ENERGY

ENHANCEMENT MEDITATION

MEDITATION HEAD

 HOME PAGE

 

GAIN ENERGY APPRENTICE LEVEL1

THE ENERGY BLOCKAGE REMOVAL PROCESS

LEVEL2

THE KARMA CLEARING PROCESS APPRENTICE LEVEL3

MASTERY OF  RELATIONSHIPS TANTRA APPRENTICE LEVEL4

 

STUDENTS EXPERIENCES  2005 AND 2006

 

MORE STUDENTS EXPERIENCES

 - FIFTY FULL TESTIMONIALS

2003 COURSE

Kabir

THE FISH IN THE SEA IS NOT THIRSTY

Chapter 12: Who Am I?,

Question 4

 

 

Energy Enhancement                Enlightened Texts                Kabir                The Fish in the Sea is Not Thirsty

 

 

The fourth question

Question 4

OSHO, I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT AN AMERICAN, A CHINESE, AN AFRICAN, A SWEDE, AN INDIAN, COULD BE HAPPY AND CONTENT AND COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER DESPITE THEIR VARYING COLOURS, HABITS, BELIEFS, ETCETERA, JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATURAL AND HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND EACH OTHER. WHY IS MANKIND MAKING THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANKIND?

Darius M. Mody,

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BELIEFS and still live in peace. The belief is the root cause of all conflict. Only a world of agnostic seekers can be one. Believers cannot allow the world to be one.

For example, the Christian believes that it is only through Christ that salvation is possible -- now, how is a Mohammedan going to tolerate it? The very idea is a danger for him. He believes that only through Mohammed is true salvation possible. And how can this be tolerated by the Buddhist who thinks that except for Buddha there has never been another enlightened person? Buddha and Mahavira lived together, they were contemporaries, but Buddhists don't think that Mahavira is enlightened; neither do Jainas, the followers of Mahavira, think that Buddha is enlightened. Now, how is a Jaina going to believe that Jesus is enlightened? -- because he is not a vegetarian, he is a non-vegetarian. How can a non-vegetarian become enlightened? The belief of the Jaina is that one who becomes enlightened is bound to be vegetarian. How can he kill? His belief is going to become a barrier.

And ask the Christian -- he cannot believe in Mahavira because he never helped the poor. Just standing under a tree naked, meditating with closed eyes, looks very selfish to the Christian. Mahavira should have opened at least a few hospitals, schools; he never did anything. He did not do any miracles either -- giving eyes to the blind, raising dead people back to life. What kind of enlightened person is he? No miracle, no service to humanity -- only talks about non-violence, but no compassion in his acts, in deed. The Christian cannot believe that Buddha is enlightened. What service has he done for humanity...?

Now, these differing beliefs divide people. Belief is the way of division. Humanity can be one only when people drop beliefs. And that's what I am trying to do here. Be an enquirer, don't be a believer. Enquire into truth, but don't start with a prejudice -- don't start as a Christian or a Mohammedan or a Hindu.

Darius, you say: I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT AN AMERICAN, A CHINESE, AN AFRICAN, A SWEDE, AN ITALIAN, ALL COULD BE HAPPY AND CONTENT AND COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER DESPITE THEIR VARYING COLOURS, HABITS, BELIEFS, ETCETERA, JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATURAL AND HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND EACH OTHER.

The American believes in the American way of life, and the Indian believes in the Indian way of life -- the conflict is there. And the Indian believes that India is the only holy country in the world, the only religious country in the world. American. The very word smells of materialism. To the Indian mind, the word 'American' means something absolutely irreligious, unholy. The American represents to him the man of indulgence.

And to the American the Indian symbolizes snobbery, hypocrisy, egoism. How can these people meet? The American has to drop his being American, and the Indian has to drop his being Indian. We have to start thinking in terms of the whole earth. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, beliefs of all kinds, divide people. And, hence, all beliefs are dangerous, poisonous.

You can see here, Darius, people of all races, all countries, all religions, meeting -- with NO problem. And never is it being told to them: "Be tolerant of others" -- because the very idea of being tolerant carries intolerance in it. Why should it be told to somebody: "Be tolerant of others"? It simply means that there is intolerance and one has to learn to tolerate.

It is never told here to anybody that Hinduism and Christianity and Islam all mean the same thing; to say so means that you are suspicious. Mahatma Gandhi used to say that the Koran and the Gita and the Dhammapada, they all mean the same thing. And with great effort he used to try to find similarities -- why bother? The very effort shows that there is suspicion. And the effort cannot succeed, because they are not similar. The Koran has its own beauty and the Gita has its own beauty, and they are not similar, not at all.

Trying to impose similarity on such unique, original scriptures is really sickening. How can Mahavira and Krishna have the same message? It is not. Just think if Arjuna had told Mahavira, "I want to renounce the world and the war and I want to go to the forest" -- Mahavira would have immediately initiated him into renunciation. He would have said, "That's what you should have done. It is already late; but, still, good. War is violence, and it is good that an insight is born in you -- renounce the world and go to the forest."

But Krishna persuaded him not to go to the forest: "Fight the war because this is your duty. And your very being is such that you can only be a warrior; your type is such. Renunciation won't suit you, it won't fit you. You will be a misfit, and even in the forest you will start hunting; you will not be able to meditate, you will hunt. I know you well, I know you from your very childhood. And all this nonsense that you are talking about is nothing but a rationalization. You are not against war!" And he was not -- Krishna was right, his insight was deep -- he was not against war. He was really against killing his own people.

The war was a family war between brothers, and on both the sides were relatives. Because the fight was between cousin-brothers, all the relatives had to divide -- a few had gone to this side, a few to that side. One brother was on this side, another brother was on that side. Even Krishna himself had divided; his army was fighting on the other side and he himself was fighting with Arjuna, because both were his friends and both had asked his help. So he had said, "You can choose: one can take my army and one can take me."

Arjuna's own teacher from whom he had learnt all that he knew about war, who had made him a perfect warrior, Drona, he was on the other side -- his own master, from whom he had learnt archery, he was fighting on the other side. It was really a family war. And Arjuna was not against war: he was against killing one's own people. Seeing the whole war-field full of his own people -- a few on this side, a few on that side -- and both would be killed and many would be killed -- he started thinking, "What is the point of it all? Killing my own family! It is better I should renounce."

He was not against violence. If his own people had not been involved, he would have enjoyed the war like anything. Krishna persuaded him to see the fact that he was rationalizing; all this nonsense talk about non-violence, no war, peace, renunciation, was just a rationalization. He forced him to see the trick of his mind.

Now, how can you say Mahavira and Krishna are saying the same thing? They are not saying the same thing.

My own experience is this, that all those who have become enlightened in the world -- and Moses is enlightened, and Zarathustra is enlightened, and Lao Tzu is enlightened and Mohammed and Jesus and Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira, Kabir, and many many more -- what they have experienced is the same. But still their personalities are so different, their individuality is so unique, that their expressions are utterly different and you cannot force by ally strategy to make it appear that they are saying the same thing -- they are not.

Their experience is the same, their ultimate experience is the same, but their choice of how life should be lived, how that ultimate experience should be approached, is totally different. Their paths are different, their goal may be the same -- but the goal will be known only when you have arrived, not before that. Before the goal you will have to follow the path.

MAHATMA GANDHI WAS TRYING somehow to prove that the Mohammedan and the Hindu and the Jaina are all saying the same thing. It was a forgery, because he was choosing from the Koran only sentences which are harmonious with the Gita, and not choosing sentences which are disharmonious with the Gita. The Gita is his criterion. He calls the Gita his mother, but he does not call the Koran his father. The Gita is his mother; he remains a Hindu, basically a Hindu. And according to the Gita he goes on finding... wherever anything can be found which is similar, he chooses it, picks it up; but anything that is not similar to the Gita, he simply drops it, he forgets all about it.

This is not a right approach. And still he could not convince anybody. In fact, the very effort was futile, an exercise in futility -- he could not convince the Mohammedans, he could not convince the Hindus. Mohammedans remained Unconvinced; they continued demanding a separate country, and they succeeded in having a separate country. And he could not convince the Hindus -- in fact, one Hindu murdered him, one fanatic Hindu murdered him. He could not convince anybody.

And I cannot believe that he convinced himself either. His whole life he was singing in his ashram: "ALLAH-ISHWAR TERI nam -- Allah and Ishwar, both are thy names!" But when he was shot dead, Allah didn't come to his heart. When the bullet passed into his heart, he cried, "Ram!" not Allah -- "Hey Ram!" That is very decisive. At that moment all philo-sophizing was forgotten, the real Hindu surfaced. He could not remember Allah at that moment, could not remember Buddha, could not remember Mahavira. The person he remembered was Ram -- the Hindu ideal, the Hindu incarnation of God. That shows that he could not even convince himself -- what to say of others?

In this place I am not trying to convince anybody, and still things are happening. I am not trying to bring a synthesis of all religions, because I know it is utterly futile. They ARE different, they are unique. And I respect their uniqueness. In fact, the world is richer because there is a Koran and there is a Gita and there is a Dhammapada. The world is richer because Zarathustra happened, Lao Tzu happened, Buddha happened; the world is richer because there is Nanak and Kabir and Farid. So many different flowers! The world is a beautiful garden.

And the rose is not the lotus, and the lotus is not the rose -- both are flowers, both have bloomed, that is true. Buddha has bloomed and Jesus has bloomed -- both are flowers -- but a rose is a rose and a lotus is a lotus. And it is good that not all are roses, that not all are lotuses.

But something very mysterious is happening here, Darius, you can see: all kinds of people are here, from almost every country, from every religion, and nobody teaches them to be tolerant and nobody teaches them to be respectful of the other's religion. These things are simply not talked about, and still nobody is intolerant. In fact, nobody thinks in terms that the other is other. This is a totally different vision.

My approach is that you have to drop -- not to imbibe tolerance, not to imbibe a certain synthesis, manipulated, man-made -- you have to drop this whole nonsense of the American way of life and the Indian way of life and the Chinese way of life. You have to drop this whole nonsense that "I am a Hindu, Mohammedan, Parsi, Sikh." You are just a human being! Maybe your colour is different -- so what? It is good that there are people of different colours, different flowers. Your hair is different -- good! It makes life more worth living, more interesting. The variety gives richness.

Your idea, Darius, that people can live in harmony even though they have different beliefs is wrong. Those different beliefs are the problem. In fact, to believe is to go wrong: knowing is good, believing is wrong. Enquiring is good, gathering prejudice is wrong. Be a seeker and be an agnostic.

By 'agnostic' is meant: say clearly to others and to yourself that "I don't know -- so how can I cling to any belief? I was born in a Hindu family, so I have been taught the Hindu religion by my parents, but I don't know what is right and what is wrong -- it is just incidental. Had I been brought up by a Christian, I would have believed in the Christian religion in the same way. Or, if I had been born in Soviet Russia then I would have been a communist; then I would not have believed in the trinity of God the Father and God the Son and the Holy Ghost. I would have believed in a totally different trinity: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the Kremlin would have been my Kaaba, and DAS KAPITAL would have been my Bhagavad Gita."

Just see -- it is simple! Nobody is born a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Christian -- these things are imposed on you. This is ugly that these things are imposed on you. In a really free world no religion will be imposed on anybody. All religions will be available to everybody! One should be free to shop around. One can go to the temple, to the mosque, to the gurudwara, and one can move around, do a little religious shopping; one can look into the Koran and the Bible and the Vedas, and decide on one's own.

Parents should not decide the religion of their children. It should be a crime against humanity to force any child into any religion. Yes, parents should teach the child to enquire and how to enquire. They should make available to him all alternatives, so if the child wants one day to become a Mohammedan, you may be a Hindu but if your child wants to become a Mohammedan, it is perfectly good. You should be happy your child has chosen a religion. It is good that he is becoming religious. How does it matter where he will pray? -- in the temple or in the mosque. The only thing that matters is that he will pray.

But now, right now, that is not the case. Nobody is interested in prayer: everybody is interested -- where? Nobody is interested in making you really religious; everybody is interested in making you a Christian, Catholic, Protestant, this and that. This is an ugly situation -- and that divides people.

We have to fight for a world where children will not be forced into any religion. And every child should be given all opportunities to choose. Who knows what is going to fit him? My own observation is that it happens that a man is born in a Jaina family, but he is not that type -- he is not the type of Mahavira. Then his whole life he will be doing something for which he is not meant. He will follow Mahavira, but his heart will not be in it. His heart can go far more deeply with Meera, with Krishna -- but that is not possible, he is a Jaina. And vice versa: a man may be born into a family which worships Krishna but seeing Krishna no bells ring in his heart. Then what is he supposed to do? Pretend? Be a hypocrite? Go on believing because his parents are Hindus so he has to remain a Hindu? Seeing the statue of Mahavira naked, silent, his heart may be stirred, he may feel a new fluttering in his being, a new energy, a new flash of lightning. It may click! Then that is his religion.

Religion has to be found by your own heart. All religions are good. All religions are different. All religions are ways: They reach the same goal. But nobody can follow all the ways. If you follow all the ways you will go crazy. You have to follow one way, knowing perfectly well that all the ways are leading to the same peak of the mountain. Still one has to follow one way.

But if the beginning is not a belief but enquiry, the world will be totally different. Darius, with beliefs it is not possible. Habits are okay; habits are going to be different.

In the Indian atmosphere there will be different habits. But habits are not a big problem; you can understand that in a cold country there will be different habits than in a hot country. That is very natural. But beliefs have nothing to do with cold or hot, beliefs have nothing to do with climate. Beliefs have nothing to do with nature: beliefs are man-made. Beliefs are all basically political, tactics, strategy, to manipulate the crowds, to control the crowds.

You ask: WHY IS MANKIND MAKING THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANKIND?

BECAUSE MAN IS NOT YET BORN: mankind exists only in theory. Once a man said to George Bernard Shaw. "What do you think of civilization?" He said, "It is a good idea, but somebody has to try it."

Mankind is also a good idea -- but somebody has to try it. It has not yet happened.

Humanity has not yet arrived. Hindus are there, Mohammedans are there, Christians are there, Indians and Germans and Italians are there, but humanity has not yet arrived. It is a simple word, but empty, with no substance.

If somebody asks you, "Darius, who are you?" it is almost impossible to conceive that you will say, "A human being." You will say, "A Christian, a Hindu, a Parsi, a Mohammedan...." You may say, "A doctor, an engineer, a professor, a scientist..." so on and so forth, ad nauseam, but almost impossible to comprehend, even to imagine that you will say, "A human being."

And if you say it, the other person who is asking will feel that you are a little crazy or something. "Yes, of course, you are a human being! But I am asking: who are you?"

Humanity has yet to happen, and we have to prepare the ground for humanity to happen. It can happen only by dropping ALL kinds of beliefs. It can happen only by creating a great upsurge of enquiry, creating an atmosphere, a space, in which belief simply means that you are ignorant -- you don't know, still you are trying to pretend that you know. Belief is not knowing but a deception.

A real man does not believe. Either he knows or he does not know. If somebody asks you, "Does God exist?" if you are honest, sincere, you cannot say, "I believe in God, I believe that he exists." And you cannot say, "I don't believe in God, and I say that he does not exist." No. If you are a sincere man, if you have any respect for truth, you will say, "I don't know. I am searching, seeking. I am neither a believer nor a non-believer. I am a seeker, a searcher."

And the day you know, do you think you will believe then? Then there will be no need to believe. You don't believe in the sun! You don't see people fighting that the sun exists, that the sun does not exist, that the sun rises in the east or the sun rises in the west, south, north -- you don't see people fighting. Everybody knows the sun rises in the east, and everybody knows that the sun IS -- there IS no question of belief.

If you ask me, "Do you believe in God?" I will say, "No, because I know God is. I need not believe." Knowing is the real thing; belief is just a camouflage, a cover-up.

Help people to drop beliefs. Help people to become enquirers. Help people to start functioning from not knowing. And that is the state of meditation: to function from a state of not knowing is to function meditatively. To function from the state of knowledge is to miss the whole point. Knowledge is always old and life is never old. Knowledge and life never meet.

Hence I am using the word 'knowing' deliberately, instead of 'knowledge'. 'Knowledge' is a noun, 'knowing' is a verb. Knowing is a flow, knowledge is static. Knowledge has a full point, knowing has no full point -- it is simply an ongoing process. One never knows God in the sense of knowledge; one only knows God in the sense of knowing. Yes, there is a beginning, but then there is no end. One goes on knowing more and more and more, and the more one knows, the more one feels there is more to knower.

You say, Darius: I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATURAL AND HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND EACH OTHER, THEY COULD ALL BE HAPPY AND CONTENT AND COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER DESPITE THEIR VARYING COLOURS, HABITS, BELIEFS, ETCETERA.

But how can people be natural and honest when they are carrying so many beliefs? To be natural means to be without any belief Children are natural, but you are not natural. Animals are natural, but you are not natural. Trees are natural, but you are not natural. And what has made you unnatural and artificial? Your belief system.

But it is very difficult to drop the belief system. And how can you be honest if you believe? It is a contradiction in terms, to be honest and to believe. If somebody says, "I believe in God," he is saying, "I don't know -- I have heard, I have been taught, I have been told. I believe in God; I don't know myself " How can he be honest? This is the beginning of dishonesty. Not knowing himself, and still believing, what more dishonesty can there be?

Parents teach their children, "Believe in God and be honest." This is such a contradiction in terms: "Believe in God and be honest!" Only one is possible: either you can believe in God, then you cannot be honest; or you can be honest, then you have to say clearly and loudly, "I cannot believe in God, because I don't know."

But this is a double bind that is being created in every person. You are taught contradictory things -- hence your schizophrenic state. You are taught such contradictory things that you remain split. And you have been taught so long that you don't see the contradiction either. The so-called religious person -- Christian, Mohammedan, Hindu -- he cannot be honest. If he is honest, he cannot be Christian, Hindu or Mohammedan. How can you be honest and still believe that Christ was born of a virgin mother? Just tell me -- how can you be honest and still believe it? How can you be honest? Deep down you know it is not possible. Children are not born of virgin mothers.

How can you be honest and still believe that when a snake attacked Mahavira, instead of blood, milk flowed from his foot? How can you believe it -- and still be honest? There is only one possibility, that in Mahavira's body instead of blood milk was circulating. But to keep milk circulating for so long -- he must have been nearabout fifty when this snake attacked him -- milk would have turned into curd long before.

And curd cannot flow. Mahavira would have been dead long before. How can you be honest and still believe in this? If you are honest, questions will arise. And if you believe, you have to be dishonest -- you have to repress your questions.

Man can be natural and honest, but then beliefs have to be dropped -- all kinds of beliefs have to be dropped. And dropping the beliefs, your energy is freed, and that same energy becomes enquiry, and that same energy can take you to the ultimate truth.

People are so religious, so fanatically religious, that I have heard:

"Is your grandfather a religious man?" asked the young coed of her date.

"He is so Orthodox," replied the boy, " when he plays chess, he doesn't use bishops -- he uses rabbis."

 

Next: Chapter 12: Who Am I?, Question 5

 

Energy Enhancement            Enlightened Texts           Kabir           The Fish in the Sea is Not Thirsty

 

 

Chapter 12

 

 

 

 
ENERGY ENHANCEMENT
TESTIMONIALS
EE LEVEL1   EE LEVEL2
EE LEVEL3   EE LEVEL4   EE FAQS
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
NAME:
EMAIL:

Google

Search energyenhancement.org Search web