Mind is the bondage

Bodhidharma has insights which are unparalleled. There have been many disciples of Gautam Buddha who have attained to enlightenment, but nobody has shown such great insightfulness. Either they have remained silent or they have spoken, but neither their silence nor their speaking has reached to the heights and to the depths of consciousness.

Perhaps the reason is that Bodhidharma is unafraid of what he is saying. He knows no fear. He has no concern with what people will think about his statements. He does not take into account anybody else when he is speaking. It is almost as if he is speaking to himself.

For nine years he was sitting before a wall and when people would come, they would have to sit behind him. They could ask questions but Bodhidharma would answer only to the wall. He was not at all concerned about who was asking the question; he was more concerned with his own insight.

Just last night I received the last book of J. Krishnamurti, in which he is not speaking to anybody -- he is speaking just to himself. The words are recorded but there was no audience, and perhaps in this book he comes closer to truth than in any of his other books. The audience is a limitation.

This has been my experience too. If I am speaking to my own people, then there is no limitation; then I don't feel that I have to say something, or not to say something. Then I simply speak as if I am speaking to myself. When I am speaking to people who don't know me, who don't understand me -- moreover they misunderstand me -- there is a great limitation. Then I am not at freedom to speak. Their very faces, their eyes, their gestures prevent me from saying something that may hurt them.

Just a few days ago, seventy people from the TIMES OF INDIA group of papers came to have an exclusive interview with me. The owners were also present -- Samir Jain, Nandita Jain and their mother Indu Jain were also present. But the strangest thing that I immediately felt as I entered the auditorium ...so ugly, so inhuman and so uncultured: when I was giving my greetings with folded hands to everybody, those seventy people, including Indu Jain, could not even respond.

That is, in India, a simple thing. Even a stranger on the street folds his hands. It need not be known to you who he is, but you respond because a folded-hands greeting has a spiritual meaning.

Shaking hands has no spiritual meaning; shaking hands has a very mundane meaning. You have to shake with your right hand. It was a device created by the West to show that you are not keeping any weapon in your right hand. It was not a greeting -- it was a search. It was being alert that the man is not an enemy, that he cannot do any harm because his right hand is empty. The reason for shaking hands and its psychology is totally different; in a way very mean, political.

But greeting somebody with folded hands has a spiritual meaning: first, that I bow down to your godliness. Whether you are a stranger, friend or enemy, it does not matter; still you are a temple of god, of a living god. Those folded hands are showing respect for the living god. These things are immaterial -- -whether you are a friend or a stranger or an enemy.

And secondly, the folded hands show that I am not halfhearted in my greeting. I am total. Both hands, my left hemisphere, my right hemisphere both, are greeting you together. I am greeting you as one organic unity.

But I was surprised that the TIMES OF INDIA press people -- who are well educated, who own the biggest newspapers, magazines, weeklies, fortnightlies who are all journalists -- they could not respond to me. They sat there like stone statues, even Indu Jain.

The only man who responded to me was Samir Jain, who is now in charge of the TIMES OF INDIA publications, and his sister, Nandita Jain. But she could not come to the full greeting. She was hesitating, so she came halfway. She could not come to the full greeting, but she could not remain a wooden statue. She looked to both sides. Even her mother, Indu Jain, who in private touches my feet, but in public ...she remained just a wooden statue. So she looked at her mother and she looked at her brother and she chose the middle way. She just came halfway.

To speak to such people is almost worse than speaking to a wall. I took the initiative of greeting them and they were not even human enough to respond to the greeting, and particularly in the East, such ugliness is unforgivable. And they have been insisting on the interview. I was reluctant -- reluctant for the simple reason that they would ask stupid questions, then they would distort what I say.

But when I saw that they had come with the whole staff of the TIMES OF INDIA press, I agreed.

But I really agreed for Samir Jain. He is a young man, he has been to the ashram before, he has meditated. He wanted to become a sannyasin but his father was absolutely against it, so much against it that if he became a sannyasin, his father would disown him. Now they are some of the richest people of the country. He has not the guts to say to the father, "It is perfectly okay, you can disown me," but he has a sympathetic heart -- and he was the only man who raised his hands.

Now to talk to such people becomes impossible, unless you completely forget them, and whether they exist or not. And that's what I had to do. I did not look at them at all, I just looked at my people and talked to my people. And I made a condition to them that they could not distort any statement; they had to publish my whole statement as I have given it. But they don't even have the guts to publish their own questions and my answers, because my answers expose the dirty politics and the dirty journalism that follows politics.

Bodhidharma speaks as if he's speaking to himself. Then he can open his heart totally, without any limitation. He is absolutely unconcerned about who is going to listen to him, who is going to read him. Perhaps this is the reason why he reaches tremendously deep insights into human nature. You will see statements that have never been made before, but Bodhidharma has made them so clearly that they cannot be refuted either.

These sutras have been in existence for at least one thousand years, but no Buddhist scholar has commented on them. The book was kept hidden in the Buddhist pagodas, temples. It has just been discovered a few years ago by some Western scholars, and they could not believe that Buddhists have not been allowing the world to know what such a tremendously significant book contains.I can understand the fear of the Buddhists. They have translated thousands of books into English and into German and into other international languages, but Bodhidharma has been neglected completely.

It is a strange world. Here, to be sincere and truthful is the most dangerous thing.

Just a few days ago, here in Poona, the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Swami Svarupanand, declared in a press conference that "Osho is unparalleled, the most dangerous man in the whole history of mankind."

I don't go out of my house. I am not a terrorist. I am not interested in any power politics. I don't have any nuclear weapons. On what grounds is this man saying that I am unparalleled the most dangerous man in the whole history of mankind?

What danger is there?

The danger is that I don't care about anybody when it comes to asserting the truth.

It is not that I am dangerous.

It is the truth that is dangerous.

Just console people with lies. Go on giving them hope so they can manage to drag themselves towards their graves; just go on giving them opium so they don't feel the pain, the agony, the stupidity of their lives.

And that's what all the religions have been doing. Whenever somebody has said the truth, he immediately becomes a dangerous man. Otherwise Jesus was not a dangerous man; he was only thirty-three when he was crucified -- a young man, uneducated, doing no harm to anybody, but stating the truth. The rabbis of Israel could not tolerate that man. He was disturbing all their fabrication of lies. They crucified that young man. Socrates never harmed anybody, but his great crime was to speak the truth. He was poisoned and killed.

Bodhidharma was also poisoned. Although the people who poisoned him thought that he was killed, he was not. He was made of a different kind of matter. He simply went into a coma and in the night disappeared, leaving one of his shoes in the tomb and the other shoe hanging on his staff.

After three years, when people completely believed that he was dead, he was seen by a high government official passing the boundaries of China and entering into the Himalayas. The official could not believe his eyes. He had heard that Bodhidharma had been poisoned and killed. He asked Bodhidharma, who said, "I was in a coma and I waited for the night. When the coma disappeared a little and I was able to get up, I escaped from the tomb. I have left one of my shoes there in the tomb as proof that I have been there and another shoe I am taking, hanging on my staff to prove that I am Bodhidharma -- my identity card."

The official immediately rushed to the mountain where Bodhidharma had been poisoned and he told the disciples. They showed the tomb and the official said, "I would like it to be opened because I have seen the man with his sandal hanging on his staff, and he has told me that he left the other sandal as a signature in the tomb. I would like to open the tomb and see whether that man was really Bodhidharma or somebody else who was playing a trick on me." The tomb was opened and only one shoe was there, nothing else.

What was the need to poison Bodhidharma? One cannot conceive how human beings have behaved with such people ...they are making every effort to awaken you, and you respond by killing them. Who is insane? Is Socrates insane? Is Jesus insane? Is Mansoor insane? Is Sarmad insane? Is Bodhidharma insane? Or the people who have killed them ...?

Here are a few sutras for this morning, of great importance for those who want to understand the truth and who are ready to drop all kinds of lies.

WITHOUT THE MIND THERE IS NO BUDDHA MEANS THAT THE BUDDHA COMES FROM THE MIND ...

But the buddha is not the mind. The mind is the bondage of a buddha, and as he goes beyond the mind and enters into the state of no-mind, he becomes the buddha. But he comes from the mind -- and you all have the mind, so you have fulfilled at least half the journey already!

The other half is to get out of the mind and declare your buddhahood. You need not shout it, you need not even whisper it. It will declare itself in your presence, in your words, in your silence, in the depth of your eyes, in the grace and beauty of your individuality, in the fragrance that will surround you ...you will be like a cool breeze.

The word TATHAGATA used for Gautam Buddha has two meanings. One meaning I have explained to you: it means the man who trusts existence and its suchness. Whatever happens, good or bad, misery or blissfulness, he remains unperturbed. He says it is the suchness of things. There is no need to be disturbed by suffering and there is no need to be disturbed by blissfulness. All these are natural phenomena. You have to remain aloof. That is one meaning of TATHAGATA.

There is another meaning also, and that other meaning is significant in understanding these sutras. TATHAGATA means a man who comes like a breeze and goes like a breeze. Literally it means, "thus came, thus gone" -- he does not wait for your invitation. Suddenly he comes, and he does not wait for you to prevent him; suddenly he is gone, but he has left behind an experience of coolness and calmness and tranquillity.

That calmness, coolness, serenity, silence, declare more loudly than anything else to the whole existence that a buddha has arrived, that now all the priests are in danger, that all the politicians are trembling inside. All those who are living on lies are scared to death. Truth has such power. It never harms anybody but it makes the whole fabrication of lies around the world tremble. A single man of truth is enough.

I am reminded of a Jewish story. In the Old Testament it is said God became very angry -- the Jewish god is a very angry God. He became angry about two cities, Gomorrah and Sodom, because they were practicing perverted sexual things, and he was ready to destroy them. In the Old Testament he actually did destroy them. It reminds one of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...total destruction, and the cities were almost exactly of the same size as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They were great cities in those days, with populations almost equal to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And God destroyed them completely because they were becoming perverted.

But in Judaism there is a small stream of authentic mystics -- that is the only beautiful thing that Judaism has contributed to the world. They are called Hassids. They are not accepted by orthodox Judaism, they are condemned, but they are people of truth. They cannot conceive of a God who can get angry, so they have written their own story. They don't care what the Old Testament says.

Their story is that one Hassid mystic, hearing that God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, approached God and said, "Before you destroy them, you have to answer a few of my questions. First, if there are two hundred people who are not perverted in those two cities -- who are good, who are pure of soul, who are sincere, who are people of realization -- are you still going to destroy those cities and those good people?"

God was taken aback. He could not say that he could destroy two hundred self- realized people. He said, "I was not aware of it; it is very kind of you to inform me. I will not destroy them. Those two hundred people are going to save two hundred thousand people."

The Hassid said, "The second question: if there are not two hundred people, but only twenty, are you going to destroy them? Do you consider quantity more significant than quality?"

And God was again defeated. Certainly quality is of higher value than quantity.

What does it matter whether there are two hundred self-realized people or twenty? God said, "I accept your argument. Even if there are twenty people ...if you can prove there are twenty people, those cities will be saved."

The Hassid laughed and said, "My last argument: If there are not twenty people but only one self-realized man, who lives six months in Sodom and six months in Gomorrah, are you going to destroy the cities? Do you still think quantity means much -- or quality?"

God became very fed up with the man; he was a real Jew. He was bringing him down, haggling, and now he had brought him down to one man from two hundred. He said, "Okay, but then you will have to present that one man!"

The Hassid said, "I am that man!"

Jews don't allow this beautiful story. They say it is fiction, but to me their idea of God being angry and destroying Gomorrah and Sodom is a fiction. To me, the Hassid story seems to be more authentic.

Just one man of truth is enough to save the world. But the world does not want to be saved. God need not kill that one man, the world kills that man. The people whom he was going to save are the people who destroy him.

"WITHOUT THE MIND THERE'S NO BUDDHA" MEANS THAT THE BUDDHA COMES FROM THE MIND ...but he is not the mind. It is just like a lotus flower. It comes from mud, but it is not mud. Can you think of two things as different as mud and a lotus flower? But the lotus flower comes from the mud and rises above the waters ...the lotus flower is such a transformation, but without the mud there will be no lotus flowers.

Without lotus flowers, mud can exist ...this is something to be understood. The higher is very fragile, the lower is very solid. The lower is like a rock and the higher is like a rose flower. The higher you move, the more fragile you become.

These people, Socrates or Jesus or Bodhidharma, could be poisoned. These were the lotus flowers. But the muddy minds became very angry. Seeing the lotus flowers coming out of them, their anger is understandable. The lotus flower is such a beauty -- there is no other flower in the world compared to the beauty of the lotus; hence Buddha has called his paradise "a lotus paradise." To make it the ultimate in beauty, he has used the word "lotus."

But this is the strangest thing about the world -- that the mud can exist without any lotuses, but no lotus can exist without the mud. Minds can exist in millions without there being a single buddha, but a buddha cannot exist if all the minds are absent. Minds function like the mud. He has to transcend the mud and the water, and rise above to meet the sun, to see the sun. So remember: the buddha comes from the mind, but he is not the mind.

WHOEVER WANTS TO SEE A BUDDHA SEES THE MIND ... because the buddha is invisible. It is not a flower that blossoms for the outward eyes. It is a flower that blossoms only for the inner eye. Unless your inner eye is open, you will not recognize the buddha.

The no-mind is needed before one can see the buddha.

A tremendously beautiful story is that when Buddha became enlightened, his first thought was to go back to his kingdom; his father must be old if he was not dead. If he was still alive, then Buddha owed something to him; he was his only son and he had given him immense suffering. Buddha had been going to be his support in his old age, and he was going to be his successor -- and then he escaped. So his first thought was to reach the kingdom and to impart his own ecstasy, his own blissfulness, to his father.

But he was not aware of the fact that his father would not be able to recognize him as a buddha. His inner eye was not open. He thought only through the mind; he did not know any approach through the no-mind. So when he faced the old man, the old man was really angry. And you could not complain about his anger.

The father said, "You deceived me in my old age. Where have you been for twelve years? What have you been doing? What is all this nonsense ...? An emperor's son carrying a begging bowl! You are born to be one of the greatest emperors in the world. Perhaps, as the astrologers said when you were born, you have the capacity to become a world conqueror, and you have chosen this stupid life."

Buddha stood silently, not saying a single word. He first wanted to let the man release his anger. But the old man recognized, after half an hour had passed, that while he had been shouting and he had been abusing and he had been condemning, his son was simply standing there with such silence, absolutely unperturbed. He looked closely.

Buddha said, "This is a right gesture, look closely. I am not the man who left you; that man died long ago. Yes, I am in the same continuity but before it was the mud; now I am the lotus. So don't take revenge against the lotus because you are angry with the mud. Just let me wash your tears," because the old man was full of tears, "and clean your eyes. Just cool down and just have another look -- I am not the same man who left the palace. A great transformation has happened; I left the palace as a mortal, I am coming back to the palace as an immortal. I left the palace as an ordinary human being, I am coming back to the palace divine.

Just have a little look."

The father looked at him -- certainly there had been a great change. For a few moments there was utter silence -- the father simply went on looking at him.

Something transpired between the father and the son, and the father said, "Forgive me. In my anger, with my tears, with my old eyes, I could not recognize the transformation. Now my only desire is that you initiate me on the same path which transforms mud into a lotus. You have certainly become a lotus. I have never seen you so beautiful, so graceful." Nothing had been said, and the father was being initiated.

The moment you know, you don't have to declare it. It declares itself. But only those who have a certain sensitivity, a certain music in their heart, a certain poetry in their being, will be able to recognize you. Those who are simply accountants, bankers, running after money, running after power, will be absolutely blind when it comes to recognizing a buddha. ...ONCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE BUDDHA, YOU FORGET ABOUT THE MIND.

Once you have seen the lotus flower you forget all about the mud.

IF YOU DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE MIND, THE MIND WILL CONFUSE YOU ....

It will not allow you to recognize the great transmutation, the great transformation that has happened -- perhaps in your son, perhaps in your friend, perhaps in a stranger. You need a certain sympathetic attitude and an opening of the heart to allow the transformed man to leave his imprint within you.

And your recognition is going to be a seed of transformation within you: then you cannot remain in the mind anymore; then you cannot remain contented with your muddy world; then you would like to become another lotus. You have heard the challenge and you have seen the reality that you contain the lotus, but you have been unaware of it, it has remained dormant.

Everybody is a buddha, but only in the seed, hidden in the mud. Recognizing a lotus flower is recognizing your own future, your own possibilities, your own grandeur.

MORTALITY AND BUDDHAHOOD ARE LIKE WATER AND ICE.

There is not much difference between the mortals and the immortals. The difference is just like water and ice.

TO BE AFFLICTED BY THE THREE POISONS IS MORTALITY. TO BE PURIFIED BY THE THREE RELEASES IS BUDDHAHOOD.

The three poisons, Bodhidharma says, are greed, anger, delusion. With these three poisons you remain a mortal. Once you are purified of these three poisons, you have become an immortal. You have attained to the eternity. Now there is no death for you.

THAT WHICH FREEZES INTO ICE IN WINTER MELTS INTO WATER IN SUMMER.

There is no qualitative difference between water and ice or vapor. The difference is only of temperature. Every human being -- the greatest criminal, even an Adolf Hitler -- has the potential to be a buddha. However unconscious you may be, however deep may be your sleep, you can be awakened.

Awakening is not a difference of quality. It is a difference only of degree. The sleeping man is less awake and the awake man is less asleep. Remember, the difference between people is only of degree -- and that is not much of a difference. A slight understanding and the difference can be dissolved.

GET RID OF MORTALITY, AND THERE IS NO MORE BUDDHAHOOD.

This is how Bodhidharma is special. He says, GET RID OF MORTALITY, AND THERE IS NO MORE BUDDHAHOOD. It is only in the eyes of the mortals that buddhas appear so high. When their mortality is finished, their own buddhahood is attained. And the essential quality of awareness is that it is there, but you are not aware of it.

You cannot be aware of awareness.

You cannot be conscious of consciousness.

You cannot be a knower when you really know. Then you are one with it. The buddhahood happens only to you because you are a mortal and Buddha looks so far away. You are only in the mud, just a seed, and the lotus looks so far away, so different. You cannot conceive any connection between you and the lotus. But when you become a lotus yourself, all differences disappear. And the lotus is not aware of its beauty, is not aware of its fragrance; it is simply its nature.

Except for Bodhidharma, nobody else has been able to make these kinds of statements for the simple reason that they are so strange, they look so illogical, irrational. But existence is illogical. It is irrational. If you are only thinking in the mind, then it is one thing, but if you are experiencing the process of mud transforming into a lotus flower, you will understand Bodhidharma without any difficulty. You will rejoice in his strange statements.

MORTALS ...again, a very strange statement: MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS AND BUDDHAS LIBERATE MORTALS.

I can understand why Buddhists have been hiding these sutras for one thousand years, because the very idea is outrageous that MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS AND BUDDHAS LIBERATE MORTALS. But Bodhidharma is right.

Every buddha comes from the mortals and seeing the agony, the suffering, the misery, the continuous meaninglessness of mortals is the cause of his liberation.

If there were no mortals, there would be no buddhas.

When I came back from the university, naturally my parents were anxious that I should get married. They were afraid that I was not the sort and my father was very alert that once I say no to something, then there is no way to make it yes. So he asked his friends, "Just find out what's on his mind, if it is possible that he would say yes. Only then, I will ask him. Once he has said no to me, it is finished."

So his friends started asking me. One of his friends was the best physician of that area. He called me to have a dinner with him and along the way he mentioned, "What do you think about marriage?"

I said, "Uncle, I am unmarried; I don't have any experience. You have been married thrice. You have three times more experience than anybody else. You tell me, what do you think?"

He looked very miserable and he said, "My experience -- I am a fool! I should have stopped when my first wife died. But fools are fools. I married again thinking that not every woman is going to be the same. But within a few days ...the woman was different but the problems were the same. And God has been so kind to me, even the second wife died. But my stupidity is such, I married again and now I am suffering. And you are asking me, 'What do you think about marriage'!"

I said, "That's enough. Just tell my father your experience. You have liberated me from marriage."

He said, "What do you mean by that? I have done just the opposite of what your father asked me. I was going to convince you."

I said, "You have convinced me! Just tell my father the whole thing that happened ...I will get married only if you say yes."

He said, "I cannot. No, I will not drag you into the same hell in which I have lived. I cannot say yes."

"Then," I said, "tell my father that you have convinced me that I should not get married."

He said, "You have put me in such trouble. Your father is depending on me."

He reported to my father. My father said, "You should have been a little more cautious. Instead of convincing him about marriage, you have spoiled the whole thing."

He said, "What can I do? He managed in such a way that I forgot completely what the purpose of the dinner was."

MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS ...just look around at mortals and you cannot resist being a buddha -- the sooner the better! And BUDDHAS LIBERATE MORTALS. That is just repaying the debt. When they become buddhas they start hammering the mortals. That's what I have been doing my whole life: first mortals liberated me, now I am trying to liberate mortals.

The statement is very strange. Perhaps Buddhist scholars could not find how to explain it, so they thought it better to keep it in oblivion, not to bring it out.

Otherwise it is perfectly okay that buddhas liberate mortals, but mortals liberating buddhas? The learned, the scholarly, cannot understand it.

THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPARTIALITY.

Mortals liberating buddhas, buddhas liberating mortals -- this is called impartiality. Now everything is balanced. Nobody owes anything to anybody else; neither the buddhas are obliging you, nor are you obliging buddhas. You have come to a state where both have paid their debts to each other.

MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS BECAUSE AFFLICTION CREATES AWARENESS.

Seeing the mortals and their afflictions ...if you are intelligent enough you will not follow their path. So many are following that path and everybody is falling in a ditch. And everybody is suffering.

When my father failed with the physician, he approached another friend of his.

He thought that would be the last resort, because he was a supreme court advocate and it was known that he had never lost any case. So my father told him, "If you can win this case, then we will accept that you are really a great advocate of the supreme court."

The judge said, "This is nothing. Just with my left hand I can do it. I will be coming tomorrow to your home."

My father told him, "Come prepared!"

He said, "Don't be worried. I know your son. And do you think he can defeat me in arguments?"

My father said, "I don't think he can defeat you in arguments, but he has strange ways. The physician who is known to be the wisest man in the area ...he managed to manipulate him. Now he is in his favor."

The advocate was very egoistic and he had reason to be an egoist. He said, "Don't you be worried."

But my father said, "Still, you do the homework. Don't come unprepared. I warn you. You may lose the case. My boy is strange."

The advocate said, "You calm down and don't be worried. Tomorrow I will settle everything."

So the next day he came. I welcomed him and I asked him, "I know what you have come for. And I think my father must have told you, 'Be prepared, do the homework.'" He looked at me and said, "How do you know?"

I said, "That's what he told the physician, so I know he must have told the same things to you. And you are his last resort. So if you are defeated, then the whole question of marriage is finished."

But he said, "Who said I am going to be defeated?"

I said, "I am not saying that, I just want to make it clear that if I get defeated, I will be married -- but if you get defeated, are you ready to divorce your wife?"

He said, "My God, your father was right. I have never thought about it ...that it could be a question. Certainly you are right. I should also put something at stake.

But listen, I have children, and you know my wife. She even beats me. I cannot even utter the word 'divorce' before her."

So I said, "You have not come with preparedness. And I don't need any judge. I trust you, although you will be a party in argument and you will also be the judge."

He said, "I don't want to argue at all!"

I said, "What you are going to answer to my father?"

He said, "That's what I am thinking."

The argument never started. And I used to go to his house every day, knocking on the door, and he would simply say, "I don't want to quarrel with you. I am already tortured too much."

And one day his wife came out and she said, "Why is he so afraid of you?"

I said, "Because of you."

He started hiding in the bathroom and he would not come out. His wife said, "This is strange. He is never afraid of anybody. He hides, he says to me that he is not at home. What is the matter? What is cooking?"

I said, "Nothing is cooking. He is afraid of being defeated. And you are my great support."

She said, "I don't understand. What is going on? What is the problem? In what way am I the support?"

I said, "You ask him. He is thinking of divorcing you."

And he immediately came out of the bathroom. He said, "Don't lie! I am never going to divorce her. I love her. I will love her my whole life."

I said, "It is up to you. But what about the argument?"

He said, "Finished. I don't want to see you at all. You have made me so shaky that even in the court, the moment I remember you I feel afraid. Don't disturb my family life."

I said, "You were going to disturb MY whole life!"

MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS BECAUSE AFFLICTION CREATES AWARENESS. AND BUDDHAS LIBERATE MORTALS BECAUSE AWARENESS NEGATES AFFLICTION.

All the buddhas come from the mortals. They are just more watchful than you are. They look all around -- the whole scene is tragic, pathetic. That creates great awareness in them. And when they have come to the highest peak of their awareness, they make every effort to help you to be aware so that you can also get out of these afflictions.

It is not only that man is in misery. The woman is in more misery. It seems there is a strange conspiracy going on where everybody is creating misery for everybody else. Many times I have been asked why I have not married. I said, "Because of the married people. I have known so many and they warned me."

And now my whole work is somehow to get you out of your trap, to make you more alert, more aware, whether you are a husband or a wife. With your awareness your misery will disappear. Just as light dispels darkness, awareness dispels misery.

THERE CAN'T HELP BUT BE AFFLICTION because people are unconscious.

AND THERE CAN'T HELP BUT BE AWARENESS.

Once in a while somebody is going to be alert enough to see all around. And the person who becomes aware, feels to share with people who are unaware.

IF NOT FOR AFFLICTION THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO CREATE AWARENESS. AND IF NOT FOR AWARENESS, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO NEGATE AFFLICTION. WHEN YOU ARE DELUDED, BUDDHAS LIBERATE MORTALS. WHEN YOU ARE AWARE, MORTALS LIBERATE BUDDHAS. BUDDHAS DON'T BECOME BUDDHAS ON THEIR OWN.

This is the greatness of Bodhidharma. He can say it exactly, however hard it hits.

He is saying, BUDDHAS DON'T BECOME BUDDHAS ON THEIR OWN.

Without this whole world of misery around them, they would never become buddhas. They should be grateful to all these people who are miserable because these are the people who impel them not to get trapped, as they themselves are trapped.

BUDDHAS REGARD DELUSION AS THEIR FATHER AND GREED AS THEIR MOTHER.

Only a Bodhidharma can say such things, seeing the greed of people and the anguish and the anxiety that greed creates, seeing the delusions of people.

Everybody is thinking of himself, not of exactly what he is. Everybody is multiplying his personality, his ego, his knowledge. He is pretending things that he knows nothing of.

One of my professors, I found, never read anything after he had left the university thirty years before. Everything that he said was out of date.

Psychology was his subject -- and psychology is a very fast-growing subject; in thirty years, everything that was right has gone down the drain. But he was still quoting books which he read in his post-graduation courses.

He had a difficulty with me, because I was reading the latest and I would quote from the latest researches. He was a poor soul, he could not even say, "Forgive me, I am not aware of these researches." To keep his ego, he would say, "Yes, I have seen those papers." But if he had seen those papers or those books, which had just come out, then he should not have been teaching outdated theories about human mind and consciousness.

I reported to the vice-chancellor. I said, "It should be made compulsory for every professor to spend at least two hours in the library every day."

He said, "In no university is anything like that in existence. And all the professors will protest against it. Why are you saying that?"

I said, "All your professors were taught twenty years, thirty years ago and all that they know is no longer relevant. I have been checking in the library, who the professors are who take the books from the library. And this particular professor I am mentioning has never taken a single book from the library. He has never come to the library." And the library of the university was very rich, very up-to- date, because the man who founded the university was a man of tremendous learning and he loved books above anything else.

So I told the vice-chancellor, "Call this professor in front of me and I will show you why I am demanding this. And if you don't listen to me, then I am going to the students' union to talk to all the students, to boycott all those professors who don't go to the library for at least two hours."

He knew me -- that I can manage this, so he said, "Don't go that far. Bring that professor here."

I said, "I will not bring him. You call him. I am sitting here."

He called the professor, the professor came in. And I just invented two fictitious names of psychologists and two fictitious names of books which have never been written and will never be written. And I asked the professor, "Have you read these books?"

He said, "My God, how have you found out? They are on my desk in my room. I have been reading them; they are the latest contribution."

And I told the vice-chancellor, "Both these names are fictitious, both these books are fictitious; they don't exist. Now tell this man to bring those two books into your office. They are lying on his table."

Then he became afraid. From where was he going to get those two books which are fictitious? And he had said they were lying on his table, he was reading them, and they were great.

I said, "This is the situation: these are the people who are teaching and their students will become professors tomorrow. And they will continue fifty-year- old, rotten experiments which have failed and have been replaced by new ideologies."

The vice-chancellor said, "I concede to you." And he made it a compulsory rule that every professor had to go to the library, study the latest journals, books, magazines and be up-to-date.

Professors were angry, they were all angry at me. But I said, "Anger is not going to help. I am checking every day in the library, who is coming and who is not coming. For those who are not coming, I will bring a procession of protest of all the students to their department. Then don't tell me, 'You are creating chaos.'

You are the cause of it!"

The librarian was surprised. All the professors were coming, reading, taking books home. But the day I left the university, I was informed, the rule was removed. After seven or eight years, I went to that university to deliver a lecture.

I went to the library. The same librarian was still there and the library was empty. There was nobody. I asked him, "What happened?"

"Those professors no longer come," he said. "The day you left the university, the rule was removed; it was just out of fear that you might create trouble. Even the vice-chancellor had started coming to the library. Now nobody comes."

People go on creating delusions, magnifying them, exaggerating them.

Bodhidharma says greed is the father of the buddhas and delusion is the mother.

DELUSION AND GREED ARE DIFFERENT NAMES FOR MORTALITY ....

WHEN YOU ARE DELUDED, YOU ARE ON THIS SHORE. WHEN YOU ARE AWARE, YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SHORE.

These are only symbolic ways of saying you are here ...deluded, you are in misery; aware, you are in blissfulness.

BUT ONCE YOU KNOW YOUR MIND IS EMPTY AND YOU SEE NO APPEARANCES, YOU ARE BEYOND DELUSION AND AWARENESS.

Each statement is difficult for scholars to explain. Only a buddha can explain these statements. He is saying, when you are in the know that your mind is empty -- in other words, when you encounter your no-mind and you see no appearances -- you are beyond delusion and awareness.

I have never come across any statement that says that you are beyond awareness.

But he is absolutely rational, logical and existentially true because when you don't have the disease, I don't think you will go on carrying the medicine with you. The moment you are healthier, your disease has gone, you donate your medicine that remains to the Lions Club. What are you going to do with it? The Lions need it to show to the world that they are a great charitable institution. It is useless to you, you were going to throw it; why not enjoy donating it to the Lions Club? A good gain -- you donate something useless to the Lions Club. And the Lions Club gives it to the poor people, and without spending anything the Lions Club becomes a charitable institution.

The same is the situation with misery and awareness. The moment there is no delusion, what is the need of awareness? That does not mean you fall asleep.

That simply means awareness becomes your very nature; you are no longer aware of it.

AND ONCE YOU ARE BEYOND DELUSION AND AWARENESS, THE OTHER SHORE DOES NOT EXIST. What is the need of the other shore? The other shore was only a symbolic concept. This shore is the world, the other shore is the paradise. When the world and the attachment with the world is gone, who cares about paradise? You are already in it, wherever you are. A Sufi saying is, "Wherever the enlightened person is, there is paradise." The paradise is something within your being.

THE TATHAGATA IS NOT ON THIS SHORE OR THE OTHER SHORE. AND HE IS NOT IN MID-STREAM.

These are the only possibilities -- either on this shore, or on the other shore, or in mid-stream. The tathagata is nowhere. One who has understood himself can be said to be either everywhere, or nowhere; both are equivalent.

But in the last sutra he remembers again his antagonism to the arhatas: AND MORTALS ARE ON THIS SHORE. On the other shore are arhatas and the mortals. The ARHATS ARE IN MID-STREAM going to the other shore -- which does not exist. They are still carrying a counter-delusion. AND THE MORTALS ARE ON THIS SHORE. ON THE OTHER SHORE IS BUDDHAHOOD.

But the moment you are on the other shore, the other shore disappears. You are simply a light unto yourself.

But about arhatas, he cannot forget. He puts them in mid-stream, neither on this shore nor on that shore. Arhatas are also on the other shore, just as bodhisattvas are, as buddhas are. The moment they reach the other shore, both the shores disappear simultaneously. Suddenly they are awake and they find themselves part of the whole, a great shower of blessings coming over them.

If Bodhidharma could have forgotten his antagonism with arhatas and used instead of "mind," "no-mind," his sutras would have been perfect, without any flaw. But even with these two flaws, they are great. And anybody who understands can make you aware of these two flaws.

Don't carry any antagonism. And use, as far as possible, the closest word to reality. Mind is not the closest word to meditation; no-mind is.

Arhatas may have angered him because they become enlightened and they never care about anybody. They don't even speak. It is very difficult to get anything out of the arhatas. But my own feeling is, everybody has to be his own self, his own individuality, his own uniqueness. Arhatas have their own uniqueness. After becoming enlightened, they become utterly silent.

This is the antagonism of Bodhidharma, that they should be more compassionate. They should help others to become enlightened. And if you see the arguments from both sides, you will see that both are right in their own way.

Arhatas say, "It is interference into somebody's life. If he wants to remain unenlightened, it is his right." Arhatas say, "This is our compassion that we don't interfere into anybody's life."

Bodhisattvas say, "This is our compassion that we make every effort to make others enlightened. This is our compassion."

I think both have beautiful arguments, and there is nothing wrong in either of the arguments. Existence is multidimensional, it has so many aspects.

A man of ultimate understanding will not see any contradiction anywhere. In his understanding and clarity, all contradictions become complementary to each other. Okay, Maneesha? Yes, Osho.