there is no other moment to come to you
again, as if this is the last moment. Then all desire for money and power simply leaves
you.
If suddenly you
come to know that today you are going to die, what will happen? Will you still be
interested in money? Suddenly all desire for money will leave you. If this is the last
day, you can't waste it thinking about tomorrow, having more money in the world; there is
going to be no tomorrow.
Because we live in
the tomorrows, money has become very important. And because we don't live, we only imitate
others, money has become very important. Somebody makes a house, and now you are feeling
very inferior. You were not at all dissatisfied with your own house just a few days
before, but now this man has made a bigger house: now comparison arises, and it hurts, it
hurts your ego. You would like to have more money. Somebody has done something else, and
your ego is disturbed.
Drop comparing and
life is really beautiful. Drop comparing and you can enjoy life to the full. And the
person who enjoys his life has no desire to possess, because he knows the real things of
life which are worth enjoying cannot be purchased.
Love cannot be
purchased. Yes, sex can be purchased. So one who knows what love is will not be interested
in money. But one who does not know what love is, is bound to remain interested in money,
because money can purchase sex, and sex is all that he knows.
You cannot purchase
the starry night. One who knows how to enjoy the night full of stars won't bother much
about money. You cannot purchase a sunset. Yes, you can purchase a Picasso -- but one who
knows how to enjoy a sunset will not be interested at all in purchasing a painting. Life
is such a painting, such a moving, alive painting.
But people who
don't know how to see a sunset are ready to purchase a Picasso for millions of dollars.
They will not even know how to hang it, whether it is upside down or right side up, but
they want to show to others that they have a Picasso painting.
I have heard that once a rich man came to Picasso; he wanted
two paintings, immediately, and he was ready to pay as much as was demanded. Picasso
demanded a fabulous price -- thinking that he would not be able to pay it -- because only
one painting was ready. But the rich man was ready to pay. So Picasso went in, cut the
canvas in two, and the rich man thought they were two paintings.
I have heard another story:
In an exhibition, a Picasso exhibition, people are
appreciating his paintings. All the critics have gathered around a certain painting which
looks the most absurd, hence the most appealing -- because when something is absurd it is
a challenge to your intellect, and every critic is trying to prove that he understands
what it is.
And then came
Picasso, and he said, "Wait. Some fool has hung it upside down. Let me put it right
first." And they were expressing great appreciation for the painting!
If you know how to
enjoy a roseflower, a green tree in your courtyard, the mountains, the river, the stars,
the moon, if you know how to enjoy people, you will not be so much obsessed with money.
The obsession is arising because we have forgotten the language of celebration. Hence
money has become the only thing to brag about -- your life is so empty.
I will not tell you
to renounce money. That has been told to you down the ages; it has not changed you. I am
going to tell you something else: celebrate life, and the obsession with money disappears
automatically. And when it goes on its own accord, it leaves no scratches, it leaves no
wounds behind, it leaves no trace behind.
The seventh question:
OSHO, WHAT IS
WISDOM?
Stephen Crane writes: I met a seer, he held in his hands the
book of wisdom. "Sir," I addressed him, "let me
read.""Child..." he began.
"Sir," I
said, "think not that I am a child, for already I know much of that which you
hold."
"Ah,
much!" he smiled. Then he opened the book and held it before me. Strange, that I
should have gone so suddenly blind.
Wisdom is not knowledge. The knowledgeable person cannot see it, he is blind. Only the
innocent person can see it, only a child, one who knows nothing, one who functions from
the state of not knowing, can know what wisdom is. Wisdom has nothing to do with
knowledge, not at all; it has something to do with innocence. Something of the purity of
the heart is a must, something of the emptiness of being is needed for wisdom to grow.
"Only those
who are like small children will be able to enter into my kingdom of God." Yes, Jesus
is right.
Knowledge comes
from without, wisdom wells up within. Knowledge is borrowed, wisdom is original. Wisdom is
your insight into existence -- not Buddha's insight, not Atisha's insight, not my insight,
but your insight, absolutely your insight into existence.
When you are able
to see with no dust of knowledge on the mirror of your soul, when your soul is without any
dust of knowledge, when it is just a mirror, it reflects that which is. That is wisdom.
That reflecting of that which is, is wisdom.
Knowledge gratifies
the ego, wisdom happens only when the ego is gone, forgotten. Knowledge can be taught;
universities exist to teach you. Wisdom cannot be taught, it is like an infection: you
have to be with the wise, you have to move with the wise, and only then will something
start moving inside you.
The movement in the
disciple is not caused by the master, it is not under the law of cause and effect. It is
what Carl Gustav Jung calls "synchronicity." The master is so full of silence,
so overflowing with innocence, that his presence triggers a process in you, simply
triggers a process in you. Nothing is transferred; your inner being starts remembering
that "I also have the same treasure as my master, I had simply forgotten about it. I
had moved into the without, keeping the within at the back. The treasure was not lost but
only forgotten; I had fallen asleep."
And the asleep
person at the most can dream that he is awake. But that too is a dream. That dream is
knowledge. The person who is asleep and thinks that he knows... that is knowledge. But the
person who really awakes is wise. Knowledge is a false, plastic substitute for wisdom.
Wisdom is true
knowledge -- rather knowing than knowledge, because it has no full point to it. It goes on
growing, it goes on flowing. The man of wisdom goes on learning; there never comes a stop.
Don't be
knowledgeable, be wise.
And the last
question:
BELOVED OSHO
WHO ARE YOU AND
WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
Krishna Prem, I am not, and I am not doing anything at all. But something is happening,
something tremendous is happening -- that is another matter, it has nothing to do with my
doing it.
"I am
not." When I say this, I mean that there is no personality, no person, but just a
presence. And the presence without the person looks almost like an absence. It is. The
person is absent.
I am only a hollow
bamboo, and if you hear some music then it must be from God, it is not from me; it has
nothing to do with me. I am not there, I have utterly disappeared. That's what
enlightenment is all about. That's what Atisha calls bodhichitta.
But things are
happening, they always happen. Whenever a person disappears and becomes a presence,
immensely valuable things happen around him. A great synchronicity starts functioning.
Those who are courageous enough to come close to such a presence start changing, with no
effort, just sheer grace, start becoming totally different beings by just being in the
buddhafield, in the energy field of a master.
I am not doing
anything, Krishna Prem, and I am not. But still you see me coming, going, talking to you,
doing this and that. For that, I will tell you a story.
A Hollywood director once sent out word that he was looking for an actor to play the role
of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The actor was to be over six feet tall, young and vigorous and
have an excellent command of the language.
On the day of the
casting call, many fine tall young men showed up, but among them was a little old Jewish
man with a heavy Yiddish accent. The director picked him out immediately and asked,
"What do you want?"
The man answered
"I vant to be an hector. I vant to play Hemlet!"
"Are you
kidding or just crazy?" the director asked. "You are only five feet tall and you
have an accent so thick I could cut it with a knife. What can you possibly do?"
The little man
said, "I vant to hect. Giff me a chance."
Finally the
director gave in. "Get up on stage and try it."
The little man
stepped out onto the stage. Somehow he looked much taller and full of energy. He began to
speak with a booming voice and the perfect king's English: "To be or not to
be...."
When he was
finished, there was a hush. Everyone was amazed. The director said, "That's
unbelievable."
The other actors
said, "That's wonderful."
The little Jew just
shrugged his shoulders and said, "Dat's HECTING!"
Enough
for today. |