It was the day after India's Independence Day. A thoughtful Tony Blair who had watched the celebrations on TV got onto the phone with his
friend Bush:
"India!" shouted Blair.
"What about India?" asked a startled Bush.
"We English made a mistake George," said Blair, "I need to get India back as a colony!"
"You serious Tony?" asked a still more startled Bush.
"Yeah this is not the India we let go some sixty years ago," said Blair, "this is a colony we would be proud to have now."
"So whatcha plannin' to do?" asked Bush.
"Why George what we did to Saddam. Attack them."
"You sayin' we? You not hoping I'm goin' to join you are you?"
"I helped you in Iraq George, you forgettin' or sometin'?"
"Yeah but we had an excuse there Tony, we were lookin' for weapons of mass destruction, you remember?"
"So we do the same thing here George. We tell the Indians to give up their weapons of mass destruction!"
"I don't know whether we are doing the right thing Tony, India is a democracy you know?"
"I lied for you in Iraq George. Nearly lost the elections for you. I'm sure you could do this lil' favour for me.. With India back as my colony, we'll be back as a world power! Britain rules the world! You heard that phrase George?"
"I thought it was America who was doing the ruling Tony."
"We'll do the rulin' together George. You and me will be equal partners once I get my India back. Come on George talk to that Manmohan feller, tell him to give up his weapons of mass destruction,
or else..!"
"Okay Tony since you insist. Can you call me back in five minutes."
"Shall I get my ships ready?"
"For what?" asked a surprised Bush.
"For war dammit," shouted Tony as he put the phone down and waited for Bush to talk to the Indian Prime Minister. He walked over to a little
globe he had on his office table and circled India gleefully.
The phone rang and he ran to pick it up.
"Tony it is me," said George, "how many ships you got ready?"
"Aye aye sir, the Royal Navy is ready for action!" said Tony, standing at attention.
"You can send them to India," said Bush.
"To fight?" asked Blair happily.
"No to pick up their weapons of mass destruction."
"Whatcha talkin' about?" asked a confused Blair.
"Manmohan said you would know 'cause it is your people who made them," said Bush.
"What weapons of mass destruction?" whispered Blair uncertainly.
"Their politicians, their MPs, their MLAs," said Bush happily, "Manmohan said you could take them all back to England where they were
trained years ago by your people to divide and rule..!"
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Sex of the Soul and the Man-Woman Inequality.
The soul is bisexual and brahmacharya is about bisexuality and should be taken up by those who are above the limitations of being a male/female.
“When you think about a subject, you think you know ‘100 %' about it. When you talk about it in front of your ‘dog’, you actually speak out ‘150 %’ on it. When you discuss it in the right forum, you end up realizing ‘200-1000 %’ about it. The power of an open debate! ” [The Bengalis love to do it all the time implying that all souls interested in debating are born in a Bengali family, on this side of the world; the rest I do not know and although I like it too, I am not a Bengali and I am probably a misfit! (Pun intended on my Bengali friends)]
I discovered the role of sex in the moulding of a soul for a lifetime, in 3 different discussions:
1. [2000-2005] - Atheetha Ashram with MA & a 60 year old lady lecturer from Calcutta Univ., who retreats to this ashram every year once: She had so much of this man-woman inequality in her discussion that I thought she was a victim of men’s domination in her life. The men in her surroundings seemed to have had an adverse effect on her. She had spent 60 years in this state of mind, believing this to be true and being confined and reserved by this idea. MA tried explaining holistically, but I butted in – “It is not about being a man or a woman. The soul does not have any sex, but once it wears the male/female body, it takes up the attributes of that body and believes to be limited by those attributes. Those souls, who realize this fact, rise above that reality and irrespective of whether they are men/women, they exercise their strengths in totality, rising above the man-woman stereotypes and the boundaries set by the society. There is no man-woman inequality to such souls & none is inferior to the other. It is about how to use that body for that lifetime and all the excess baggage that comes with it!” (It dawned on me that I believed in this ideology which I probably had picked up from GDs or books, but I like to believe it this way, whether it is right or wrong, until it can be proven otherwise). The lady was still confused and was probably too old to believe in this ideology and wipe out ‘her opinion’ of 60-years which was probably moulded into her memory for this lifetime. And that is why one has to keep on moving on the journey, keeping the learning and forgetting the experiences.
2. [2000-2003]-With MP in a chat: I was telling her- “I have all the experiences as a man for 27 years and behave according to my 27 years of learning as a man, but I do not know what it means to be woman even for a single day. Similarly, she had all the experiences of being a woman of 24 years and that she behaved as per her experiences of this lifetime, without knowing how a man thinks or behaves. This is where the soul is confined and made to believe that it is male or female and that it has to act accordingly. Now for a day, if we were to exchange bodies, I would still act like a man in a woman’s body and she would act like a woman although in a man’s body. All the knowledge of this lifetime has to be unlearned to behave like a male or female should.” And that is why a ‘Reset’ is required after every lifetime. [I understand more of what I 'just' said then, now]
3. 2008- With RK, PVK & PJ: Don’t recall how the topic came up, but there was a debate on our beliefs in a man-woman relationship, wherein RK was being the provocative PITA that he can be and was trying to lead the discussion in a particular direction… Again, I tried summarizing my understanding on the topic-“According to Osho, the 4 primary aspects of a man and woman are present in every person. They are: <1> Physical aspect, <2> Emotional Aspect, <3> Mental Aspect & <4> Spiritual Aspect. There are more aspects/bodies to an individual, but these primarily define the personality. A man is strong in aspects 1 & 3, by default [Generally, a man can be physically (very obvious) & logically (more from the egoistic perspective) dominating]. Similarly, by nature, a woman is strong in aspects 2 & 4 [Generally, a woman can be emotionally (very obvious) and spiritually (slightly complex; needs further explanation) dominating. Women tend to believe or have unquestioned faith in God (matters of heart), whereas for a man, it needs to be proven first (logically/mentally)]. On their own, a man or a woman are incomplete in at least 2 of these aspects. Their union through marriage or a relationship completes/supplements the lack of the respective aspects within him/her. As a couple, the man learns to exercise his emotions or belief/faith through his woman and similarly, a woman learns to exercise her (weakness/lack of) masculinity & ego through her man. Here, the souls moulded by the type of body for a lifetime realize the completion of nature through the ‘other’ type. When a soul, irrespective, of what body it wears after experiencing both the male and female natures, does not require the other type to fulfill its nature, it is ready for Brahmacharya or Celibacy. On the contrary, as long as the soul in a particular body type needs another type to fulfill itself, it should not take up Celibacy! Further, at a later stage in life, after experiencing the other aspects through one’s partner, the individual actually can become stronger in his/her inherent/initial weaker aspects – Reversal of Roles” RK seemed to be convinced and I believe in this, as long as it can be proved wrong (my aspect # 3).
To summarize, the souls who have experienced both natures – male/masculine and female/ feminine, tend to rise above the limitations of being a man or a woman and still achieve what the total personality (all 4 aspects included) believes in or are driven towards! These are complete, mature & wise ‘human’ souls!
And we want to address the eternal “man-woman” inequality…the hypocrisy of our civilization! Shouldn’t we know better?
“When you think about a subject, you think you know ‘100 %' about it. When you talk about it in front of your ‘dog’, you actually speak out ‘150 %’ on it. When you discuss it in the right forum, you end up realizing ‘200-1000 %’ about it. The power of an open debate! ” [The Bengalis love to do it all the time implying that all souls interested in debating are born in a Bengali family, on this side of the world; the rest I do not know and although I like it too, I am not a Bengali and I am probably a misfit! (Pun intended on my Bengali friends)]
I discovered the role of sex in the moulding of a soul for a lifetime, in 3 different discussions:
1. [2000-2005] - Atheetha Ashram with MA & a 60 year old lady lecturer from Calcutta Univ., who retreats to this ashram every year once: She had so much of this man-woman inequality in her discussion that I thought she was a victim of men’s domination in her life. The men in her surroundings seemed to have had an adverse effect on her. She had spent 60 years in this state of mind, believing this to be true and being confined and reserved by this idea. MA tried explaining holistically, but I butted in – “It is not about being a man or a woman. The soul does not have any sex, but once it wears the male/female body, it takes up the attributes of that body and believes to be limited by those attributes. Those souls, who realize this fact, rise above that reality and irrespective of whether they are men/women, they exercise their strengths in totality, rising above the man-woman stereotypes and the boundaries set by the society. There is no man-woman inequality to such souls & none is inferior to the other. It is about how to use that body for that lifetime and all the excess baggage that comes with it!” (It dawned on me that I believed in this ideology which I probably had picked up from GDs or books, but I like to believe it this way, whether it is right or wrong, until it can be proven otherwise). The lady was still confused and was probably too old to believe in this ideology and wipe out ‘her opinion’ of 60-years which was probably moulded into her memory for this lifetime. And that is why one has to keep on moving on the journey, keeping the learning and forgetting the experiences.
2. [2000-2003]-With MP in a chat: I was telling her- “I have all the experiences as a man for 27 years and behave according to my 27 years of learning as a man, but I do not know what it means to be woman even for a single day. Similarly, she had all the experiences of being a woman of 24 years and that she behaved as per her experiences of this lifetime, without knowing how a man thinks or behaves. This is where the soul is confined and made to believe that it is male or female and that it has to act accordingly. Now for a day, if we were to exchange bodies, I would still act like a man in a woman’s body and she would act like a woman although in a man’s body. All the knowledge of this lifetime has to be unlearned to behave like a male or female should.” And that is why a ‘Reset’ is required after every lifetime. [I understand more of what I 'just' said then, now]
3. 2008- With RK, PVK & PJ: Don’t recall how the topic came up, but there was a debate on our beliefs in a man-woman relationship, wherein RK was being the provocative PITA that he can be and was trying to lead the discussion in a particular direction… Again, I tried summarizing my understanding on the topic-“According to Osho, the 4 primary aspects of a man and woman are present in every person. They are: <1> Physical aspect, <2> Emotional Aspect, <3> Mental Aspect & <4> Spiritual Aspect. There are more aspects/bodies to an individual, but these primarily define the personality. A man is strong in aspects 1 & 3, by default [Generally, a man can be physically (very obvious) & logically (more from the egoistic perspective) dominating]. Similarly, by nature, a woman is strong in aspects 2 & 4 [Generally, a woman can be emotionally (very obvious) and spiritually (slightly complex; needs further explanation) dominating. Women tend to believe or have unquestioned faith in God (matters of heart), whereas for a man, it needs to be proven first (logically/mentally)]. On their own, a man or a woman are incomplete in at least 2 of these aspects. Their union through marriage or a relationship completes/supplements the lack of the respective aspects within him/her. As a couple, the man learns to exercise his emotions or belief/faith through his woman and similarly, a woman learns to exercise her (weakness/lack of) masculinity & ego through her man. Here, the souls moulded by the type of body for a lifetime realize the completion of nature through the ‘other’ type. When a soul, irrespective, of what body it wears after experiencing both the male and female natures, does not require the other type to fulfill its nature, it is ready for Brahmacharya or Celibacy. On the contrary, as long as the soul in a particular body type needs another type to fulfill itself, it should not take up Celibacy! Further, at a later stage in life, after experiencing the other aspects through one’s partner, the individual actually can become stronger in his/her inherent/initial weaker aspects – Reversal of Roles” RK seemed to be convinced and I believe in this, as long as it can be proved wrong (my aspect # 3).
To summarize, the souls who have experienced both natures – male/masculine and female/ feminine, tend to rise above the limitations of being a man or a woman and still achieve what the total personality (all 4 aspects included) believes in or are driven towards! These are complete, mature & wise ‘human’ souls!
And we want to address the eternal “man-woman” inequality…the hypocrisy of our civilization! Shouldn’t we know better?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Beyond the Ego: Pity & Compassion.
Pity and Compassion seem to be synonymous in the dictionary, and we are also usually found to be using both words in the same way. Pity is circumstantial, and compassion is the outcome of a psychological state. They are fundamentally different.
Compassion means coming from within the heart of the person, having nothing to do with the outer circumstances. Compassion will go on emanating from the heart of a compassionate person even if he is sitting alone. It is like a flower blossoming in solitude; it will go on spreading its fragrance. It has nothing to do with any passerby. The fragrance of a flower is not concerned whether somebody is pasing by or not. Even if nobody passes by, the fragrance will still permeate that solitary space. If somebody happens to pass by and is enchanted with the fragrance, that is a different matter, but the flower has not blossomed for that person.
Inner consciousness is the fountainhead of compassion. Compassion arises from it like a fragrance. Hence it wrong to call Buddha or Mahavira 'full of pity'. They are full of compassion; they are supremely compassionate.
Pity is born in those who don't have compassion in their hearts. Pity is born under the pressure of circumstances. Compassion is born out of the evolution of the heart. What arises in you when you see a beggar on the streets is pity; it is not compassion.
It is good to understand one more point here: Pity strengthens the Ego whereas Compassion dissolves it. Compassion arises only in those who have become egoless. Pity is a means of nourishing the ego. It is a good means, used by good people, but all the same, it is used to nourish the ego. If you search deep inside yourself in those moments when you are giving something to somebody - when pity arises in you upon seeing a beggar, when you get pleasure from being a giver, from being in the position of being a giver - you will hear the murmuring voice of your ego.
A compassionate person doesnot want there to be a single beggar on the face of the Earth, but a man of pity wants beggars to exist, otherwise he will be in difficulty. Societies based on the concept of pity dont eradicte begging, they nourish it. If a compasisonate society can be created, it wont be able to tolerate begging - it shouldnt exist!
The ego can sacrifice itself. The ultimate act of the ego is 'Martyrdom'. And often the ego becomes a martyr - but in its martyrdom it only strengthens itself.
Pity only enhances the ego; pity is also an act of the ego. Pity is the act of a good man's ego and cruelty is the act of a bad man's ego.
Remember, the ego strengthens itself with bad acts as well as with good acts. And it often happens that only when the ego has had no opportunity to strengthen itself with good acts that it tries to nourish itself with bad acts. Hence, there is no basic difference between those whom we call "good people" and those whom we call "bad people". Both good and bad people are tethered to the same axis called the ego. The only difference between them is that the bad person will hurt others to fufill his ego and the good person will hurt himself to fulfill his ego. But as far as hurting is concerned, there is no difference between the two.
If we use the language of today's psychology, a bad guy is a sadist, and a good guy, while fulfilling his ego, becomes a masochist(Masoch was a man who used to beat and torture himself).
All those people who hurt themselves can become "good people" very quickly. If I starve you, I will be called a bad guy. The law and the court can arrest me. But if I go on a fast, no court or law can arrest me. On the contrary, you will turn me into a hero. But if starving the other is a crime, how can it become a good deed if I starve myself - just because the other body belongs to you and this body belongs to me? If I make you stand naked and whip you or make you sleep on a bed of thorns, it will be a crime, but if I do all these things to myself, how does it become ascetism? How does just a change of direction, the arrow pointing towards myself instead of towards the other, make something religious?
And remember, one's ego is not fulfilled as much by killing the other as it is by killing oneself - because the other can still show his defiance before dying and spit in the killer's face. But when someone kills himself, he is helpless, unprotected, unable to respond. Killing the other is never complete; that person can survive even in his death. His eyes may proclaim, "you may kill me but I am not defeated!" But while killing oneself there is no escape. The joy of defeat is utterly complete!
Compassion means coming from within the heart of the person, having nothing to do with the outer circumstances. Compassion will go on emanating from the heart of a compassionate person even if he is sitting alone. It is like a flower blossoming in solitude; it will go on spreading its fragrance. It has nothing to do with any passerby. The fragrance of a flower is not concerned whether somebody is pasing by or not. Even if nobody passes by, the fragrance will still permeate that solitary space. If somebody happens to pass by and is enchanted with the fragrance, that is a different matter, but the flower has not blossomed for that person.
Inner consciousness is the fountainhead of compassion. Compassion arises from it like a fragrance. Hence it wrong to call Buddha or Mahavira 'full of pity'. They are full of compassion; they are supremely compassionate.
Pity is born in those who don't have compassion in their hearts. Pity is born under the pressure of circumstances. Compassion is born out of the evolution of the heart. What arises in you when you see a beggar on the streets is pity; it is not compassion.
It is good to understand one more point here: Pity strengthens the Ego whereas Compassion dissolves it. Compassion arises only in those who have become egoless. Pity is a means of nourishing the ego. It is a good means, used by good people, but all the same, it is used to nourish the ego. If you search deep inside yourself in those moments when you are giving something to somebody - when pity arises in you upon seeing a beggar, when you get pleasure from being a giver, from being in the position of being a giver - you will hear the murmuring voice of your ego.
A compassionate person doesnot want there to be a single beggar on the face of the Earth, but a man of pity wants beggars to exist, otherwise he will be in difficulty. Societies based on the concept of pity dont eradicte begging, they nourish it. If a compasisonate society can be created, it wont be able to tolerate begging - it shouldnt exist!
The ego can sacrifice itself. The ultimate act of the ego is 'Martyrdom'. And often the ego becomes a martyr - but in its martyrdom it only strengthens itself.
Pity only enhances the ego; pity is also an act of the ego. Pity is the act of a good man's ego and cruelty is the act of a bad man's ego.
Remember, the ego strengthens itself with bad acts as well as with good acts. And it often happens that only when the ego has had no opportunity to strengthen itself with good acts that it tries to nourish itself with bad acts. Hence, there is no basic difference between those whom we call "good people" and those whom we call "bad people". Both good and bad people are tethered to the same axis called the ego. The only difference between them is that the bad person will hurt others to fufill his ego and the good person will hurt himself to fulfill his ego. But as far as hurting is concerned, there is no difference between the two.
If we use the language of today's psychology, a bad guy is a sadist, and a good guy, while fulfilling his ego, becomes a masochist(Masoch was a man who used to beat and torture himself).
All those people who hurt themselves can become "good people" very quickly. If I starve you, I will be called a bad guy. The law and the court can arrest me. But if I go on a fast, no court or law can arrest me. On the contrary, you will turn me into a hero. But if starving the other is a crime, how can it become a good deed if I starve myself - just because the other body belongs to you and this body belongs to me? If I make you stand naked and whip you or make you sleep on a bed of thorns, it will be a crime, but if I do all these things to myself, how does it become ascetism? How does just a change of direction, the arrow pointing towards myself instead of towards the other, make something religious?
And remember, one's ego is not fulfilled as much by killing the other as it is by killing oneself - because the other can still show his defiance before dying and spit in the killer's face. But when someone kills himself, he is helpless, unprotected, unable to respond. Killing the other is never complete; that person can survive even in his death. His eyes may proclaim, "you may kill me but I am not defeated!" But while killing oneself there is no escape. The joy of defeat is utterly complete!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Dimensions of Existence.
I know that I exist in -
3 dimensions of Space
1 dimension of Time.
What about the following?
5 Timebound Senses - Sight, Audio, Taste , Smell & Feel.
3 Timeless Senses - Mind, Heart & Soul.
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed." Energy exists as matter and energy.
Matter can be defined by the 3 dimensions of space and it's nature is bound by Time.
Energy can be defined by the 5 Timebound senses and the 3 Timeless senses.
As a matter of 100 Kgs, I occupy Space and vary with Time. I also experience the 5 senses at the same time, while existing as matter and converting one form of sensual energy into another, over a span of time. My 3-D coordinates do not change but I am transforming the physical energies. Aren't these additional dimensions through which I am experiencing existence?
What are multiple dimensions? Aren't they ways of defining the current state of existence in as many simultaneous ways of consciousness as possible? If I am able to acknowledge my existence using any one of these senses, isn't it a dimension in itself? If this is true, then the 5 Timebound senses are additional dimensions to my existence.
3 Timeless Dimensions:
1. Mind: An entity with consciousness and unconsciousness. As long as it is conscious, it is time-bound and varies with time. If it is unconscious/subconscious, it is not bound by time (E.g., Meditation, Coma, Dream).
2. Heart: An entity which senses emotions in all its shades. All shades except Love are time-bound whereas Love is Timeless.
Validation: "I lose track of Time when I am in Meditation or in Love. Time stands Still!"
3. Soul: An entity which doesn't change with Time, but which experiences itself through various transformations of external energies through Time. The more I operate from the Soul's seat, the lesser I am Time-stamped!
[Trying to identify the 10 + 1 dimensions of the String Theory...a wanton exercise!]
3 dimensions of Space
1 dimension of Time.
What about the following?
5 Timebound Senses - Sight, Audio, Taste , Smell & Feel.
3 Timeless Senses - Mind, Heart & Soul.
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed." Energy exists as matter and energy.
Matter can be defined by the 3 dimensions of space and it's nature is bound by Time.
Energy can be defined by the 5 Timebound senses and the 3 Timeless senses.
As a matter of 100 Kgs, I occupy Space and vary with Time. I also experience the 5 senses at the same time, while existing as matter and converting one form of sensual energy into another, over a span of time. My 3-D coordinates do not change but I am transforming the physical energies. Aren't these additional dimensions through which I am experiencing existence?
What are multiple dimensions? Aren't they ways of defining the current state of existence in as many simultaneous ways of consciousness as possible? If I am able to acknowledge my existence using any one of these senses, isn't it a dimension in itself? If this is true, then the 5 Timebound senses are additional dimensions to my existence.
3 Timeless Dimensions:
1. Mind: An entity with consciousness and unconsciousness. As long as it is conscious, it is time-bound and varies with time. If it is unconscious/subconscious, it is not bound by time (E.g., Meditation, Coma, Dream).
2. Heart: An entity which senses emotions in all its shades. All shades except Love are time-bound whereas Love is Timeless.
Validation: "I lose track of Time when I am in Meditation or in Love. Time stands Still!"
3. Soul: An entity which doesn't change with Time, but which experiences itself through various transformations of external energies through Time. The more I operate from the Soul's seat, the lesser I am Time-stamped!
[Trying to identify the 10 + 1 dimensions of the String Theory...a wanton exercise!]
Friday, April 2, 2010
Analysis of Suicide.
"When Anguish goes around in circles, when it revolves within itself, only then it is suicidal and irreligious. It is very interesting that a person with suicidal temperament reaches a point where he has to to transform his very soul or he has to commit suicide. One thing becomes certain: the old way of being will no longer do. Because of this fact one could also say that suicide is religious - but that again would be a half-truth.
Anguish in itself is neither irreligious nor religious. If anguish closes the person up, then it becomes suicidal, but if it keeps the person flowing, then it will become self-transforming.
There are 2 alternatives facing the person who has reached the point of committing suicide. Either he kills himself, which will be absolutely irreligious, or he transforms himself - which is the profounder alchemy of killing oneself, and which will be religious.
Buddha and Mahavira both arrived at a point where they either committed suicide or they were transformed."
Anguish in itself is neither irreligious nor religious. If anguish closes the person up, then it becomes suicidal, but if it keeps the person flowing, then it will become self-transforming.
There are 2 alternatives facing the person who has reached the point of committing suicide. Either he kills himself, which will be absolutely irreligious, or he transforms himself - which is the profounder alchemy of killing oneself, and which will be religious.
Buddha and Mahavira both arrived at a point where they either committed suicide or they were transformed."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Belief And Trust.
Q> Since Man is confronted again and again with inner dilemmas, what should be the basis for overcoming them? How can we turn this state of inner dilemma into growth? And what should be the main and fundamental factor before us when we are finding a resolution to an inner dilemma?
Osho>
To pass through a state of inner conflict is a real discipline for self growth. To go patiently through a state of inner conflict is real asceticism, and only by facing this dilemma one can transcend it.
One way is to make a hasty decision, a hasty resolution – and man uses many routes to arrive at such a decision. If he catches hold of some scripture, decision, the answer, is immediately there. The scripture will tell him in a very definitive language to do such and such a thing and to have faith in it. But one who arrives at a decision by resorting to the scriptures denies himself the status of being human. He had an opportunity to evolve, but he rejected it. Or one can catch hold of some teacher, some guru. But whoever does so is losing the opportunity to grow. There was a crisis, life left him to go through it alone, unaided – but he saved himself from the inconvenience. He carried on without passing through the crisis. Had the gold gone through the fire it would have emerged shining. But that person never passed through the fire. Instead, he sheltered behind a guru. Naturally, the gold did not purify itself.
Live the dilemma, go through the heat and suffering of it, die and be consumed by it, experience it. Don’t run away from its fire, because what is manifesting as fire will burn away all the dirt, all the rubbish, and the pure gold will remain.
Pass through the dilemma; understand it is human destiny. You will have to go through it; live it. Don’t hurry. Don’t make a hasty decision. Yes, if you pas through it, the decision will come. Pass through it and the trust will emerge by itself – you will not have to get it from somewhere.
A trust brought in from the outside is of no value. The very fact that the trust had to be brought in shows that the mind was not yet ready for it, it has been prematurely brought in. A trust that has to be enforced only means that behind it, there exists same mind full of conflict. This conflict will remain alive beneath the outer layer of this trust. And although this kind of trust may work superficially, it will be of no help at a critical time.
There is a great difference between belief and trust. Belief is that which we impose upon ourselves without resolving the doubt, while trust is the outcome of the doubt falling away. Trust is a destination by journeying through doubt. Beliefs are blind supports that we clutch at out of our fear of doubt.
Hence I would say: live the dilemma, live it with intensity. If you live it mildly, it will take a long time. If you put the gold into slow fire, it can take lifetimes for it to shine to its purity. Live intensely!
Dilemma is the essential way in which man is tested, and from facing this dilemma, his worthiness to attain to godliness is born. So live! Don’t escape; don’t look for consolations. Just realize that this is the destiny: dilemma is your destiny. Fight it; enter into the dilemma with intensity.
What will be the outcome of this? The outcome will be 2 fold. As soon as a person agrees to go completely into his inner conflict, a third point emerges within that person – a third power besides the other two is born in him. As soon as a person agrees to live through his inner conflict, 3 things instead of just 2, start functioning in him. This 3rd force- which takes the decision to live through the dilemma – is outside of it, is uninvolved in it.
The one who discovers this 3rd force within himself also becomes immediately capable of seeing it in the whole universe. You are only looking at the dilemma, without realizing that the one who sees it, the one who knows it, cannot be a part of the dilemma but will always be outside it.
When the 2 are fighting inside you and you become aware of this, you are inevitably separate from the 2 – otherwise how could you be watching them? Had you been associated with either one of the 2, you would have become identified with that 1 and separate from the other.
Inner conflict is there because the 3rd one is also present – watching, saying that a big conflict is taking place in the mind. Sometimes the mind says this and sometimes it says that – but who is the one who is mentioning this conflict?
Enter the conflict and go on recognizing, becoming acquainted with this 3rd one. As you enter into the conflict, gradually you will begin to see this 3rd one, the witness. And the day this witness is seen, conflicts will begin to fade away. The reason why there is conflict is because this 3rd one is not seen. As soon as it is seen, synthesis begins.
This 3rd one is within everyone as well as without, but unless it is first seen inside, it cannot be seen on the outside. Once it is seen inside, then nothing but this 3rd one begins to be seen on the outside as well.
Osho>
To pass through a state of inner conflict is a real discipline for self growth. To go patiently through a state of inner conflict is real asceticism, and only by facing this dilemma one can transcend it.
One way is to make a hasty decision, a hasty resolution – and man uses many routes to arrive at such a decision. If he catches hold of some scripture, decision, the answer, is immediately there. The scripture will tell him in a very definitive language to do such and such a thing and to have faith in it. But one who arrives at a decision by resorting to the scriptures denies himself the status of being human. He had an opportunity to evolve, but he rejected it. Or one can catch hold of some teacher, some guru. But whoever does so is losing the opportunity to grow. There was a crisis, life left him to go through it alone, unaided – but he saved himself from the inconvenience. He carried on without passing through the crisis. Had the gold gone through the fire it would have emerged shining. But that person never passed through the fire. Instead, he sheltered behind a guru. Naturally, the gold did not purify itself.
Live the dilemma, go through the heat and suffering of it, die and be consumed by it, experience it. Don’t run away from its fire, because what is manifesting as fire will burn away all the dirt, all the rubbish, and the pure gold will remain.
Pass through the dilemma; understand it is human destiny. You will have to go through it; live it. Don’t hurry. Don’t make a hasty decision. Yes, if you pas through it, the decision will come. Pass through it and the trust will emerge by itself – you will not have to get it from somewhere.
A trust brought in from the outside is of no value. The very fact that the trust had to be brought in shows that the mind was not yet ready for it, it has been prematurely brought in. A trust that has to be enforced only means that behind it, there exists same mind full of conflict. This conflict will remain alive beneath the outer layer of this trust. And although this kind of trust may work superficially, it will be of no help at a critical time.
There is a great difference between belief and trust. Belief is that which we impose upon ourselves without resolving the doubt, while trust is the outcome of the doubt falling away. Trust is a destination by journeying through doubt. Beliefs are blind supports that we clutch at out of our fear of doubt.
Hence I would say: live the dilemma, live it with intensity. If you live it mildly, it will take a long time. If you put the gold into slow fire, it can take lifetimes for it to shine to its purity. Live intensely!
Dilemma is the essential way in which man is tested, and from facing this dilemma, his worthiness to attain to godliness is born. So live! Don’t escape; don’t look for consolations. Just realize that this is the destiny: dilemma is your destiny. Fight it; enter into the dilemma with intensity.
What will be the outcome of this? The outcome will be 2 fold. As soon as a person agrees to go completely into his inner conflict, a third point emerges within that person – a third power besides the other two is born in him. As soon as a person agrees to live through his inner conflict, 3 things instead of just 2, start functioning in him. This 3rd force- which takes the decision to live through the dilemma – is outside of it, is uninvolved in it.
The one who discovers this 3rd force within himself also becomes immediately capable of seeing it in the whole universe. You are only looking at the dilemma, without realizing that the one who sees it, the one who knows it, cannot be a part of the dilemma but will always be outside it.
When the 2 are fighting inside you and you become aware of this, you are inevitably separate from the 2 – otherwise how could you be watching them? Had you been associated with either one of the 2, you would have become identified with that 1 and separate from the other.
Inner conflict is there because the 3rd one is also present – watching, saying that a big conflict is taking place in the mind. Sometimes the mind says this and sometimes it says that – but who is the one who is mentioning this conflict?
Enter the conflict and go on recognizing, becoming acquainted with this 3rd one. As you enter into the conflict, gradually you will begin to see this 3rd one, the witness. And the day this witness is seen, conflicts will begin to fade away. The reason why there is conflict is because this 3rd one is not seen. As soon as it is seen, synthesis begins.
This 3rd one is within everyone as well as without, but unless it is first seen inside, it cannot be seen on the outside. Once it is seen inside, then nothing but this 3rd one begins to be seen on the outside as well.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Roots of Violence.
It is worth understanding that the more violent a mind is, the more full of attachment it is.Violence and attachment live together, side by side. A nonviolent mind transcends attachment. In fact, one who wants to become nonviolent has to let go of the very idea of attachment. The very sense of "mine" is violence, because as soon as I say "mine", I have begun to separate myself from that which is not mine. As soon as I address someone as a friend, I have begun to make someone else my enemy. As soon as I draw a line around those who are mine, I have also drawn a line around those who are strangers to me. All violence is an outcome of the boundary created between those who are "mine" and those who are outsiders, not "mine".
It is often surprising that we are often only able to see into the depths of our minds during moments of crisis. We do not see the depths in ordinary moments. It is only during extraordinary moments that what is hidden in the deepest part of us begins to manifest.
A death occurs in the neighborhood, but it does not touch people's hearts. People simply say," The poor man died." We are unable to brush it away like this when it occurs in our own homes. Thus it affects us, because when a death occurs in our homes, when one of "our own" dies, we also die, a part of ourselves dies. We had an investment in this person who has died, we used to get something from this person's life. This person was occupying a certain corner of our hearts.
So when a wife dies it is not just the wife who dies. Something in the husband dies too. The truth is that the husband came into being when the wife came into being. Before that there was not a husband or a wife. When a son dies, something in the mother also dies - because the woman only became a mother at the birth of her son. With the birth of a child , the mother is also born, and at the death of a child, the mother also dies. We are connected with the one we call ours. When he or she dies, we also die.
Our "I" is nothing but a sum total of what we call "our own people." What we call "I" is the name for all the accumulations of "mine". If all those who are "mine" are to leave, then I will be no more, then I cannot remain. This "I" of mine is attached partly to my father, partly to my mother, partly to my son, partly to my friend...to all of these people.
What is even more surprising is that this "I" is not only attached to those whom we call our own, but it is also attached to those whom we consider outsiders or "not-mine". Although this attachment is outside our circle, nonetheless it is there. Hence, when my enemy dies, I also die a little,since I will not be exactly the same as I was while my enemy was alive. Even my enemy has been contributing somthing to my life. He was my enemy. He may have been an enemy but he was my enemy. My "I" was related to him too: without him I will be incomplete.
Whatsoever we accumulate is less for ourselves than it is for those whom we call "our very own." The house that we build is less for ourselves than it is for those "very own" - for those "very one" who will live in it, for those "very own" who will admire and praise it - and also for those "very own" and "others" who will become full of envy and burn with jealousy. Even if the most beautiful mansion on the Earth is mine but none of "my very own people" are around to see it - either as friends or as enemies - I will suddenly find that the mansion is worth less than a hut. This is because the mansion is only a facade: in reality it is simply a means to impress " our very own" and those who are not our very own. If no one is around, whom will I impress?
The clothes you wear are intended to dazzle others' eyes than to cover your own body. Everything becomes meaningless when you are all alone. You ascend throne less for any pleasure that you may get from ascending - no one has ever attained any bliss from merely sitting on a throne- rather than for the sake of all the charisma that your are able to generate amongst "your very own" and "others" by being on it. You may remain sitting on the throne, but if all the people around it disappear, you will suddenly find that sitting on it has become ludicrous. You will get down from it and perhaps never sit on it again.
Victory is never desired for the sake of victory.THe real interest in victory is because of the ego-fulfillment that it brings to one amongst "one's very own" as well as amongst strangers or those who are not one's very own. "I may gain the whole empire, but what is the point?" It will have no meaning at all.
"Mine-ness" is nothing but violence. It is a deeper violence; it is not seen. The moment I call someone "mine", possession has begun. Possessiveness is a form of violence. The husband calls his wife "mine"; possession has begun. The wife calls her husband "mine"; possession has begun. But whenever we become a person's owner, right there and then we damn that person's soul. We have just killed that person; we have destroyed that person the moment the moment we claim ownership over him or her.
In fact, by owning a person we are treating them not as an individual but as an object. Then a wife becomes "mine" in the same way that a house is mine. Naturally, wherever there is a realtionship of "mine", love is not the outcome. What manifests is only conflict.
This is why in this world as long as a husband and wife or a father and son keep claiming their ownership over each other, only conflict can happen between them - never friendship. The assertion of such ownership is the cause of the friendship's destruction. Such an assertion of ownership puts everything awry; everything becomes violent.
Whenever there is an asertion of ownership, only hatred is created; and where there hatred, violence is bound to follow. That is why all our relationships have become relationships of violence. Our families have come to be nothing but relationships of violence.
If someone is talking in terms of "I" and in favour of nonviolence, then know that his nonviolence is phony - because the flower of nonviolence never blossoms in the soil of "I" and "mine". A life of nonviolence never evolves from the basis of "mine"
- "War & Peace" by Osho.
It is often surprising that we are often only able to see into the depths of our minds during moments of crisis. We do not see the depths in ordinary moments. It is only during extraordinary moments that what is hidden in the deepest part of us begins to manifest.
A death occurs in the neighborhood, but it does not touch people's hearts. People simply say," The poor man died." We are unable to brush it away like this when it occurs in our own homes. Thus it affects us, because when a death occurs in our homes, when one of "our own" dies, we also die, a part of ourselves dies. We had an investment in this person who has died, we used to get something from this person's life. This person was occupying a certain corner of our hearts.
So when a wife dies it is not just the wife who dies. Something in the husband dies too. The truth is that the husband came into being when the wife came into being. Before that there was not a husband or a wife. When a son dies, something in the mother also dies - because the woman only became a mother at the birth of her son. With the birth of a child , the mother is also born, and at the death of a child, the mother also dies. We are connected with the one we call ours. When he or she dies, we also die.
Our "I" is nothing but a sum total of what we call "our own people." What we call "I" is the name for all the accumulations of "mine". If all those who are "mine" are to leave, then I will be no more, then I cannot remain. This "I" of mine is attached partly to my father, partly to my mother, partly to my son, partly to my friend...to all of these people.
What is even more surprising is that this "I" is not only attached to those whom we call our own, but it is also attached to those whom we consider outsiders or "not-mine". Although this attachment is outside our circle, nonetheless it is there. Hence, when my enemy dies, I also die a little,since I will not be exactly the same as I was while my enemy was alive. Even my enemy has been contributing somthing to my life. He was my enemy. He may have been an enemy but he was my enemy. My "I" was related to him too: without him I will be incomplete.
Whatsoever we accumulate is less for ourselves than it is for those whom we call "our very own." The house that we build is less for ourselves than it is for those "very own" - for those "very one" who will live in it, for those "very own" who will admire and praise it - and also for those "very own" and "others" who will become full of envy and burn with jealousy. Even if the most beautiful mansion on the Earth is mine but none of "my very own people" are around to see it - either as friends or as enemies - I will suddenly find that the mansion is worth less than a hut. This is because the mansion is only a facade: in reality it is simply a means to impress " our very own" and those who are not our very own. If no one is around, whom will I impress?
The clothes you wear are intended to dazzle others' eyes than to cover your own body. Everything becomes meaningless when you are all alone. You ascend throne less for any pleasure that you may get from ascending - no one has ever attained any bliss from merely sitting on a throne- rather than for the sake of all the charisma that your are able to generate amongst "your very own" and "others" by being on it. You may remain sitting on the throne, but if all the people around it disappear, you will suddenly find that sitting on it has become ludicrous. You will get down from it and perhaps never sit on it again.
Victory is never desired for the sake of victory.THe real interest in victory is because of the ego-fulfillment that it brings to one amongst "one's very own" as well as amongst strangers or those who are not one's very own. "I may gain the whole empire, but what is the point?" It will have no meaning at all.
"Mine-ness" is nothing but violence. It is a deeper violence; it is not seen. The moment I call someone "mine", possession has begun. Possessiveness is a form of violence. The husband calls his wife "mine"; possession has begun. The wife calls her husband "mine"; possession has begun. But whenever we become a person's owner, right there and then we damn that person's soul. We have just killed that person; we have destroyed that person the moment the moment we claim ownership over him or her.
In fact, by owning a person we are treating them not as an individual but as an object. Then a wife becomes "mine" in the same way that a house is mine. Naturally, wherever there is a realtionship of "mine", love is not the outcome. What manifests is only conflict.
This is why in this world as long as a husband and wife or a father and son keep claiming their ownership over each other, only conflict can happen between them - never friendship. The assertion of such ownership is the cause of the friendship's destruction. Such an assertion of ownership puts everything awry; everything becomes violent.
Whenever there is an asertion of ownership, only hatred is created; and where there hatred, violence is bound to follow. That is why all our relationships have become relationships of violence. Our families have come to be nothing but relationships of violence.
If someone is talking in terms of "I" and in favour of nonviolence, then know that his nonviolence is phony - because the flower of nonviolence never blossoms in the soil of "I" and "mine". A life of nonviolence never evolves from the basis of "mine"
- "War & Peace" by Osho.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
