Thursday, January 28, 2010

Witnessing is...



Osho


Question: I have always heard you say, "Stop doing; watch." Several times lately I've heard you say that the mind should be the servant instead of our Master. It feels that there is nothing to do except watch. But the question still arises: is there anything to do with this unruly servant but to watch?


Prem Niren, there is nothing else to do with this unruly servant but just to watch. Apparently it appears too simple a solution for too complex a problem, but these are part of the mysteries of existence. The problem may be too complex; the solution can be very simple. Watching, witnessing, being aware seem to be small words to solve the whole complexity of mind. Millions of years of heritage, tradition, conditioning, prejudice - how will they disappear just by watching? But they do disappear, because as Gautam Buddha used to say, "If the lights of the house are on, thieves don't come close to that house, knowing that the master is awake." Because the light is showing from the windows, from the doors, you can see that the light is on and it is not the time to enter into the house.



When the lights are off, thieves are attracted to the house. Darkness becomes an invitation. As Gautam Buddha used to say, the same is the situation about your thoughts, imaginations, dreams, anxieties, your whole mind. If the witness is there, the witness is almost like the light; these thieves start dispersing. And if these thieves find there is no witness, they start calling their brothers and cousins and everybody, "Come on." It is as simple a phenomenon as the light.



The moment you bring the light in, the darkness disappears. You don't ask, "Is just light enough for darkness to disappear?" or, "When we have brought the light, will we have to do something more for the darkness to disappear?" No, just the presence of the light is the absence of the darkness, and the absence of the light is the presence of darkness. The presence of the witness is the absence of the mind, and the absence of the witness is the presence of the mind. So the moment you start watching, slowly, slowly as your watcher will become stronger your mind will become weaker. The moment it realizes that the watcher has come to maturity, the mind immediately submits as a beautiful servant. It is a mechanism.



If the master has arrived, then the machine can be used. If the master is not there or is fast asleep, then the machine goes on working things, does whatsoever it can on its own. There is nobody to give orders, there is nobody to say, "No, stop.



That should not be done." Then the mind becomes slowly convinced that it is the master itself. And for thousands of years it has remained your master, so when you try to be a witness it fights, because it has completely forgotten that it is only a servant. You have been so long absent that it does not recognize you. Hence the struggle between the witness and the thoughts. But final victory is going to be yours, because nature and existence both want you to be the master and the mind to be the servant. Then things are in harmony. Then the mind cannot go wrong. Then everything is existentially relaxed, silent, flowing towards its destiny.



Prem Niren, you don't have to do anything else but to watch.



Mind has become accustomed to being a master. It will take a little time to bring it to its senses. Witnessing is enough. It is a very silent process, but the consequences are tremendously great. There is no other method which can be better than witnessing as far as dispersing the darkness of the mind is concerned. In fact there are one hundred and twelve methods of meditation; I have gone through all those methods - and not intellectually. It took me years to go through each method and to find out its very essence, and after going through one hundred and twelve methods I was amazed that the essence is witnessing. The methods' non-essentials are different, but the center of each method is witnessing. Hence I can say to you, Niren, there is only one meditation in the whole world and that is the art of witnessing. It will do everything - the whole transformation of your being. It will open the doors of satyam, shivam, sundram: the truth, the godliness and the beauty of it all.

Osho - Satyam Shivam Sundram #22

From:
http://wearebuddhamind.blogspot.com/

Friday, October 16, 2009

Actions are clouds, doings are clouds: the being is like the sky

The first sutra:



AS A CLOUD THAT RISES FROM THE SEA
ABSORBING RAIN, THE EARTH EMBRACES,
SO, LIKE THE SKY, THE SEA REMAINS
WITHOUT INCREASING OR DECREASING.
AS A CLOUD THAT RISES FROM THE SEA
ABSORBING RAIN, THE EARTH EMBRACES,
SO, LIKE THE SKY, THE SEA REMAINS
WITHOUT INCREASING OR DECREASING.





HE IS SAYING to the king: Look at the sky. There are two Phenomena -- the sky and the cloud. The cloud comes and goes. The sky never comes and never goes. The cloud is there sometimes, and sometimes it is not there -- it is a time phenomenon, it is momentary. The sky is always there -- it is a timeless phenomenon, it is eternity. The clouds cannot corrupt it, not even the black clouds can corrupt it. There is no possibility of corrupting it. Its purity is absolute, its purity is untouchable. Its purity is always virgin -- you cannot violate it. Clouds can come and go, and they have been coming and going, but the sky is as pure as ever, not even a trace is left behind.

So there are two things in existence: something is like the sky and something is like the cloud. Your actions are like the cloud -- they come and go. You? -- you are like the sky: you never come and you never go. Your birth, your death, are like the clouds -- they happen. You? -- you never happen; you are always there.


Things happen in you: you never happen.


Things happen just like clouds happen in the sky. You are a silent watcher of the whole play of clouds. Sometimes they are white and beautiful and sometimes they are dark and dismal and very ugly; sometimes they are full of rain and sometimes they are just empty. Sometimes they do great benefit to the earth, sometimes great harm. Sometimes they bring floods and destruction, and sometimes they bring life, more greenery, more crops. BUT the sky remains all the time the same good or bad, divine or devilish, the clouds don't corrupt it.


Actions are clouds, doings are clouds: the being is like the sky.


Saraha is saying: Look at my sky! Don't look at my actions. It needs a shift of awareness -- nothing else, just a shift of awareness. It needs a change of gestalt. You are looking at the cloud, you are focussed on the cloud, you have forgotten the sky. Then suddenly you remember the sky. You unfocus on the cloud, you focus on the sky then the cloud is irrelevant, then you are in a totally different dimension.


Just the shift of focussing... and the world is different. When you watch a person's behavior, you are focussing on the cloud. When you watch the innermost purity of his being, you are watching his sky. If you watch the innermost purity, then you will never see anybody evil, then the whole existence is holy.

The Tantra Vision, Vol 1 Chapter #3 Chapter title: This honey is yours

This honey is yours - only one sky


AS A CLOUD THAT RISES FROM THE SEA
ABSORBING RAIN, THE EARTH EMBRACES,

SO, LIKE THE SKY, THE SEA REMAINS

WITHOUT INCREASING OR DECREASING.

SO FROM SPONTANEITY THAT'S UNIQUE,

REPLETE WITH THE BUDDHA'S PERFECTIONS,

ARE ALL SENTIENT BEINGS BORN, AND IN IT COME

TO REST. BUT IT IS NEITHER CONCRETE NOR ABSTRACT.

THEY WALK OTHER PATHS AND SO FORSAKE TRUE BLISS,

SEEKING THE DELIGHTS THAT STIMULANTS PRODUCE.

THE HONEY IN THEIR MOUTHS, AND TO THEM SO NEAR,

WILL VANISH IF AT ONCE THEY DO NOT DRINK IT.

BEASTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORLD

TO BE A SORRY PLACE. NOT SO THE WISE

WHO THE HEAVENLY NECTAR DRINK

WHILE BEASTS HUNGER FOR THE SENSUAL.








EVERYTHING CHANGES... and Heraclitus is right: you cannot step in  the same river twice. The river is changing, so are you changing too. It is all movement. It is all flux. Everything is impermanent, momentary. Only for a moment it is there, and then gone... and you will never find it again. There is no way to find it again. Once gone it is gone for ever. And nothing changes -- that too is true. Nothing ever changes. All is always the same. Parmeneides is also right; he says: There is nothing new under the sun. How can there be? The sun is old, so is everything. If you ask
Parmeneides, he will say you can step in any river you want -- but you will be stepping in the same river always. Whether it is the Ganges or the Thames does not make any difference. THE WATER IS THE SAME! It is all H20.
And whether you step in the river today or tomorrow, or after millions of years, it will be the same river. And how can you be different? You were a child; you remember it. Then you were a young man; you remember that too. Then you became old; that too you remember. Who is this one who goes on remembering? There must be a non-changing element in you -- unchanging, permanent, absolutely permanent. Childhood comes and goes; so comes youth and is gone, so old age -- but
something remains eternally the same.



Now, let me say to you: Heraclitus and Parmeneides, both are right -- in fact, they both are right together. If Heraclitus is right, it is only half the truth; if Parmeneides is right, that too is only half the truth. And half the truth is not the true thing. They are stating half-truths. The wheel moves and the hub does not move. Parmeneides talks about the hub, Heraclitus talks about the wheel --
but the wheel cannot exist without the hub! And what use is a hub without the wheel? So those two contradictory looking half-truths are not contradictory but complementary. Heraclitus and Parmeneides are not enemies but friends. The other can stand only if the complementary truth is there -- otherwise not.



Meditate on the silent centre of a cyclone....



But the moment you state something, it can at the most be only half the truth. No statement can cover the whole truth. If any statement wants to cover the whole truth, then the statement will have to be of necessity self-contradictory, then it will have to be of necessity illogical. Then the statement will look crazy.



Mahavir did that -- he is the craziest man because he tried to state the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth. He drives you crazy, because each statement is immediately followed by its contradiction. He developed a sevenfold pattern of statements. One is followed by its contradiction, that is followed by its contradiction... so on and so forth. He goes on contradicting
seven times, and only when he has said seven times, seven different things contradictory to each other, then he says now the truth is told perfectly -- but then you don't know what he has said.



If you ask him: "God is?" he will say, "Yes," and he will say, "No," and he will say, "Both," and he will say, "Both not," and so on and so forth he goes.... Finally you don't come to any conclusion; you cannot conclude. He does not give you any chance to conclude. He leaves you hanging in the air.



This is one possibility if you are insistent on saying the truth.
The other possibility is that of Buddha -- he keeps silent, knowing that whatsoever you say will be only half. And half is dangerous. He does not say anything about ultimate truths. He will not say the world is a flux, and he will not say that the world is permanent. He will not say that you are, and he will not say that you are not. The moment you ask anything about the absolute truth, he prohibits. He says, "Please don't ask, because by your question you will put me into trouble. Either I have to be contradictory, which is going crazy; or I have to utter a half-truth, which is not truth and dangerous; or I have to keep quiet." These are the three possibilities: Buddha has chosen to
keep silent.



This is the first thing to be understood about today's sutras, then with this context it will be easy to understand what Saraha is saying.

Osho The Tantra Vision, Vol 1, Chapter #3 Chapter title: This honey is yours

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Enter this moment


Philosophy is not darshan. Darshan is the eastern term. Darshan means perception, philosophy means thinking. Herman Hesse has coined a new word to translate darshan into western languages. He calls it `philosia' -- `sia' from `to see'.

Philosophy means to think, and darshan means to see. Both are basically different; not only different, but diametrically opposite. Because when you are thinking you cannot see. You are so filled with thoughts that perception is blurred, perception is clouded. When thinking ceases, you become capable of seeing. Then your eyes are opened, they become unclouded. Perception happens only when thinking ceases.

For Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and the whole western tradition, thinking is the base. For Kanad, Kapil, Patanjali, Buddha, and the whole eastern tradition, seeing is the base. So Buddha is not a philosopher, not at all; neither is Patanjali, nor Kapil or Kanad. They are not philosophers.

They have seen the truth; they have not thought about it.

Remember well that you only think when you cannot see. If you can see, there is no reason to think.

Thinking is always in ignorance. Thinking is not knowledge, because when you know, there is no need to think. When you don't know, you will the gap by thinking. Thinking is groping in the dark.


So eastern philosophies are not philosophies. To use the word philosophy for eastern darshan is absolutely wrong. Darshan means to see, to attain the eye, to realize, to know -- immediately, directly, without the mediation of thinking and thought.

Thinking can never lead to the unknown. How can it lead? It is impossible. The very process of thinking has to be understood. When you think, what do you really do? You go on repeating old thoughts, memories. If I ask you a question -- does God exist? -- you can think about it. What will you do? All that you have heard, all that you have read, all that you have accumulated about God, you will repeat. Even if you come to a new conclusion, the newness of it will only be apparent, not real. It will be simply a combination of old thoughts. You can combine many old thoughts and create a new structure, but that structure will be apparently new, not new at all.

Thinking can never come to any original truth. Thinking is never original; it cannot be. It is always of the past, of the old, of the known. Thinking cannot touch the unknown; it is repetitively moving in the circle of the known. You don't know truth, you don't know God. What can you do? You can think about it. You will move in circles, around and around. You can never come to any experience of it.

So the eastern emphasis is not on thinking, but on seeing. You cannot think about God, but you can see. You cannot come to any conclusion about God, but you can realize. It can become an experience.


You cannot get to it through information, through knowledge, through scriptures,
through theories and philosophies; no, you cannot get to it. You can get into it only if you throw all knowledge. All that you have heard and read and collected, all the dust that your mind has collected, the whole past, must be put aside.


Then your eyes are fresh, then your consciousness is unclouded, and then you can see it.

It is here and now -- you are clouded. You have not to go somewhere else to find the divine or the truth -- it is here. It is right there where you are. And it has always been so -- only you are clouded, your eyes are closed.


So the question is not to think more; the question is how to come to a nonthinking
consciousness.


That's why I say that meditation and philosophy are anti each other.
Philosophy thinks, meditation comes to a no-thinking consciousness. And eastern philosophies are not really philosophies. In the West, philosophies exist; in the East, only religious realizations.

Of course, when a Buddha happens, or a Kanad or a Patanjali happens, when someone comes to realize the absolute, he makes statements about it. Those statements are different from the Aristotel an statements, from western philosophical conclusions.


The difference is this: a Kanad, a Buddha, first comes to realize -- the realization is the first thing -- and then he makes statements about it.


Experience is primary, and then he expresses it.


Aristotle, Hegel and Kant, they think, and then through thinking and logical argument and dialectics, they reach particular conclusions. These conclusions are reached through thinking, through mind, not through any practice of meditation.

Then they make assertions, then they make statements. The source is different.

For a Buddha, his statements are only as a vehicle to communicate. He never says that through his communication you will achieve the truth. If you can understand Buddha, that doesn't mean you have achieved the truth; that simply means you have gathered knowledge.


You will have to pass through meditations, deep ecstasies, deep pools of the mind, only then will you come to the truth.

So truth is reached through a certain existential experience. It is existential, it is not mental. You must change to know it and to be it. If you remain the same and go on collecting information, you will become a great scholar, a philosopher, but you will not be enlightened. You will remain the same man; there will have been no mutation.

That's why I said that philosophy is one dimension Meditation is quite the contrary, the very opposite, the polar-opposite dimension.


So don't think about life; rather, live it in depth. And don't think about ultimate problems; rather, enter this very moment in the ultimate.


And the ultimate is not in the future. It is always there, timelessly there.

Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Vol 2 - Chapter #12 - Chapter title: Enter this moment

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Bodhidharma's Breakthrough Sermon


Bodhidharma: The Greatest Zen Master
Chapter #15
Chapter title: Breakthrough... to buddhahood
12 July 1987 am in Gautam the Buddha Auditorium
Pag. 196


BODHIDHARMA'S BREAKTHROUGH SERMON.

IF SOMEONE IS DETERMINED TO REACH ENLIGHTENMENT, WHAT IS THE MOST ESSENTIAL METHOD HE CAN PRACTICE?
THE MOST ESSENTIAL METHOD, WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHER METHODS, IS BEHOLDING THE MIND.

BUT HOW CAN ONE METHOD INCLUDE ALL OTHERS?

THE MIND IS THE ROOT FROM WHICH ALL THINGS GROW. IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE MIND, EVERYTHING ELSE IS INCLUDED. IT'S LIKE WITH A TREE. ALL OF ITS FRUIT AND FLOWERS, ITS BRANCHES AND LEAVES, DEPEND ON ITS ROOT. IF YOU NOURISH ITS ROOT, A TREE MULTIPLIES. IF YOU CUT ITS ROOT, IT DIES.


THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE MIND REACH ENLIGHTENMENT WITH MINIMAL EFFORT. THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MIND PRACTICE IN VAIN. EVERYTHING GOOD AND BAD COMES FROM YOUR OWN MIND. TO FIND SOMETHING
BEYOND THE MIND IS IMPOSSIBLE. BUT HOW CAN BEHOLDING THE MIND BE CALLED UNDERSTANDING? WHEN A GREAT BODHISATTVA DELVES DEEPLY INTO PERFECT WISDOM, HE REALIZES ...THE ACTIVITY OF HIS MIND HAS TWO ASPECTS: PURE AND IMPURE ...

THE PURE MIND DELIGHTING IN GOOD DEEDS, THE IMPURE MIND THINKING OF EVIL. THOSE WHO AREN'T AFFECTED BY IMPURITY ARE SAGES. THEY TRANSCEND SUFFERING AND EXPERIENCE THE BLISS OF NIRVANA. ALL OTHERS, TRAPPED BY
THE IMPURE MIND AND ENTANGLED BY THEIR OWN KARMA, ARE MORTALS. THEY DRIFT THROUGH THE THREE REALMS AND SUFFER COUNTLESS AFFLICTIONS. AND ALL BECAUSE THEIR IMPURE MIND OBSCURES THEIR REAL SELF.


THE SUTRA OF THE TEN STAGES SAYS, "IN THE BODY OF MORTALS IS THE INDESTRUCTIBLE BUDDHA-NATURE. LIKE THE SUN, ITS LIGHT FILLS ENDLESS SPACE. BUT ONCE VEILED BY THE DARK CLOUDS OF THE FIVE SHADES, IT'S LIKE A LIGHT INSIDE A JAR, HIDDEN FROM VIEW." AND THE NIRVANA SUTRA SAYS, "ALL MORTALS HAVE THE BUDDHANATURE. BUT IT'S COVERED BY DARKNESS FROM WHICH THEY CAN'T ESCAPE.


OUR BUDDHA-NATURE IS AWARENESS: TO BE AWARE AND TO MAKE OTHERS AWARE. TO REALIZE AWARENESS IS LIBERATION." EVERYTHING GOOD HAS AWARENESS FOR ITS ROOT. FROM THIS ROOT OF AWARENESS GROW THE TREE OF ALL VIRTUES AND THE FRUIT OF NIRVANA.


Pag. 196