Osho A Sudden Osho Clash of Thunder The master laughed he said "I became aware of one thing: your presence. The very idea that somebody is there to appreciate or to condemn, to say no or yes, disturbed my inner tranquility. Now I will never be disturbed. I have come to know that I was trying to make it perfect and that was the only reason for its not being perfect Osho A Sudden Osho Clash of Thunder
Friday, October 16, 2009
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
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