Emptiness no holiness

Maneesha, before you asked the question, the trees have heard it.

It is one of the most fundamental things to be remembered by all of you that a religion is living only when there is no organized doctrine, no system of beliefs, no dogma, no theology. When there is just this silence and the trees enjoying the dance in the breeze, in your heart something grows. It is your own, it does not come from any scripture; nobody can give it to you because it is not knowledge.

That is the greatest difference between all the religions on one side and Zen on the other side. All religions except Zen are dead. They have become fossilized theologies, systems of philosophies, doctrines, but they have forgotten the language of the trees. They have forgotten the silence in which even trees can be heard and understood. They have forgotten the joy that has to be natural and spontaneous to the heart of every living being.

The moment the experience becomes an explanation, an expression, it breathes no more; it is dead - and all over the world people are carrying dead doctrines.

I call Zen the only living religion because it is not a religion, but only a religiousness. It has no dogma, it does not depend on any founder. It has no past; in fact it has nothing to teach you. It is the strangest thing that has happened in the whole history of mankind - strangest because it enjoys in emptiness, it blossoms in nothingness. It is fulfilled in innocence, in not knowing. It does not discriminate between the mundane and the sacred. For it, all that is, is sacred.

Life is sacred whatever form, whatever shape.

Wherever there is something living and alive it is sacred.

Today we are beginning to discuss a few incidents in the long history of Zen - which are unique because no other religion exists on anecdotes. They are not holy scripture; they are simply incidents that have happened.

It is up to you...

If you understand them they can open your eyes and your heart. If you don't understand them nothing else will ever be able to open your eyes and your heart. And what I am saying is categorical, absolute.

These small anecdotes in their very smallness just like dewdrops contain the whole secret of the ocean.

If you can understand the dewdrop there is no need to understand the ocean you have understood it.

Please be very silent and careful.

Emperor Wu of China asked Bodhidharma... Fourteen hundred years before, Bodhidharma had gone to China. He was a unique man: his statements, his actions, his behavior, all contained the pure essence of religion. But he was not a professor, he was not a missionary. He was a man who was ready to share his being with you without holding anything back - but you have to be ready to receive it.

Naturally, Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, WHAT IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE HOLY TEACHINGS? That's how other Buddhist monks had described it to him. But Bodhidharma was not an ordinary Buddhist monk; in fact, he has nothing to do with Buddhism. He is his own self - he belongs to nobody. It is just a coincidence that his master happened to be a Buddhist. He himself never said that he was a Buddhist; he could not commit such a great stupidity.

You will see that the man was almost a lion and his words were just like the roar of a lion. Those who have seen Bodhidharma were blessed people and those who understood him, there is no way to define their gratitude. He was not a man of many words; he was very telegraphic. He did not use a single word more than needed. He did not care about language; he did not care about the emperor... He cared only about the truth - that it has not to be spoiled by any description, that it should be kept clean and pure.

Do you see the telegraphic language? He has been asked by Emperor Wu the first principle of holy teachings and he is saying emptiness is the first, but don't call it holiness - there is no holiness.

When everything is holy what is the point to call something holy? Categories are possible only when something can be unholy.

To the experience of the awakened there is only nothingness so pure, so lovely so beautiful.

But it is difficult to call it 'holy' because that beautiful word has been corrupted by the religions, by creating a fictitious entity: UNholiness. Just to make somebody a saint they have made the whole of humanity sinners.

The reality is: there is no saint and there are no sinners; there are only people who are asleep and there are only people who are awake. The difference is so small that just a little ice-cold water thrown into your eyes - and the difference disappears.

EMPTINESS, NO HOLINESS - and Bodhidharma has said all that can be said. In fact he has said even that which cannot be said; his teaching is complete. He has come to the full point in a single sentence - not even a complete grammatical sentence, but just a hint:

EMPTINESS, NO HOLINESS.

Emperor Wu was one of the greatest emperors of China, a very cultured man. It hit him very strongly.

He never expected that anybody should misbehave in front of the great emperor. And this man does not even say, Your Holiness, or, Your Highness. He does not even address the emperor. All that he says is: EMPTINESS, NO HOLINESS.

Certainly he must have been angry inside; it is natural - he had been waiting for three years.

Bodhidharma took three years to reach - and he had heard so much about the man and the man seems to be a very strange fellow, a little weird. Offended but not showing it, behaving like a cultured, sophisticated hypocrite, he again asked, "Then who is this standing before me? If the first principle of existence is emptiness and there is nothing holy, then who are you?" WHO IS THIS STANDING BEFORE ME?

Great was Bodhidharma. I cannot conceive of anybody else in his place when I see his answer. It is simply just his own, absolutely authentic. He does not bother that the emperor is offended - he offends even more. But what he says is such a great truth that he is not responsible.

Truth always offends.

That's why truth is always crucified.

He simply said, NO KNOWING.

The emperor had asked, WHO IS THIS STANDING BEFORE ME? and Bodhidharma said, NO KNOWING. He does not even use the word 'I'. You simply see the beauty of the man and his utter commitment to truth - that he will not descend even a single step so that he can be understood.

Understood or not his commitment is to the truth, not to any emperor.

Whenever I have come to this point I feel we need many Bodhidharmas in the world - such integrated people, so uncompromising, so fearless and so devoted to the truth. His truth is that he does not know who is standing before Emperor Wu. He is saying exactly what Socrates said in his last days:

"I don't know anything." But still Socrates was using the word 'I', he was not of the category of Bodhidharma. See the difference: he says, "I only know that I know nothing," but the I remains and this knowing that "I don't know anything" remains.

With Bodhidharma, everything has been dropped. He is saying, "In front of you is standing no knowing, just pure innocence."

Obviously it would have been difficult for anybody to grasp the meaning - unless one has already grasped it, but then he would not have asked.

Seeing that the emperor did not grasp his meaning, BODHIDHARMA CROSSED THE RIVER AND WENT TO THE LAND OF WEI. That was out of the territory of the emperor.

A man like Bodhidharma never turns back: what is past is past; you cannot bring him back into the past. You miss the opportunity, nothing can be done about it.

Another Zen teacher - not a master - has put the anecdote in this way:

This is the way of teachers. This is not a lion roaring, this is a schoolmaster, a mouse creaking like the trees...

He is simply repeating what he has heard; he has not understood it himself.

I will not say "the master" because I cannot agree with him. I can accept at the most that the schoolteacher looks around and repeats something which is fashionable in Zen circles:

IS THE PATRIARCH THERE? The patriarch... he is referring to Bodhidharma. The founders of Zen are called patriarchs...

Now he is trying to pretend that he understands the strange ways of Zen. He is also making a strange statement: "Bring him to me and he can wash my feet."

It is simply ugly. Schoolmasters should not enter into the area of truth. Their world consists of small, borrowed knowledge to transfer. They should not speak as if they are lions, because they are not.

He has not added a single word to make Bodhidharma's statement more understandable; he has not given any transparency to it. He has not made Emperor Wu understand what not knowing is - he is a pretender.

This man's name is Setcho. Many times in these commentaries we will come across people who are only teachers but are pretending to be masters. But you should understand that the anecdote is so complete...

Only if you look into my eyes perhaps you may find the commentary or if you look into my empty hands you may find the meaning.

What Bodhidharma has said is absolute, complete. Nothing can be added to it and nothing can be deleted from it. Even a Gautam Buddha would have been surprised by the flowering of Bodhidharma. He is saying that all is empty and unless you enter into emptiness you will not understand anything of life and its mysteries. And nothing is holy, so don't be bothered to become saints, discipline yourself, practice this or that.

Just enter into your own being.

In the silences of the heart nothing is missing.

The saint is just pretending - because the reality is already there. It needs no practice, no holiness.

All that it needs is awakening.

Just wake up and just see who is within you.

It does not mean you will come to know great knowledge, it does not mean that you will come to know who you are. It simply means you will come to know that there is pure innocence. That is your essential being, and in it nothing is holy.

A beautiful rose is beautiful, but do you think there are saintly roses and sinner roses? Except the priests who have dominated man, the very categories of the sinner and the saint do not exist in existence. All is beautiful, tremendously graceful - but there is nothing holy. And when you enter into yourself, you will even have to leave the idea of I outside. Without leaving the idea of I, you cannot enter within yourself.

The I is your ego. It is the barrier, not the bridge.

That's why, instead of saying, "I don't know," which would have been more grammatical... But a man like Bodhidharma does not care about grammar - do you think I care about grammar?

Bodhidharma simply says, NO KNOWING - and he has said everything; he has not left anything.

I am reminded of a story...

Gautam Buddha is passing through a forest, it is fall time and dry leaves are falling and making great noise dancing in the wind all over the place. Ananda asks him, "I don't interfere because there is always somebody else who is asking you; it is a great opportunity for me that by chance I am alone with you. I want to ask one thing; I have been resisting but now I cannot resist. I want to know whether you have told us everything that you know, or you have told only some things."

Gautam Buddha bent down; he plucked up a few dry leaves in his hands and he said, "Ananda, do you see these dry leaves in my hand? This much I have said to you. And look at the dry leaves all over the forest: this much I have not said to you. Because you cannot understand even this much, these few leaves in my hand. It will be absolutely a wastage of time to talk about all the leaves of this forest. My knowing is vast; I have just given you a taste."

But if by chance Bodhidharma had been asked, his answer would have been diametrically opposite.

He would have said, "I have said everything, I have not been keeping anything to myself" - and that's why he is not understood. He has said too much. His words are so condensed that just this simple phrase, NO KNOWING can contain thousands of scriptures; still it will remain not understood.

Bodhidharma's uniqueness is that he does not care about anything else, he has no other considerations. Only one other man, George Gurdjieff, would have agreed with him. In the whole history of great masters only George Gurdjieff used to teach his disciples: Do not consider. Do not compromise. Let the truth be as it is; you cannot make it better. You cannot paint it, you cannot give it a little more color, a little more joy, a little more expressibility; you cannot do anything.

If you know it your eyes will be just like empty sky. Your hands will not be like fists holding something but empty indicating that there is nobody inside but a pure nothingness.

But this pure nothingness is alive, this nothingness has a heart. This nothingness blossoms in thousands of flowers and rainbows, and dances in peacocks, and sings in birds. This nothingness roars in the oceans and this nothingness is silent in the meditator.

This nothingness, remember, does not mean what you ordinarily understand by nothingness. It is better to break the word in two. When Bodhidharma uses 'nothingness' he simply means no- thingness. Just put a little hyphen - and you have made Bodhidharma more understandable. I cannot do more than that. Just a little hyphen: nothingness becomes no-thingness. You are a living entity, not a thing.

Emptiness does not have the negative connotation that it carries in our minds. When I show you a room which is completely empty, there are two ways to say something about it. Either you can say that the room is empty or you can say that the room is full of space. Exactly the very word 'room' means space. The more furniture you bring in the less room there is. You can fill the whole room with junk and the room disappears. It is there and it is not there. You cannot throw it out, but you can hide it behind your furniture, behind your refrigerator, behind your television. Take them all out...

what remains? Roominess, emptiness; in a positive sense, a pure space.

So remember, when Bodhidharma says emptiness, he does not mean your idea of emptiness.

His emptiness is immensely full; his emptiness is immensely positive. His nothingness is simply no-thingness; his denying knowing is simply affirming innocence. It is a wonder that in two small statements he has revealed the very heart of religiousness.

Maneesha, it is a beautiful koan. Bokushu is one of the great Zen masters.

He asked a monk, WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

This is always asked by the Zen masters when a new disciple comes. And just by the answer of the disciple it is decided whether he is going to be accepted as a disciple or thrown out. It is immensely important, it is not just a sociability, not a kind of introduction.

When Bokushu asked the monk, "WHERE ARE YOU FROM?" THE MONK GAVE A 'KATSU' SHOUT. Just as you say Yaa-Hoo! - it is a shout, without saying anything but making it clear that "I am here and it does not matter from where I come. What kind of nonsense question are you asking? I can come from anywhere - that does not matter. What matters is: I have come."

The shout is to declare that "I am here and you are asking stupid questions... Ask something about me! Don't waste time."

But Bokushu was not to be satisfied so easily, because it has now become traditional. So when the master asks - although you don't understand what you are doing - you can give a shout. It is known; it is written in the scriptures... thousands of incidents. But you cannot cheat a man of the quality of Bokushu .

Now he has created trouble. He has never heard about the third and fourth. The first and second shouts have become traditional by the time of Bokushu , and a master's function is to cut through the tradition. So he said, "Okay, okay, these shouts are okay, just tell me about the third and the fourth."

Zen is strange - nowhere else in the world has anything like this happened. The monk, the stranger, remaining silent gave the answer. He could have shouted a third time, he could have shouted a fourth time, a fifth time... what is the problem? But rather than shouting a third and fourth, he simply remained silent. He is saying, "Don't waste time. As far as the game, the traditional game is concerned, it is enough; now silence is my third and fourth shout." And only in Zen would it be possible that BOKUSHU HIT THE MONK AND SAID, "YOU EMPTY-HEADED FOOL!"

It is acceptance. He has been accepted as a disciple because of his silence. To hit him is to accept him, and to call him "You empty-headed fool" is a very affectionate expression. It is almost saying, "Sweetheart, my darling." It is not rejection. In those two shouts he followed the tradition, but he would not go on repeating the tradition; he gave his own shout, and that was silence.

In Zen an empty-headed fool is almost ready for meditation. A man full of knowledge is far away from meditation. An empty-headed fool is simply a loving way of saying that you are not far away from becoming wise.

The fool can become wise; the knowledgeable never. The empty-headed can become empty- minded, but the man who is carrying scriptures and degrees and the universities and the libraries in his head, he is far away. A master will not unnecessarily waste time on such a person.

The anecdote is complete, but the same schoolmaster, Setcho, puts it like this:

It is sheer stupidity - I am afraid we will have to meet this fellow Setcho again and again.

Schoolmasters should not enter into the lion's den, but this Setcho has entered; now I cannot save him.

Question 1:

Maneesha, you say,

We will - we give it every day! We are going to spread the shout all around the world. It will be heard on every street, in every house.

But it is good that you understand yourself also as an empty-headed fool. I don't hit people, but Niskriya... hit Maneesha. Do it!

(NISKRIYA, THE VIDEO CAMERAMAN, IS SITTING EXACTLY BEHIND MANEESHA. HE GETS UP AND KISSES MANEESHA SOFTLY ON HER HEAD.)

It is enough of serious thinking - the trees don't like it! And I always listen to the trees. Look... they have become silent....

A young porter in Washington is brought to court for raping one of the maids.

The maid alleges that she was leaning out of the window to watch the president of America drive along the street below in a parade. The porter lowered the window on her, trapped her, and had his way with her.

"But, Miss," says the judge, "why did you not start screaming?"

"What?" cries the horrified girl, "and have everyone think I was supporting Ronald Reagan?"

Olivia Oppenheimer is a very rich widow, who has a parrot called Percy, who can talk and sing in four languages.

Percy is a huge hit at parties and Olivia adores him. But Percy has one weakness: he loves to fly over the fence and fuck the neighbor's chickens.

Olivia tries everything to cure Percy of his habit, but with little success. Finally, she gets a pair of scissors and clips all the feathers off the parrot's head.

"There," she says, "that will teach you. Now all the lady chickens won't think you handsome anymore!"

Two nights later, Olivia has a party. Percy, the parrot, is in his usual spot on the piano as the guests come in.

Half way through the party, two bald men arrive.

"Hey!" calls out Percy. "Get over here with me, you two chickenfuckers!"

A young Indian brave, son of Chief Running Bear, asks his father one day how he decides what names to give his sons.

"Simple," says Running Bear, "while I am making love, I look around and if I see an eagle circling in the sky, I call the child Flying Eagle, if I see a horse going by, I call the child Running Horse. It is just a question of what catches my attention while I am making love to your mother. So, now do you understand, Broken Condom?"

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.

Now two minutes for absolute silence, no movement... closed eyes, just as if you are absolutely frozen.

Collect the whole energy inside....

Now relax... let go...!

Now, come back to life.

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.