A silent equilibrium
SINCE I HAVE BEEN A SANNYASIN, I HAVE THOUGHT THAT I NEEDED TO USE MY MIND LESS IF I WAS TO BE IN TOUCH WITH MY HEART. YET I HEARD YOU SAY THE OTHER DAY THAT WE SHOULD TRAIN OUR MINDS TO KEEP OUR INTELLIGENCE ALIVE AND HELP IT BECOME SHARPER AND SHARPER. COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THIS?
Life is not so simple as you think; it is very complicated. It is true that if you want to be in touch with me, you will be more and more in the heart, not in the mind, because the mind has no qualities for inner growth. It has immense powers for outer research, for objective, scientific work. But for religious growth, it is absolutely impotent.
So if you listen to me through the mind, then what I am saying to you is lost in a desert. It will never reach to your heart. That's why I have always insisted: put the mind aside and be with me with your heart, with your love, with your trust.
But that is only one part of the story. When I said I would like you to make your mind as sharp as possible, that is a totally different dimension, because unless your mind is sharp enough you are going to be enslaved by the society. You are already enslaved by the society because your mind has not fought against it; it has been obedient to it.
Both these statements belong to different contexts, so don't get mixed up. When I say be with me with your heart, put the mind aside, it is one thing, one context, that of being a disciple. And if you can really do it totally you can reach to the highest peak, that is of being a devotee.
These are the three stages. The student listens only from the mind; he will collect knowledge, but he will not become a knower. The disciple tries to put the mind aside and listen from the heart. He is making an effort. The mind will come again and again in between; the effort will not be total, but still, if something reaches to the heart, even a few seeds, soon it will change the whole color of your being. The season will not be far away when the heart will start blossoming. That is the point when you reach to the boundary line of being a devotee.
Now you are capable of putting the mind completely, totally, away without any interference... as if you are not a mind at all. You are just heart and heart. Your every fiber is simply vibrating with love, openness, vulnerability. The devotee and the master start melting into each other.
The disciple once in a while gets a glimpse, but the devotee becomes totally one with the master.
The disciple can fall back, can get into the mind again. The devotee has broken the bridge that leads to the mind. He cannot go back; the past is finished. He has become part and parcel of the master's energy.
This is one context. And you are mixing it with another context. As far as the society, the outside world, the religions, the governments are concerned, you have to be very sharp and very intelligent; otherwise they will enslave you. They will exploit you. They have been doing it for centuries. They have not allowed millions of people to go beyond the age of thirteen as far as the mind is concerned.
The person may be seventy years old; he has the mind of a thirteen-year-old child. This is what I mean by retardedness.
Society does not want you to grow up; it simply wants you to grow old. It wants you to function as a machine, a robot - absolutely obedient, no argument, no question. It needs you only to be efficient.
To the society you are not an individual to be respected but only a mechanism to be used, and there is no other insult, no other humiliation more ugly than using people as machines, as things.
Against the society, use the mind. Mind is a perfect means to keep you independent, to keep you alert. It is a good fighter, but it is not a lover. So when there is need to fight, when there is need to stand up for your liberty, use the mind; heart will not be of any use. Heart knows no way to fight.
But the context is totally different, and I call that man conscious who can use his capacities in their right context and does not get mixed up. Eyes are for seeing - you cannot hear from them. And ears are for hearing - you cannot see from them. So use them whenever the need is there, and don't let them come in each other's way.
Mind is a beautiful instrument. It has to be sharpened, but remember its limitations. It should remain a servant to the heart. The moment it becomes the master, the heart simply dies. In slavery, the heart cannot exist.
So there is no contradiction in what I have said - just two different contexts. And your consciousness is different from both, so a conscious person can use his heart when needed, can use his mind when needed, can put both to silence when he wants to be absolutely in a state of nirvana, where neither the mind is needed nor the heart. When he wants simply to be himself, both are not needed.
If you are the master of your instruments, there is no problem. If you have a flute and I ask you, "Can you stop playing on it for a few moments - I want to talk to you," and you say, "I cannot do it; the flute won't stop," what will be thought about you? You are insane. The flute won't stop? So you are not playing the flute, the flute is playing you. When you want to stop the mind, just say, "Stop" - it has to stop. If it moves even a little bit, that means something has to be done urgently. This is dangerous:
the servant is trying to be the master. The servant should be the servant, and the master should be the master. And beyond both is your being which is neither servant nor master... which simply is.
That ?isness' is the goal of all meditations.
THIS PAST WEEK I READ THREE VOLUMES OF 'THE DISCIPLINE OF TRANSCENDENCE' - YOUR DISCOURSES ON BUDDHA'S SUTRAS. I BECAME AWARE OF A STRANGE SYNTHESIS IN MYSELF, THAT OF BEING A ROMANTIC SCIENTIST. TOMORROW IS THE BUDDHA FULL MOON. YOU - THE LORD OF THE FULL MOON - ARE VERY ROMANTIC TO ME. IS IT ALSO SCIENTIFIC?
Kaveesha, that's my whole life's work - to bring the mundane close to the sacred, to bring science closer to poetry, to bring the ordinary closer to the romantic. The split between the two is the split in every man, and then there is conflict: rather than being a harmony, science is fighting your religion, mathematics is fighting your poetry.
Albert Einstein's wife was a poet. They actually chose a full-moon night for their honeymoon - it was her idea. Einstein reluctantly agreed, but he could not understand what the full moon has to do with a honeymoon, except the word "moon."
Moreover, when she showed him that she has written a poem especially for their honeymoon in which she describes her lover as the moon, Einstein laughed and said, "Stop this nonsense. And it is better you stop it on this honeymoon night. Never do anything like that to me, because the moon is so big: you cannot compare me with the moon. And there is nothing beautiful in the moon.
"If you are standing on the moon, the earth will look lighted and the moon will look just like the earth - without any light. So it is an illusion: some rays reflecting back create the beauty of the moon; otherwise there is no light. The light of the moon is borrowed, it is simply reflected. It is being reflected from the earth too; you just have to be far away to see it."
The astronauts could not believe the beauty of the earth, looking from the moon. The moon was just ordinary. Not even grass grows there, no water, no beautiful mountains, no trees, no birds, no life - just simply barren earth which produces nothing. But looking from there to the earth, the earth looks so glorious, so beautiful, and naturally it is far bigger. The moon is a small part of this earth. It is many times bigger than the moon, so naturally there is more light. They could not believe that the earth could be so beautiful.
Albert Einstein said to his wife, "It is all poetic nonsense." She was shocked, but she understood: he is a mathematician, a physicist, and it is useless to talk with him about the ways of the heart. He understands only one language, the language of the mind. He understands only one way of looking at things - the way of logic, not of love. But she was heartbroken that she is going to live with this man her whole life and she will not be able to share her creation with the man she loves because he will simply laugh and make her feel stupid.
Naturally, if you bring in mathematics and physics and chemistry you will destroy the poetry. Poetry has nothing to do with all these things.
My effort is that a man should be capable of being a great mathematician, yet not lose the capacity of being a poet. And these are two separate centers in his being, so there is no need to create any conflict.
When you are working on some mathematical problem, work on it with the mind. But when you are with a lover, put the mind aside; otherwise you cannot be with a lover. The synthesis is not to make mind and heart one; the synthesis is to rise above both, so that you can use any in a particular situation without the hindrance of the other.
Your synthesis will be your consciousness - which is beyond both mind and heart. And when a man feels synthesized, when the split disappears, there is great rejoicing because for the first time he feels his wholeness and his holiness.
OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE HEARD VARIOUS SANNYASINS SAYING THAT THEY EXPERIENCED A SATORI. WHAT EXACTLY IS A SATORI, AND HOW DOES IT COME ABOUT?
Satori is a glimpse of the ultimate... as if you are seeing the Himalayan peaks. But you are far away, you are not on the peaks, and you have not become the peaks. It is a beautiful experience, very enchanting, exciting, challenging. Perhaps it may lead you towards samadhi. Satori is a glimpse of samadhi.
Samadhi is the fulfillment of satori. What was a glimpse has become now an eternal reality to you.
Satori is like opening a window - a little breeze comes in, a little light. You can see a little sky, but it is framed. Your window becomes a frame to the sky, which has no frame. And if you always live in the room and you have never been out of it, the natural conclusion will be that the sky is framed.
It is only in this decade that a few modern painters have started painting without frames. It was a shock to all art lovers, who could not conceive it: what is the meaning of a painting without a frame?
But these modern painters said, "In existence nothing is framed, so to make a beautiful, natural scenery with a frame is a lie. The frame is the lie - it is added by you. It is not there outside, so we have dropped the frames."
Satori is just a glimpse, from the window, of the beautiful sky full of stars. If it can invite you to come out to see the unframed vastness of the whole sky full of millions of stars, it is samadhi.
The word samadhi is very beautiful. Sam means equilibrium; adhi, the other part of samadhi, means all the tensions, all the turmoil, all disturbances have disappeared. There is only a silent equilibrium... as if time has stopped, all movement has frozen. Even to feel it for a single moment is enough: you cannot lose it again.
Satori can be lost because it was only a glimpse. Samadhi cannot be lost because it is a realization.
Satori is on the way to samadhi, but it can become either a help or a hindrance - a help if you understand this is just the beginning of something far greater, a hindrance if you think you have come to the end.
In meditation, first you will come to satori - just here and there glimpses of light, blissfulness, ecstasy.
They come and go. But remember, howsoever beautiful, because they come and go, you have not yet come home - where you come and never go again.
I READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT SANNYASINS IN GERMANY. THERE WERE SOME THINGS WHICH STRUCK ME. THE ARTICLE SAID THAT FOR MANY SANNYASINS, SANNYAS SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED INTO JUST A FASHIONABLE MOVEMENT. THE PRECAUTIONS YOU ADVISED AGAINST AIDS ARE NO LONGER USED BY MANY SANNYASINS, WHO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION, "WHY NOT?" WITH THE JUSTIFICATION THAT THESE MEASURES WERE ONE OF SHEELA'S POWER TRIPS.
SOME SANNYASINS HAVE TAKEN OFF THEIR MALAS AND THEIR RED CLOTHES, AND THEY ASK OTHER SANNYASINS WHO CONTINUE TO WEAR THEM IF IT STILL MEANS SOMETHING TO THEM. SOME SANNYASINS SEEM TO USE YOUR WORDS TO JUSTIFY THEIR EGOTISTIC BEHAVIOR.
TO ME, IT SEEMS THAT NOT ONLY YOUR THERAPISTS, BUT ALSO A LOT OF OTHER SANNYASINS ARE WALKING THE SO-CALLED PATH OF FREEDOM THAT YOU TALKED OF IN CONNECTION WITH SOME OF THE SANNYASIN THERAPISTS. OSHO, WHAT IS HAPPENING TO SANNYASINS?
There are many questions in the question. First, the precautions for AIDS had nothing to do with anybody's power trip. In fact, all the precautions that were taken in the commune are now being accepted by many governments of the world - exactly the same precautions. Even America, in many states, is accepting the same precautions... of course, without mentioning my name. There is not any courtesy anywhere. We were the first to introduce these precautions, and they will be used all over the world because AIDS goes on spreading.
Just the other day, Anando informed me that they have found a new virus. The old AIDS virus is still there, but a new virus has also come into being which seems to be more dangerous because you cannot detect it in the blood. The first can be detected; the second has improved itself - you cannot find it, so you will think it is not there. It will kill you and it will kill others with whom you are in contact.
But because I have dispersed the organized form of religion that had taken place because I was silent, now each individual is responsible for himself. There is no organized, centralized system which will be taking care of you. And that's actually what freedom means: it means responsibility.
But to the idiots it means licentiousness.
My effort was to give you more responsibility, more freedom. I allowed sannyasins... I left it up to them whether to use the mala or the red clothes. Those who had really understood have not changed anything; those who were reluctantly wearing the mala, forcing themselves to use the red clothes, they have dropped. It is not a loss. I am relieved of a great burden of idiots who have come into the sannyas movement without understanding why they are joining it. And they must be telling others also to drop the mala, to drop the red clothes "because Osho has said it."
I have not said to drop them; I have simply given you the choice. It is up to you now to keep them or to drop them. But why are they telling other people? They must be feeling guilty that they have dropped and others have not dropped; perhaps they are doing something wrong. If others also drop, that will help them feel a certain relief that they are not the only ones who have dropped. And the strangest thing is that I had told them, "You can drop the mala, you can drop the red clothes; still you will be a sannyasin."
But it is very difficult to forecast what the stupid minds will do, will understand. They are not simply dropping red clothes, they are saying they have dropped sannyas "because Osho has said so." What I had said is that I will be accepting sannyasins even without red clothes and a mala. But they are thinking that now they are no longer sannyasins, and they are trying to have others also do the same - and making it a point of freedom.
The others should reply to them, "It is our freedom to use red or not, and we decide to use it. You decide not to use it - that is your business. Who are you to suggest to us or to try to impress your idea upon us? That is against freedom - trying to convert anybody is against freedom."
All missionaries are against freedom.
But as far as I am concerned, I am happy that a lot of the load has been taken off my shoulders because I feel responsible for you, I want you to grow. I don't want your life to be wasted. If you cannot grow, even while I am here, then when are you going to grow up?
So whatsoever is happening is perfectly good. Only those will remain who are worthy to remain.
Those who leave were unnecessarily wasting their time and my time; they should have left long before. Now sannyas will be a totally different movement: it will be for more authentic seekers. It will not be just for anybody who wants to change the society because he is fed up with the society. He wants an alternative society so he joins a sannyas commune as an alternative society - but he has no desire and no longing for truth.
Just because in this society people are wearing red clothes - and he does not want to look awkward, odd, strange - he starts using red clothes, becomes a sannyasin. But his reality is that he is escaping only from the big world, where he was utterly bored and had no other place to go. The commune became a shelter for all kinds of people.
Now sannyas will be a school, a mystery school. Only those who want to grow and change will be joining it. And there are millions of people who want some more consciousness in their being, who feel that they are sleepy and unconscious. So don't be worried if a few other, old sannyasins disappear; new ones, fresh blood, will be coming in.
And now it will be a totally different phenomenon. I will slowly change the color all over the world, so that it becomes not just living together, but growing together.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHILE SANNYASINS MIGHT BE CLEANED OF SOCIETY'S CONDITIONING, THEY CAN ADOPT CERTAIN FACETS OF YOUR TEACHING AS ANOTHER KIND OF CONDITIONING - SUCH AS THE NEED TO BE TOTAL, TO DOUBT UNLESS WE KNOW SOMETHING FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, NOT TO BE JEALOUS, AND SO ON? COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR WAY OF WORKING WITH US IS NOT SIMPLY THE EXCHANGING OF ONE SET OF VALUES - AND THUS CONDITIONINGS - FOR ANOTHER?
In the first place, what I am teaching are not new values, not a new set of values in place of old values.
For example, there are people who believe in God - that is one set. There are people who do not believe in God - that is another set. I am saying to people that there is no question of believing.
Changing from one belief to another belief is changing the conditioning, but you remain conditioned.
I am saying you have to remain without any belief system, and you yourself enquire into reality - and whatever you find is your own truth.
There is no need to believe in it because once you know it, the question of belief does not arise. You believe only in things which you do not know. When you know them, you know: belief is irrelevant.
So I am not giving you another set of beliefs, another set of values: I am giving you a certain technique so that you can destroy all conditioning. That technique itself is not a conditioning. It cannot be, because you are not required to believe in it; you are required to experience it, and unless your experience supports it, there is no need to give it any credibility.
Not that you have to believe in living totally because I am saying so. I am saying that I am living totally, and this is the only way that I have found to live. You can also try. I am not saying to believe in living in totality; there is no need of any belief. Either live or don't live. But if you decide to taste, to explore, you are going with a clean mind, with no belief, just to see what it is, and if it happens to be a joy, a rejoicing, a celebration, then it is up to you to continue it or to discontinue it.
All conditionings are based on belief.
And my whole effort is that experience should be the only criterion, not belief.
All beliefs are lies.
Even my truth is not your truth:
Only your truth can be your truth.
So there is no question of conditioning. But whoever has asked the question is simply thinking intellectually, not trying it. And logically he can convince himself: this is a new set of values, again it is a conditioning. So what are you going to do? - whatever you will do will be a new set of values; if you don't do anything, that will be a new set of values, so you cannot get out of conditioning.
Your question is less a question than a statement. You are saying there is no way of getting out of conditioning, so why bother? Remain with the old because the new will also be a conditioning. The old is at least well known, a well-trodden path - our forefathers' inheritance, ancient truths. Millions have believed in it - why change it? You are simply trying to find a shelter in logical jargon.
Look again at your question and you will be able to see that meditation is not a conditioning. It is unconditioning, because it is not going to give you any thought, any thinking, any ideology. It is simply cleaning everything and making you utterly empty. How can it be a conditioning?
Awareness cannot be conditioning. It is your own. You have brought it with your birth. Nobody can give it to you; you have simply to throw away all the rubbish that is clinging to it.
My effort is to give you your own individuality. I don't want anything to be added to you. You are born perfect; the society is keeping you imperfect. I want you just to be aware of your perfection, of your beauty, of your joy, of all the blessings that are possible to you which the society is hindering by conditioning your mind.
I am not giving you any conditioning. If it was possible to make people more aware by conditioning, things would have been very simple. If it was possible to make people blissful, just by conditioning, things would have been so simple. You have been made to believe in utter lies - God, prophets, saviors, incarnations - but nobody could condition you for blissfulness, for spontaneity, for totality, because these are qualities which you already have; they just have to be discovered.
Things that are conditioned are qualities that you don't have, but the society can manage by constant repetition to fill your mind with thoughts, and slowly slowly you start believing in them, because people are afraid of emptiness and these thoughts give you a feeling of fullness.
But the miracle is that if you are courageous enough to be empty, you will be filled with all your natural qualities, which are tremendously beautiful and have the ultimate character of being eternal.
Once found, they are never lost.
THE OTHER DAY YOU TALKED ABOUT PRINCE KROPOTKIN'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THAT REAL GROWTH CAN ONLY HAPPEN FROM THE BASE UPWARDS AND CANNOT BE IMPOSED FROM ABOVE. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE INHERENT CAUSE OF FAILURE OF EVERY IDEOLOGY. IDEAS ARE FORMULATED INTO PLANS WHICH ARE THEN IMPOSED ON EXISTENCE.
IT IS A BIT LIKE GOING INTO A GARDEN, FINDING THE STEM OF A FLOWER LYING ON THE GROUND, STICKING SOME BEAUTIFUL PETALS TO THE TOP, PLACING IT UPRIGHT IN THE GROUND AND THEN LOOKING SURPRISED AND CRESTFALLEN WHEN IT SIMPLY FALLS TO THE GROUND IN SPITE OF THEIR CRIES OF "HOW WONDERFUL!" WOULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT.
It is true that all the ideologies that have failed had the same fault: they tried to change society from outside by changing the structure - the government, the religion, the economic structure of the society. They all took society as the unit to be changed, and nobody bothered that society does not exist. What exists is the individual.
Society is like a jungle. From far away you see a jungle; as you come close you start finding individual trees. You can go on for miles searching for the jungle but it is nowhere; it is always an individual tree you come across. The jungle is only an illusion: so many trees seen from far away look as if they are one.
Society does not exist. And all these ideologies were trying to change society. That which does not exist you cannot change - hence their failure. It is a very simple fact that if you want to change the society, change the individual. If all the individuals are changed, do you think a society will still be left to be changed? If all the individuals are changed you won't find any society that remains to be changed. With the change of all the individuals, the society is automatically changed. It was only a name.
Prince Kropotkin was a beautiful man, very innocent, and his idea is perfect, but his technique to bring his idea into reality is faulty. It is childish. It can never succeed.
The same happened with Karl Marx. He thought that first the poor will take over the power and will create a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then they will force the rich to distribute their wealth, and once the wealth is distributed and there are no classes left, the function of the dictatorship will be finished. Very logical. But this is one of the misfortunes, that logic is just man-made and existence has no obligation to follow it.
In the Soviet Union now it has been seventy years: the rich people have disappeared long ago. Now there is no class of the bourgeois, the rich; everybody is equally poor. It is time, past time, for the dictatorship to disappear. But Marx never thought that the people who would be in power would not like to lose their power. Why do people who have money not want to share it? - because money is power. It is the same, simple thing.
Now the people who are in power in the Soviet Union, why should they want their power to be lost and they become just ordinary citizens? They want to cling to the power, and now there seems to be no possibility of revolution in Russia.
Even if Karl Marx wants to enter Russia he will not be given a visa because he is a dangerous man.
He will start talking about dissolving the dictatorship of the proletariat - it is no longer needed.
Never in the whole history have rich people done any harm compared to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Just Stalin alone killed one million people to distribute wealth. No rich man has had that much power. So for the first time a very powerful government has come into existence in the name of a classless society, in the name of dispersing all power. And what they have been doing with people is really unimaginable.
One man got a Nobel prize for chemistry and the Soviet Union did not want him to receive it, but he said, "This has nothing to do with government; it is to my personal credit: I have contributed to chemistry and this is world recognition." Because he accepted the Nobel prize, he was immediately caught and put in jail.
For three weeks they did not allow him to sleep. They went on giving him injections so he could not sleep. And slowly, after ten days, he started losing interest in his family. After fifteen days he started losing interest in chemistry, and after the third week was over he lost interest in everything, even in himself. The torture was so much that death would have been far easier. After three weeks of torturing him this way, keeping him alive, they produced him before a court.
You just see the strategy: to fulfill the formal law they produced him before the court. The magistrate asked him questions and he would not answer. He had forgotten even language. He would look here and there - and he was a genius! They had destroyed his whole brain.
The magistrate said, "The man is mad! He should be sent to an insane asylum."
And since that time nobody has heard of him. He must be in some insane asylum. And this has happened to three Nobel prize winners. And to millions of other people it has been happening. The world never comes to know because the radio is government-owned, the television is government- owned. Every news media is government-owned, so only that which the government wants to go out, goes out; otherwise nobody knows.
People simply are awakened in the middle of the night: "You have been called to the Communist Party office" - and they disappear. Their children and their wife wait for them for years. Nothing is heard about what happened to them, and they cannot even enquire because, "That is none of your business." The government knows exactly what to do. And it is not only in the Soviet Union; the same is happening all over.
My trip around the world has been a great experience. Here in this small country, which pretends to be democratic, they had decided three days ago in the morning that I am going to stay here, and that they would help my people to come, that they would give every facility. Immediately the American ambassador must have contacted Ronald Reagan. A threat came to them that if I am allowed to stay here then they will be asked to pay their loans of the past immediately - and that is billions of dollars. No poor country can pay that. They cannot even pay the interest. "And if you cannot pay, then the interest rate will be raised" - one thing. And second, "For the future, we had allotted billions of dollars to be given in loans to you. That will be stopped."
Immediately, just within one hour, everything changed. The president said, "We cannot allow him to stay here."
Ronald Reagan must have been informed: "The government has changed its mind and is willing to send him away." Just yesterday they have been rewarded. They have been given one hundred fifty million dollars as an immediate loan, and they have been given another reward: two hundred million dollars from their past loans have been dropped; they will not be asked for.
So three hundred fifty million dollars is an immediate prize. In fact, I was thinking to send Anando saying, "What is my commission? You are getting three hundred fifty million dollars. To be fair, my commission should be there." And if every country does that, I am perfectly happy: I can go from one country to another country just to collect my commission.
But this is a "democracy." There is no difference - just their methods are different. No significant progress has been made as far as civilization is concerned.
I am often reminded of H.G. Wells' comment. Somebody asked him, "What do you think of civilization?" He said, "I think it is a great idea, but somebody should practice it. It has not happened anywhere yet."