Text Size +   -
A Bodhidharma Sutra Revisted
Oshotalk header
Discourse | Titles | Subjects | Topics | Favorites
 
OSHO : Bodhidharma: The Greatest Zen Master, Chapter 4

But suppose I don't see my nature, can't I still attain enlightenment by invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, observing precepts, practicing devotions, or doing good works?

No, you can't.

And why not?

If you attain anything at all it's conditional, it's karmic. It results in retribution. It turns the wheel. And as long as you are subject to birth and death, you will never attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment you have to see your nature. Unless you see your nature, all this talk about cause and effect is nonsense. Buddhas don't practice nonsense. A Buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. To say he attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha. What could he possibly attain? Even focusing on a mind, a power, an understanding or a view is impossible for a Buddha. A Buddha isn't one-sided. The nature of his mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure. He's free of practice and realization. He's free of cause and effect.
A Buddha doesn't observe precepts. A Buddha doesn't do good or evil. A Buddha isn't energetic or lazy. A Buddha is someone who does nothing, someone who can't even focus his mind on a Buddha. A Buddha isn't a Buddha. Don't think about Buddhas. If you don't see what I'm talking about, you'll never know your own mind.
People who don't see their nature and imagine they can practice doing nothing all the time are liars and fools. They fall into endless space. They are like drunks. They can't tell good from evil. If you intend to practice doing nothing, you have to see your nature before you can put an end to rational thought. To attain enlightenment without seeing your nature is impossible.
Still others commit all sorts of evil deeds, claiming karma doesn't exist. They erroneously maintain that since everything is empty, committing evil isn't wrong. Such persons fall into a hell of endless darkness with no hope of release. Those who are wise hold no such conception.

But if our every movement or state, whenever it occurs, is the mind, why don't we see this mind when a person's body dies?

The mind is always present. You just don't see it.

But if the mind is present, why don't I see it?

Do you ever dream?

Of course.

When you dream, is that you?

Yes, it's me.

And is what you are doing and saying different from you?

No, it isn't.

But if it isn't, then this body is your real body. And this real body is your mind. And this mind, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died, appeared or disappeared, increased or decreased. It is not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It is not true or false. It is not male or female. It doesn't appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a Buddha or a mortal. It strives for no realization and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It's like space. you can't possess it. And you can't lose it. Its movements can't be blocked by mountains, rivers or rock walls. Its unstoppable powers penetrate the mountain of five skandhas and cross the river of samsara. No karma can restrain this real body. But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It is not the same as the sensual mind. Everyone wants to see this mind. And those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges. But ask them. They can't explain it. They are like puppets. It is theirs to use. Why don't they see it?

I feel extremely sad and sorry because Bodhidharma has the wrong kind of people taking the notes of his statements; they are mixing in their own confusions. They are trying hard to make it appear as if what they are saying is said by Bodhidharma. And the people who do not understand existentially what enlightenment is, are bound to fall into their trap. They will not be able to discriminate what belongs to Bodhidharma and what belongs to the people who have taken these notes.

Seeing the situation, I am reminded of one instance I have told you about, but it needs to be repeated. Rabindranath Tagore, one of the greatest poets of this country, translated his own book of poems, Gitanjali, into English. Although he was educated in England...he belonged to a very super-rich family of Bengal; his grandfather was given the title of king by the British empire.

He had all the best education possible in the world, but still a mother tongue is a mother tongue. He had written all his poems in Bengali, but a few friends suggested that Gitanjali has such a grandeur that if it is translated into English there is every possibility of it getting a Nobel prize. But who should translate it except Rabindranath himself? Who could be a better translator?

So he translated it, but he was still hesitant. He asked a great Christian missionary of those days, C.F. Andrews -- a great scholar and very influential, a world famous figure -- to go through the translations because he could also understand Bengali. He was living in Bengal as a missionary; he was working amongst Bengalis, and had learned their language. So he was the right person to go through the translation and to look at the original. He approved the whole book except at four points, just four words scattered through the book. He said: "They are not grammatically correct, and I would suggest different words meaning almost the same, but grammatically correct."

And Rabindranath was convinced that C.F. Andrews was right as far as language was concerned. So he changed those four words and replaced them with the words suggested by C.F. Andrews. In England he had friends among all the English poets, so he went to London where he was a guest of one of the great poets of those days, Yeats. And Yeats called a meeting of only English poets to listen to the recitation of Rabindranath's Gitanjali. He was convinced that the book was so rare and so unique that it could be proposed for a Nobel prize, but it would be good to have the opinion of many Nobel prize winning poets.

So nearabout twenty or twenty-five poets gathered in Yeats' house to listen to Rabindranath's recitation. They were all immensely impressed, and unanimously they wanted to make an appeal to the Nobel prize committee that the book should be honored by a Nobel prize. But Yeats himself had a little reservation. He said: "Everything is perfectly right, except for four words." Rabindranath could not believe it -- these were exactly the four words that C.F. Andrews had suggested!

Yeats said: "They are perfectly grammatical, but they are not poetic. They look as if somebody else has interfered; they prevent the flow of poetic beauty. Rather than being a help, they are hindrances and I would suggest that you change these words.

"Where did you get them? Because I have every certainty in my being that they are not your words. No poet can use those words in the places where they have been used. A linguist, yes; a man who wants to be perfect in grammar and language will use them. But a poet has a certain freedom; he has a poetic license to go a little off the track with grammar because poetry is a higher value than prose. For prose, grammar is okay, but for poetry, grammar can be a disturbance."

Rabindranath could not believe it, but he said: "You are right, these are not my words; these words are from C.F. Andrews. I will tell you the words that I originally used."

And he gave his words and Yeats was immensely happy. He said: "Now everything is okay. Those four rocks are removed from the river-like flow. Your words are not grammatical but they are poetic, and they are coming from your very heart."

Grammar is a game of the mind and poetry is not part of the mind; mind is essentially prose, poetry belongs to the heart.

Grammatically wrong, but poetically right, Gitanjali was presented to the Nobel prize committee and was accepted unanimously for the prize.

This instance shows that the people who have been writing these sutras of Bodhidharma were good as far as language was concerned, but they were not at all in tune with the experience of enlightenment -- not at all. So there are many false statements, very confused statements, along with absolutely right statements from Bodhidharma.

So one has to read with a very sharp awareness; otherwise it is very difficult to find where Bodhidharma ends and the disciple comes in, and where the disciple ends and Bodhidharma comes in. It is so mixed, and I feel sad because Bodhidharma deserves better disciples. He is one of the greatest masters the world has known. But perhaps he was so great a master that very few disciples could even reach close to him. And those who reached close to him have not written any notes.

Hui Ko, whom he had chosen as his successor, when asked by Bodhidharma: "What is my essential teaching?" simply fell to his feet, tears rolling down from his eyes, not uttering a single word. Bodhidharma helped him to stand up and said: "Although you have not answered, I accept your answer. Although you have not said a single word, your tears are enough to convey the message. You have understood me and I can understand why you are silent. Your silence is saying more than you could have managed by saying anything. You are my very soul; you will represent me when I am gone."

But Hui Ko has not written a single word. So it is a strange fate: those who can understand find it hard to make anything but a confused statement. They would prefer to remain silent rather than commit a mistake. And those who do not understand fear nothing. They don't know that they are committing mistakes, mistakes of profound meaning and significance.

And I will show you that on the surface the notes look perfectly right, but just underneath, in many places they cannot be the statements of Bodhidharma. They cannot be the statements of anyone who has attained to ultimate consciousness, of one who has reached to the destiny of self-realization.

The sutras:

But suppose I don't see my nature, can't I still attain enlightenment by invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, observing precepts, practicing devotions, or doing good works?

No, you can't.

This no is certainly from Bodhidharma. The statement above is what all the religions are doing in the world. The so-called religious people are doing all these things; they are invoking God, they are invoking Buddhas, they are invoking jinnahs, they are invoking prophets, messiahs, saviors. They are reciting sutras, holy Koran, holy Bible, holy Gita, holy Dhammapada. They are making offerings in temples, in mosques, in churches, in synagogues, in Gurudwaras. They are observing precepts, fasting, not eating in the night, not drinking in the night. Thousands of different kinds of precepts are being followed by different religions.

Just the other day I was looking at the Talmud, the holy scripture of the Jews, and I could not believe.... Many times before I have also opened it and closed it, because just to read one paragraph is enough to see the stupidity. You open anywhere and things are said which seem to have no relevance at all to any spirituality. For example, on the holy day of the Sabbath you can go to your farm or your garden or your field, but not to the very end. You can go very close to the end, but not to the very end. And this is part of a holy scripture! And then there are commentaries on it; one rabbi says: "Why is it said?" Then another rabbi says something else. Then another rabbi.... Hundreds of commentaries on such a stupid statement.

Or...that you should have one door and only one window and the question is whether the window should be on the right side of the door or on the left side of the door. And there are great rabbis discussing the point that it has to be on the right or it has to be on the left, and they are giving great arguments why. And it has not to be big, it has to be small -- how small...?

In the name of precepts, disciplines, all kinds of nonsense is being practiced -- devotions, or doing good works, opening hospitals, schools, orphanages. Only a man like Bodhidharma can say: "No, you cannot attain to enlightenment or buddhahood by such stupid things." There is only one way and that is to know your being, that is to know your self-nature.

And why not?

If you attain anything at all it is conditional.

Now this is very significant and you have to understand it. Anything that is conditional you can lose if the condition is removed. Enlightenment has to be unconditional for the simple reason that it cannot be taken away. Your life is conditional: anybody can murder you, you can commit suicide. But your enlightenment has to be unconditional.

You cannot do anything to demolish, to destroy anything that is unconditional. You cannot make any effort to go backwards, because there is no condition, there is no cause; it is free from being destroyed. For example, you are having a bonfire -- but it is conditional. If you remove the wood, the fire will be gone. That wood was absolutely necessary for the fire to remain in existence. It was not unconditional, it was an effect of a cause. The cause removed, the effect disappears.

That is the difference between the spiritualist and the materialist. The materialist says in philosophical terms that life, consciousness, are all conditional, are all effects. When causes are removed they will disappear. When in death the five elements of which your body is made fall apart, back into their original sources -- water into water, earth into earth, air into air, fire into fire, space, sky into sky -- then nothing is left. There is no soul that survives; it was only an effect. If causes were present, the effect was present -- when causes are removed, the effect disappears. In other words Karl Marx says: "Consciousness is only a by-product; in itself it has no existence."

Bodhidharma is saying:

If you attain anything at all, it is conditional, it is karmic. It results in retribution. It turns the wheel. And as long as you are subject to birth and death, you will never attain enlightenment.

Enlightenment has not to be an effect of some cause, not an effect of some practice, not an effect of some conditions that you have fulfilled. It has not to be an attainment, but only a discovery. It is already there.

You are just keeping your eyes closed, so when you open your eyes and you see your buddhahood, you cannot say you have attained it. It was already there before you had even seen it. It is not your "attainment," and the opening of your eyes is not a cause.

Whether you open your eyes or not, your buddhahood is intact. Even with closed eyes you are Buddhas; with open eyes there will be no change -- you will be Buddhas. The only change will be in your understanding, not in your quality, not in your being. The only change will be in your understanding: "My God, I have been looking for enlightenment, for buddhahood, for lives altogether, searching and seeking everywhere and doing every kind of good act, observing precepts, making offerings, doing prayers, reciting sutras -- and that was all foolish, because while I was reciting sutras I was a Buddha. When I was offering flowers to a stone statue I was doing such an idiotic act because I was making a Buddha touch the feet of a stone statue. I have always been the Buddha; that is my unconditional nature."

That's why Bodhidharma's statement is of tremendous significance when he says: "No, you cannot find buddhahood by all these so-called things which religions go on preaching to people."

To attain enlightenment you have to see your nature.

And it is just language and the difficulty of language that one has to call it attainment; otherwise what attainment is there? It is really only a discovery. The treasure is there, you simply uncover it.

You are not producing it, you are not creating it, it is not something new; it has always and always been there. And whether you discover it or not makes no difference to it. It is unconditionally eternal.

Unless you see your nature, all this talk about cause and effect is nonsense.

I can say that these harsh words can only come from Bodhidharma, not from any disciple who cannot have that much courage. Only a Bodhidharma can say: Buddhas don't practice nonsense. It is a lion's roar. It is a lion's roar, not an ordinary disciple's writing.

A Buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. To say he attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha.

There is no question of attainment, he only discovers. He only opens his eyes and sees himself.

What could he possibly attain? Even focusing on a mind, a power, an understanding, or a view is impossible for a Buddha. A Buddha is not one-sided.

Hence, he cannot focus on himself. He is multidimensional, he is universal. Only one-dimensional beings can focus. Your ordinary mind can focus; it can concentrate, but a Buddha cannot concentrate. He is as open as the sky, in all directions, in all dimensions.

A Buddha is not one-sided. The nature of his no-mind...

The disciple is writing his mind, but I have to correct him.

The nature of his no-mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure.

And you can see why I am correcting it because if it is mind, it cannot be empty. Mind is always full of thoughts; mind is nothing but a container of thoughts. Mind is another name for the thought process. In the day it is thinking, in the night it is dreaming, but it is always filled with something. It is never empty.

And mind is always either pure or impure. It depends on what kind of thoughts it has going through it. If you are thinking of murdering someone, or if you are thinking of stealing something, or you are thinking of helping someone.... If you are filled with a compassionate thought, a loving thought or a destructive thought...it will depend what kind of content is in your mind, and mind is never empty. Hence, either it will be pure or impure, or it will be both together. Because your mind is such a mess, impurity and purity, good thoughts and bad thoughts, all are standing there as a crowd. Hence, I want to change the word mind to no-mind. Then only can the statement become meaningful: The nature of his no-mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure because the no-mind is beyond duality.

Mind can never be beyond duality. It is always thinking for or against, it is always divided and split, it is always schizophrenic; it is never total. A part of it is always hesitating. Whatever you do, a part of you will not be with you; it will go on saying: "Don't do it, you will repent if you do it."

That is one of the causes why every human being is in misery. Because whatever you do, it doesn't matter what, the part that has not cooperated is going to take revenge with vengeance. It will say to you: "Listen, now look, I have told you before, don't do this, but you never listened." If you had listened to it, then too the situation would not have been different because the other part that was saying: "Do it," will wait and watch for its opportunity to condemn you saying: "You never listen to me." You are always in such a catch-22: whether you do this or do that, you are always wrong.

Only no-mind can be without any duality, because it is empty. The no-mind is choicelessness. The no-mind is pure awareness. It is just the empty sky.

A Buddha does not observe precepts.

Now this is a great statement. It should be written in gold letters everywhere around the earth for everyone to understand it.

A Buddha does not observe precepts.

He does not follow any discipline. Why? Because he has no need to follow any discipline, any precepts; he has not to follow any morality for the simple fact that he lives in full awareness. Out of his full awareness comes the response -- not from any precepts, any scriptures, any moral codes. No, he acts moment to moment out of his pure emptiness.

Just looking silently he allows his whole being to respond. He is just like a mirror; he reflects, he does not do anything else. His responses are his reflections.

A Buddha doesn't do good or evil. A Buddha is not energetic or lazy. A Buddha is someone who does nothing, someone who can't even focus his mind on a Buddha.

Even if God is standing before him, he cannot concentrate on him. He is just pure emptiness. He does not carry any tensions, because concentration is a tension, focusing is a tension. He is utterly relaxed.

Here Bodhidharma comes to his height when he says: A Buddha is not a Buddha.

Now this will be very difficult for people to understand -- particularly those whose minds are prejudiced by so many religions in the world. A Buddha is not a Buddha. It has to be understood, because it is so significant that if you miss it, you will miss everything.

Just take a few instances; perhaps that may help. A child who is just born is utterly innocent. But do you know or do you think he is aware that he is innocent? Can the innocent child know that he is innocent? If he knows that he is innocent, he is no longer innocent. The innocent child is innocent only if he does not know that he is innocent.

The Buddha is a rebirth, the rebirth of consciousness. He is attaining a second childhood; he is born again. He is absolute consciousness, but he cannot be aware and he cannot say: "I am absolute consciousness." That statement will make the consciousness impure. His consciousness is just like the innocence of a child. It cannot be self-conscious. It is there and there is no space left for anything else, even for the thought: "I am a Buddha."

A Buddha is not a Buddha. Don't think about Buddhas, because thinking about Buddhas is an absurdity. You are a Buddha. Why are you wasting your time thinking about Buddhas? Why not simply open your eyes and be awake and be a Buddha? What are you going to gain by thinking about Buddhas?

If you don't see what I am talking about, you will never know your own no-mind.
People who don't see their nature and imagine they can practice doing nothing all the time are liars and fools.

There is a danger -- Bodhidharma is aware of it -- that there can be cunning people, liars, fools, deceiving others, deceiving themselves. I have come to know many who, reading or listening to such great statements like Bodhidharma's, start pretending that for them there is nothing good, nothing bad, that they need not be concerned about discriminating between right and wrong. Because Bodhidharma and people like Bodhidharma declare that you are a Buddha, they enjoy the idea without opening their eyes. It is so ego-fulfilling that they don't open their eyes. They don't experience their self-nature, but they start declaring that they're enlightened. Such people do immense harm to themselves and immense harm to others.

I have seen so many people who start declaring themselves enlightened and they are not even a little more conscious than you are. So these great statements can be dangerous. They are like great heights of the Himalayan peaks. From these heights, you can fall and you can destroy yourself. These secrets should be understood in a very sincere, honest way; they should not be used to exploit people and to enhance your ego. These people...

...fall into endless space. They're like drunks. They can't tell good from evil. If you intend to practice doing nothing, you have to see your nature before you can put an end to rational thought. To attain enlightenment without seeing your nature is impossible.

So it is up to each individual to continuously remember to remain sincere. Otherwise nobody can prevent you; you can declare you are enlightened but your life will show, your actions will show, your eyes will show, everything around you will show that you are not enlightened. And this is not going to help you in any way; this may even mislead a few people. And if you can get a few people to believe in your enlightenment, which is always possible because the world is so full of idiots that any idiot can find disciples.... And once you have found a few idiots as disciples, then you become absolutely certain that you must be enlightened; otherwise how can so many wise people believe in you?

Still others commit all sorts of evil deeds, claiming karma doesn't exist. They erroneously maintain that since everything is empty, committing evil isn't wrong. Such persons fall into a hell of endless darkness with no hope of release. Those who are wise hold no such conception.

It is a question of great individual responsibility; there is no other responsibility which is greater than this. Remember always -- and don't forget for a single moment -- don't say anything which you are not; otherwise you will be falling into a darkness from which it is very difficult to come out.

But if our every movement or state, whenever it occurs, is the mind, why don't we see this mind when a person's body dies?

The no-mind is always present. You just don't see it.

No-mind is not a thing. It is not a commodity, it is not an object. No-mind is pure space. It is utter emptiness, it is silence. You cannot hear it. Have you ever thought about it, when you say it is absolutely silent? Do you hear silence? All that you hear is no noise. Because you are hearing no noise, you conclude it is silence.

Because you don't experience any worry, any anxiety, any tension, any misery, any suffering, you infer that this is the state of peace and bliss. But these are not things or objects that you can see. Or when a person dies, you cannot see his no-mind leaving the body.

Remember again, I am changing the statements -- wherever there is mind, I am saying no-mind -- because mind can be seen. You see it every day. There is no need to die to see it; even while living you see it. Just close your eyes and you will start seeing it.

But if the no-mind is present, why don't I see it?

The disciple is raising questions and trying to find Bodhidharma's answers. Perhaps he asked these questions...he must have received the answers, but he could not understand those answers. He has interpreted those answers in his own way. Bodhidharma has said: The no-mind is always present. You just don't see it. You cannot see it because it is pure space, it is not a thing. It is nothing; or better, it is a no-thing. It is not visible. But still the disciple goes on asking the same question in a different form. If the mind -- if the no-mind -- is present, why don't I see it?

It seems he has not written...he has forgotten, or he has not understood the answer given by Bodhidharma, because the question is there, but the answer is not there. The answer must have been: Because you are it, so you cannot see it.

You can see everything in the world except yourself. Obviously I can catch with my hand everything in the world except my hand itself. I can see with my eyes everything in the world except my own eyes.

No-mind is my nature.

I can feel it, I can live it, I can relish it, I can sing it, I can dance it, but I cannot see it. Because I am it. Something like this must have been the answer but it is not recorded.

And Bodhidharma must have tried hard so that the disciple could understand the distinction. He asks him:

Do you ever dream?

Of course.

When you dream, is that you?

But still the disciple does not get it. He answers:

Yes, it's me.

And this goes against the whole philosophy of Bodhidharma and Gautam Buddha and all those who have ever become awakened. The answer should be: "No, it is not me." Because how can I be the dreams? The dreams float in front of me. I see them. Because I see them, obviously I am not them. I am the seer and they are the seen. I am the knower and they are the known. They are objects, I am the subject. Hence the right answer should be, not "Yes, it is me," but "No, it is not me."

And is what you are doing and saying different from you?

Again the same fallacy; the answer given is:

No, it isn't.

It is not different from me -- any doing or saying.... But it is so simple; particularly for you it must be so simple. Walking, you can see that it is an action of your body, but you are not it. You are not walking; your consciousness inside is exactly where it has always been. Whether you stand still or walk, it is always the same. The real answer will be: "Yes, it is different. It is not me. My action cannot be me, my doing cannot be me. I am always the watcher behind; I am always the witness beyond."

But if it is, then this body is not your real body. That's my correction. The notes themselves are just the opposite. The notes continue in the same way being wrong. The note is: But if it isn't, then this body is your real body. If you are not different from your actions, if you are not different from your dreams, then this is your real mind, this is your real body.

But this body is not your real body. Soon a day will come when this body will be burning on a funeral pyre. But you will not be burning. Your consciousness will have taken a new form -- moved far away.

So I will go with my corrections:

But if it is, then this body is not your real body. And this real body is your no-mind. And this no-mind, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died....

Just see the confusion. If this body is real, then the later statements cannot be relevant...

Through endless kalpas, through endless ages, without beginning, has never varied. it has never lived or died, appeared or disappeared, increased or decreased. It is not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It is not true or false. It is not male or female. It doesn't appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a Buddha or a mortal. It strives for no realization and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It is like space. you can't possess it.

These statements are possible only if my corrections are made; otherwise these statements become absolutely impossible because your body has died many times, has been born many times, will die again, will be born again. This body is not your real body.

Your real body is your real being -- which has never died, which has never been born, which has always continued eternally through many forms, but it has been the same. There is a statement of Gautam Buddha: "You can taste the ocean from anywhere, from any direction; its taste is always the same."

So whether in this body or in another, your consciousness is the same. And this body is certainly male or female; only your being is not male or female. So unless my corrections are there, all the statements following become absolutely irrelevant and diametrically opposite to the statements that the disciple has written.

And you can't lose it. Its movements can't be blocked by mountains, rivers or rock walls. Its unstoppable powers penetrate the mountain of five skandhas....

These five skandhas are what I have been calling the five elements. Skandha is the Buddhist word for element -- the earth, the air, the water, the fire, and the sky. These are the five elements your so-called body is made of. But your real being is beyond all these skandhas....

The mountain of five skandhas and cross the river of samsara.

Your consciousness does not consist of these five elements and even if these five elements are mountainous, still they cannot prevent your consciousness from passing beyond to your real home.

Even oceans of this samsara, this world, cannot prevent you from reaching to your ultimate home. Because the ultimate home is already inside you, nothing can prevent you from reaching it. You are already there, just you are not aware of it.

No karma can restrain this real being, or this real body. But this no-mind is subtle and hard to see. It is not the same as the sensual mind. Everyone wants to see this no-mind. And those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges.

Although you don't see it, everybody has it. You live in its light. Your very life belongs to your no-mind.

But ask them. They can't explain it.

You live, you know you are alive, but if somebody asks you what life is, or to define what you mean by living, you will be at a loss. It is just as if you taste something delicious; you know the taste, but is there any way to say what it is, how it is? The only way is for the other person to taste it. No explanation can help.

The man who has never tasted sweets...you cannot explain to him what sweetness is. You can bring all your articulateness, but you cannot explain a simple thing, sweetness. The only way is to offer him some sweets. That's what the masters have been doing all along. Rather than telling you what sweetness is, they offer it to you to taste. They themselves are offering their own being, their own presence for you to taste it.

Everybody has a Buddha inside but because they are unaware they function like puppets. This Buddha inside is theirs to use; why don't they see it? Why do they go on remaining like puppets? Why don't they become masters of their own being? And it is not a difficult task, in fact it is not a task at all. It is just a little knack of becoming aware, just shaking yourself and waking up. All the meditations are simply devices to shake you so that the deep spiritual sleep is disturbed. P.D. Ouspensky has offered and dedicated his book In Search of the Miraculous to his master, George Gurdjieff, with very beautiful words: "To George Gurdjieff, the disturber of my sleep." But that is the only function of a master: in some way to disturb you, in some way to shake and wake you up.

There is nowhere to go and there is nothing to attain.

You are already there where you need to be.

Seeking is the only sin.

Searching is the only way of going astray.

Just remaining within yourself, withdrawing yourself from everything, every energy, every ray of energy, and concentrating it at the very center of your being...Gurdjieff calls it "crystallization." And he was a man very much like Bodhidharma. If anybody can be put in the same category as Bodhidharma, then Gurdjieff is the man. What he calls crystallization of your being is called by Bodhidharma awakening of your being, or buddhahood.

Reading through these sutras, I have been thinking to have a look at other ancient sutras, because the same fallacies that I am seeing in these sutras are bound to be there. They are not written by enlightened people. And these confusions, these misstatements, without any intention, are doing immense harm to all those who are following them; they have to be corrected. So my commentaries are more corrections and critiques of all that is confused and wrong. I want to bring out Bodhidharma completely clearly, without any impressions left by these disciples who have written the sutras. It has always happened...the gospels of Jesus were written after three hundred years when Jesus was not there to correct them. And no Christian would like another Jesus to correct them. Otherwise...I am absolutely willing.

Gautam Buddha's sutras were written after his death. And there was so much quarreling amongst the disciples that immediately after his death there were thirty-two schools in conflict with each other. Somebody was saying: "This has been said by him," or "This has not been said." Thirty-two interpretations, contradicting each other, and poor Gautam Buddha was no longer alive and certainly he was not saying things which had thirty-two different interpretations. He was not a madman. His meaning was very clear, but that clarity is possible only to those who have gone beyond mind, because mind is confusion, and no-mind is clarity.

The silence of no-mind gives you the clarity. You can see immediately what is right and what is wrong; there is no question of any argumentation. Reading these sutras, I have not had to think for a single moment or hesitate for a single moment as to where it is wrong and where it is right. The moment I came to any place which was wrong, it was immediately and absolutely clear to me, without any hesitation.

Just because of seeing these sutras, I have been thinking to have a look into all ancient scriptures which are written by unenlightened disciples and to correct them. Because it is time -- they have lived for thousands of years without any correction.

But people become so obsessed and fanatic that they don't want any change. For example, my corrections will not be liked by the Buddhists. They will feel very much hurt -- every line has to be right -- but they don't see the point that these lines are not written by Bodhidharma; otherwise they would have been all right. They have been written by people who are not enlightened. Hence, it is absolutely certain that there are going to be fallacies, confusions, misstatements, many things missing and perhaps many things added by the disciples, just to make it a complete story, a complete system of philosophy. It is going to be a difficult job. It is going to annoy many more people. I have annoyed so many people that now I don't care anymore. It does not matter. I have annoyed millions of people, a few millions more -- now it does not matter at all.

The future generations of the new man will feel grateful that at least there was one man who did not care about the whole world being annoyed with him. He went on discriminating between what is truth and what is not truth.

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.

OSHO : Bodhidharma: The Greatest Zen Master, Chapter 4
Top
 
 
 



Home | ContactAbout Site MapOsho Centres | Other Links | Trademark | Copyleft / Privacy Policy