=====OSHO=====

[bonddonraj]

Early History of the Movement:
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931-1990) was born Rajneesh Chandra Mohan in Kuchwara, a town in central India. Various sources state that "Bhagwan" means either "The Blessed One" or "God" and that "Shree" means "Master". At the end of his life, he changed his name to Osho.

His parents' religion was Jainism. However, Osho never subscribed to any religious faith during his lifetime. He received "samadhi" (enlightenment in which his soul became one with the universe) on 1953-MAR-21 at the age of 21. Rajneesh obtained a masters degree in philosophy from the University of Saugar. He taught philosophy at the University of Jabalpur for nine years and concurrently worked as a religious leader. In 1966, he left his teaching post and gave his full attention to teaching his sannyasins (disciples) while pursuing a speaking career. He had an apartment in Bombay where he often met individuals and small groups, where acting as spiritual teacher, guide and friend. Most of his Sannyasins came from Europe and India in the early years.

In 1974, Osho moved from Bombay southward to Pune, India. Some anti-cult groups have claimed that this decision was made because of local opposition from the public in Bombay. In reality, it was to establish an ashram (place of teaching) which would provide larger and more comfortable facilities for his disciples. The ashram consisted of two adjoining properties covering six acres in an affluent suburb of Pune called Koregaon Park. Some estimate as many as 50,000 Westerners spent time seeking enlightenment there with the guru. In 1979, he saw his movement as the route to the preservation of the human race. He said: If we cannot create the 'new man' in the coming 20 years, then humanity has no future. The holocaust of a global suicide can only be avoided if a new kind of man can be created." He taught a syncretistic spiritual path that combined elements from Hinduism, Jainism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, ancient Greek philosophy, many other religious and philosophic traditions, humanistic psychology, new forms of therapy and meditation, etc.

In 1980, he was the victim of a knife attack by a Hindu fundamentalist during his morning discourse. Because of police incompetence, the charges against the terrorist were dropped.

In 1981 he left India reluctantly because of health problems. He went to the United States in order to obtain advanced treatment. There have been rumors of income tax evasion, and insurance fraud; it is not known whether these have any validity. The group settled on the 65,000 acre "Big Muddy Ranch" near Antelope, Oregon, which his sannyasins had bought for six million dollars. The ranch was renamed Rajneeshpuram ("City of Rajneesh"). This "small, desolate valley twelve miles from Antelope, Oregon was transformed into a thriving town of 3,000 residents, with a 4,500 foot paved airstrip, a 44 acre reservoir, an 88,000 square foot meeting hall..." 8 Many of the local folks were intolerant of the new group in their midst, because of religious and cultural differences. One manifestation of this intolerance was the town's denial of building permits to the followers of Rajneesh. Some buildings were erected on the ranch without planning board approval. When officials attempted to stop the construction, their office was firebombed by unknown person(s). When the local city council repeatedly refused to issue permits for their businesses, some sannyasins elected themselves to the city council. The town of Antelope was renamed City of Rajneesh.

Top aides of Osho were charged with a number of crimes, including the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician. There were stories of a hit list. Some fled the country for Switzerland where they had control over the group's bank accounts. Two were eventually convicted of conspiracy to murder local lawyer Charles Turner in an attempt to prevent closure of the ranch.

In 1983, Osho's secretary Sheela Silverman predicted on behalf of Osho that there would be massive destruction on earth, between 1984 and 1999. This would include both natural disasters and man-made catastrophes. Floods larger than any since Noah, extreme earthquakes, very destructive volcano eruptions, nuclear wars etc. would be experienced. Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Bombay were all expected to disappear. There is doubt that these predictions actually came from Osho; they are not representative of his other teachings.

A number of sources have reported that spiritual devotees of Rajneesh had spread salmonella on a local restaurant's salad bar in order to reduce voter turnout on a measure that would have restricted the group's activities. Allegedly, 751 people were affected by the bacteria. 9,10

Fearing a raid of the type that later happened in Waco, several of Osho's disciples arranged for him to be flown to Charlotte for safety. In North Carolina, he ran afoul of US immigration law. He allegedly arranged a number of phony marriages between some of his Indian followers and American citizens so that the former could obtain clearance to stay in the country. He was also charged with lying on his immigration papers. He entered an "Alford Plea," commonly called a no-contest plea. His lawyers suggested that he do this because of concerns over his health and safety if he had to spend more time in prison. He was given a suspended sentence on condition that he leave the country. He returned to Pune, India in 1987, where his health began to fail. Here, he abandoned the name of Rajneesh and adopted "Osho". Some sources explain that the name was derived from the expression "oceanic experience" by William James; others say that it was derived from an ancient Japanese word for master. He died in Pune in 1990. Various rumors spread that he had been poisoned with thallium by the CIA, had been exposed to damaging doses of radiation by the U.S. authorities, or had heart failure. It is obvious that he did not experience thallium poisoning, because he died with a full beard, and only male-pattern baldness on the top of his head. A person suffering from thallium poisoning suffers a dramatic loss of hair with a week of exposure. 6 His death certificate lists heart failure as the cause of his death.

At its peak, they had about 200,000 members and 600 centers around the world. They were targeted by many anti-cult groups as an evil, mind control cult. One source, in a masterful stroke of religious disinformation, claimed that "Bhagwan" means "Master of the Vagina." He has been called the "sex guru."



Beliefs and Practices
Osho developed new forms of active meditation. The best known is Dynamic Meditation which often starts with strenuous physical activity followed by silence and celebration. These were expected to lead the individual to overcome repression, lower their personal inhibitions, develop a "state of emptiness", and attain enlightenment. The person then would have "no past, no future, no attachment, no mind, no ego, no self." Prior to 1985, the disciples wore red robes, and a necklace of 108 beads which had an attached picture of Rajneesh. Osho assigned a new name to each of the disciples. Men were given the title "Swami"; women were called "Ma". Although most members lived a frugal, simple lifestyle, Rajneesh himself lived in luxury. His collection 27 Rolls Royces, given to him by his followers, was well known. (Some sources say he had as many as 100 cars). Anti-cult groups claimed that he urged his disciples to sever their connection to their families of origin. It is true that he felt that the institution of the family was out of date and that it should be replaced with alternative forms of community and ways of caring for children. However, he actually encouraged individual disciples to make peace with their families. Many became disciples themselves, including Osho's own parents.

He taught a form of Monism, that God was in everything and everyone. There is no division between "God" and "not-God". People, even at their worse, are divine. He recognized Jesus Christ as having attained enlightenment, and believed that he survived his crucifixion and moved to India where he died at the age of 112. Osho was noted for reading very offensive jokes; some were anti-Semitic; others were anti-Roman Catholicism; others insulted just about every ethnic and religious group in the world. He explained that the purpose of these jokes was to shock people and to encourage them to examine their identification with and attachment to their ethnic or religious beliefs. His contention was that national, religious, gender and racial divisions are destructive.
Recent Developments
Osho repeatedly stated that he would not appoint a successor to replace him after his death. He viewed each disciple as his successor. However, before his death, he appointed an inner circle of 21 individuals to look after the functioning of the meditation resort at Pune and handle administrative affairs relating to his work. They now operate about 20 meditation centers worldwide. Rajneesh's main influence now is through his voluminous writings; they are read by many New Agers as well as followers of Osho

[bonddonraj]

I KNOW SOME MAY HAVE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ABOUT HIM.......BUT STILL HE WAS AN INDIAN .....A PERSON WHO WAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED.....I SAY ALL TO READ HIM FIRST AND THEN JUDGE .....
HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO DARED TO ASK WORLD TO ENJOY WHEN HE DIE......HE WAS POISONED AS HE TOLD TRUTH......LIKE SOCARAT .....WAS EXAILED AS HE TOLD NACKED TRUTH....LIKE MAY BE PRESENT GEN GURU,....C.K PRAHALAD....

HERE I AM POSTING SOME HIS WORK....READ IT AND GIVE COMMENTS.....

[bonddonraj]

I have a very soft corner in my heart for Bodhidharma. That makes it a very special occasion to speak about him. Perhaps he is the only man whom I have loved so deeply that speaking on him I will be almost speaking on myself. That also creates a great complexity, because he never wrote anything in his life. No enlightened being has ever written. Bodhidharma is not an exception, but by tradition these three books that we are going to discuss are attributed to Bodhidharma.
The scholars reason that because there is no contrary evidence -- and for almost one thousand years, these books have been attributed to Bodhidharma -- there is no reason why we should not accept them. I am not a scholar, and there are certainly fragments which must have been spoken by Bodhidharma, but these are not books written by him. These are notes by his disciples. It was an ancient tradition that when a disciple takes notes from the master he does not put his own name on those notes, because nothing of it belongs to him; it has come from the master.
But knowing Bodhidharma as intimately as I know him ... There are so many fallacies which are possible only if somebody else was taking notes and his own mind entered into it; he has interpreted Bodhidharma -- and with not much understanding.
Before we enter into these sutras, a few things about Bodhidharma will be good to know. That will give you the flavor of the man and a way to understand what belongs to him in these books and what does not belong to him. It is going to be a very strange commentary.
Bodhidharma was born fourteen centuries ago as a son of a king in the south of India. There was a big empire, the empire of Pallavas. He was the third son of his father, but seeing everything -- he was a man of tremendous intelligence -- he renounced the kingdom. He was not against the world, but he was not ready to waste his time in mundane affairs, in trivia. His whole concern was to know his self-nature, because without knowing it you have to accept death as the end.
All true seekers in fact, have been fighting against death. Bertrand Russell has made a statement that if there were no death, there would be no religion. There is some truth in it. I will not agree totally, because religion is a vast continent. It is not only death, it is also the search for bliss, it is also the search for truth, it is also the search for the meaning of life; it is many more things. But certainly Bertrand Russell is right: if there were no death, very few, very rare people would be interested in religion. Death is the great incentive.
Bodhidharma renounced the kingdom saying to his father, "If you cannot save me from death, then please don't prevent me. Let me go in search of something that is beyond death." Those were beautiful days, particularly in the East. The father thought for a moment and he said, "I will not prevent you, because I cannot prevent your death. You go on your search with all my blessings. It is sad for me but that is my problem; it is my attachment. I was hoping for you to be thesuccessor, to be the emperor of the great Pallavas empire, but you have chosen something higher than that. I am your father so how can I prevent you?
"And you have put in such a simple way a question which I had never expected. You say, `If you can prevent my death then I will not leave the palace, but if you cannot prevent my death, then please don't prevent me either.'" You can see Bodhidharma's caliber as a great intelligence.
And the second thing that I would like you to remember is that although he was a follower of Gautam Buddha, in some instances he shows higher flights than Gautam Buddha himself. For example, Gautam Buddha was afraid to initiate a woman into his commune of sannyasins but Bodhidharma got initiated by a woman who was enlightened. Her name was Pragyatara. Perhaps people would have forgotten her name; it is only because of Bodhidharma that her name still remains, but only the name -- we don't know anything else about her. It was she who ordered Bodhidharma to go to China. Buddhism had reached China six hundred years before Bodhidharma. It was something magical; it had never happened anywhere, at any time -- Buddha's message immediately caught hold of the whole Chinese people.
The situation was that China had lived under the influence of Confucius and was tired of it. Because Confucius is just a moralist, a puritan, he does not know anything about the inner mysteries of life. In fact, he denies that there is anything inner. Everything is outer; refine it, polish it, culture it, make it as beautiful as possible.
There were people like Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, contemporaries of Confucius, but they were mystics not masters. They could not create a counter movement against Confucius in the hearts of the Chinese people. So there was a vacuum. Nobody can live without a soul, and once you start thinking that there is no soul, your life starts losing all meaning. The soul is your very integrating concept; without it you are cut away from existence and eternal life. Just like a branch cut off from a tree is bound to die -- it has lost the source of nourishment -- the very idea that there is no soul inside you, no consciousness, cuts you away from existence. One starts shrinking, one starts feeling suffocated.
But Confucius was a very great rationalist. These mystics, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, knew that what Confucius was doing was wrong, but they were not masters. They remained in their monasteries with their few disciples.
When Buddhism reached China, it immediately entered to the very soul of the people... as if they had been thirsty for centuries, and Buddhism had come as a rain cloud. It quenched their thirst so immensely that something unimaginable happened.
Christianity has converted many people, but that conversion is not worth calling religious. It converts the poor, the hungry, the beggars, the orphans, not by any spiritual impact on them but just by giving them food, clothes, shelter, education. But these have nothing to do with spirituality. Mohammedanism has converted atremendous amount of people, but on the point of the sword: either you be a Mohammedan, or you cannot live. The choice is yours.
The conversion that happened in China is the only religious conversion in the whole history of mankind. Buddhism simply explained itself, and the beauty of the message was understood by the people. They were thirsty for it, they were waiting for something like it. The whole country, which was the biggest country in the world, turned to Buddhism. When Bodhidharma reached there six hundred years later, there were already thirty thousand Buddhist temples, monasteries, and two million Buddhist monks in China. And two million Buddhist monks is not a small number; it was five percent of the whole population of China.
Pragyatara, Bodhidharma's master, told him to go to China because the people who had reached there before him had made a great impact, although none of them were enlightened. They were great scholars, very disciplined people, very loving and peaceful and compassionate, but none of them were enlightened. And now China needed another Gautam Buddha. The ground was ready.
Bodhidharma was the first enlightened man to reach China. The point I want to make clear is that while Gautam Buddha was afraid to initiate women into his commune, Bodhidharma was courageous enough to be initiated by a woman on the path of Gautam Buddha. There were other enlightened people, but he chose a woman for a certain purpose. And the purpose was to show that a woman can be enlightened. Not only that, her disciples can be enlightened. Bodhidharma's name stands out amongst all the Buddhist enlightened people second only to Gautam Buddha.
There are many legends about the man; they all have some significance. The first legend is: When he reached China -- it took him three years -- the Chinese emperor Wu came to receive him. His fame had reached ahead of him. Emperor Wu had done great service to the philosophy of Gautam Buddha. Thousands of scholars were translating Buddhist scriptures from Pali into Chinese and the emperor was the patron of all that great work of translation. He had made thousands of temples and monasteries, and he was feeding thousands of monks. He had put his whole treasure at the service of Gautam Buddha, and naturally the Buddhist monks who had reached before Bodhidharma had been telling him that he was earning great virtue, that he will be born as a god in heaven.
Naturally, his first question to Bodhidharma was, "I have made so many monasteries, I am feeding thousands of scholars, I have opened a whole university for the studies of Gautam Buddha, I have put my whole empire and its treasures in the service of Gautam Buddha. What is going to be my reward?"
He was a little embarrassed seeing Bodhidharma, not thinking that the man would be like this. He looked very ferocious. He had very big eyes, but he had a very soft heart -- just a lotus flower in his heart. But his face was almost as dangerous as you can conceive. Just the sunglasses were missing; otherwise he was a mafia guy!..................

[bonddonraj]

THINK THAT ALL HAPPENS IS NOTHING BUT DREAMS..............

[bonddonraj]

THE ABSOLUTE TAO
THE TAO THAT CAN BE TRODDEN IS NOT THE ENDURING
AND UNCHANGING TAO. THE NAME THAT CAN BE NAMED
IS NOT THE ENDURING AND UNCHANGING NAME.

Those who have known, not by words, not by scriptures but by actually living life, from amongst those very few, Lao Tzu is one. And from amongst those yet fewer persons, who having known, have ceaselessly endeavoured to reveal what they have known, Lao Tzu is one. But the very first experience of those enlightened ones, who have tried to express what they have known is, that: whatever is expressible is not Truth. That which can assume form, invariably loses its spiritual power (of the Formless).
Now if someone wishes to make a picture of the sky, this can never be. Whatever picture is made, it will not be of the sky, for space is that which embodies everything. A picture cannot contain anything; it, in itself is surrounded by space. So Truth expressed in words, will be like the skies depicted in a picture. No bird can fly in the sky of a picture, no sun comes out in the morning or stars at night. It is dead for all purposes and the sky only in name. The sky cannot be in a picture. The greatest difficulty that a person encounters when he sets forth to express Truth is, that no sooner Truth is converted into words, it becomes Un-Truth. It becomes just what it is not. Then what was to be conveyed, remains unsaid; and what was not to be conveyed, is given voice. Lao Tzu starts his very first line with this statement.
Tao is a peerless word. Try to understand its full meaning so we can proceed with ease. There are many meanings of Tao. The deeper a thing becomes, the more meanings it develops; and when a thing becomes multi-dimensional, it is but natural that it becomes more intricate. One interpretation of Tao is: "The Way." But, all paths are bound and fixed! What sort of a path is Tao? It is like the path that a bird makes; in the skies as it flies -- the path is formed but it is not fixed. All other paths leave their marks behind, which makes it easy for others to follow. Tao is a path like the bird makes in the skies -- there are no footprints left behind for the convenience of others to follow. If we visualize a path that is unconstructed, a path where there are no footprints, a path that no other person can create for you -- you travel and as you travel the path is formed -- then we can interpret Tao as: 'The Way'. But such a path we see nowhere! Therefore, is it proper to call Tao -- 'The Way'?
This however, is one dimension of Tao. Now let us take another meaning of the Path. A path is that which takes us to a destination. A path is that which joins us to the destination. But Tao is not such a path. When we walk along a road and reach the destination, both the road and the destination are connected to each other. In fact the destination is the last end of the road and the road is the beginning of the destination. Therefore, the path and the goal are not two different things -- they are joined allied to one another. The road cannot be without a destination, nor can the destination be without a road. But Tao is a path that is tied to no destination. When a destination is connected with a path, the length of the journey is known. So the traveller knows the distance to the destination. But Tao is such a path where the traveller attains his destination at the very place he stands! Therefore, Tao cannot be likened to the general concept of a path. It is a path where we attain the destination from the very place we stand upon. It can also be that we travel for millions of births and not attain it. Invariably then, Tao is a different kind of a path. So one meaning of Tao is 'The Path' but in a very intrinsic sense -- and with very many conditions.
Another interpretation of Tao is 'Religion'. But Religion not in the sense that we generally understand. Religion here is what the ancient Rishis meant. Religion means the Regulation that holds all within itself. The Ultimate Law that holds all Existence, is the Tao Religion. And this Religion is not akin to the Hindu, Islam or the Buddhist and Jain religions. Religion is the Absolute Law of Existence. Religion means the Eternal Law of Life. But all laws are limited. Tao is a Law that has no boundaries.
In fact, all boundaries pertain to death; there are no limitations to Life. Dead things alone are limited. Live things are not limited they are boundless. The very meaning of life is one continuous ability of expansion. If a seed is alive it can turn into a seedling. If a seedling is alive, it can turn into a tree. If a tree is alive. more seeds and seedlings can come out of it. Where the ability to expand stops. Life stops with it. This is why a child is more alive than an old man, for its ability to expand is very great. So Tao is not the Law in any limited sense. It is not a law like any man-made laws, that can be defined, that can be enclosed within a boundary. Tao is a Law that is Infinite Expanse, capable of touching the Infinite, the Boundless. Therefore to call it merely Religion, will not do.
There is one other word that the Rishis have used and which is perhaps, the nearest to Tao. That word is 'RIT' from which the word 'RITU' (season) was evolved. The Ritu they talk about is the discussion of Tao. If we try to understand the word 'Rit', by seasons it will be easier.
Summer comes and then the rains and then Winter follows. Then again it is Summer. It is a recurring circle, that keeps revolving. First there is childhood, then comes youth, then old age and thereafter death. It is a circle that keeps revolving. First there is morning, then evening and then night, then again it is morning. The Sun rises, then it sets, then it rises again -- it is a circle. Life moves in a circular manner. The Controlling Factor of this movement is what is known as 'Rit'. Remember, there is no concept of any God in this word 'Rit'. It means the 'Controlling Principle' and not a Controlling Person. It is not a person who controls, rather, it is a principle that goes on controlling. And this too, is not correct for it gives the impression of a being that controls. It would be more proper to say, 'That from which the Principle occurs, that from which the Principle evolves.' It is not that someone creates the laws and forms regulations -- no; the laws are continuously formed through it. As the sprout springs from the bud, so the seasons come out from 'Rit'. This also is one of the intrinsic meanings of Tao.
Yet, none of these words convey the vital meaning of the word Tao, for whatever meaning is given to it, Tao is yet infinitely greater; for something or the other is always left out. This is the greatest difficulty with words that all words are formed out of duality. If we say night, the day is left out; if we say light, darkness is left out; if we say life, death is left out. Whatever we say, something is always left out; and Life, Existence, is one whole amalgam. There night and day are no two separate things, birth and death are not two different events; neither is a child and an old man two different entities, nor are hot and cold two different states. There, when the Sun rises in the morning, it also sets in the night.
Life is such -- united, whole but whenever we try to express in words, something is left out. If we say 'day', the night is left out but night too, is within the Existence. Whenever we make a pronouncement -- this is Tao, this is the Path, this is the Religion, or the 'Rit', -- with the very pronouncement, something is left unpronounced. Now for instance, suppose we say the word 'Regulation', with the very mention of this word, we leave out chaos whereas in life, chaos also is. With the very word 'Regulation', that which is anarchic, the chaotic factor, is left behind. Nietzsche has written somewhere, "How will new stars come into being if disorder is no more? How will new creation come into being if there is anarchy no more?"
Creation is born out of disorder, anarchy. Out of chaos comes creation. In the absence of chaos, there can be no creation. And if creation alone is, it will never end, for it will have to plunge into chaos to end itself. When we say, 'The Principle,' we leave out chaos; but this too, is a part of Existence. There is no way of leaving it out of existence; we can only brush it aside with words. So when we say 'Rit', then also something is left out and that is -- chaos; which happens and yet happens outside of the Principle. Everything in Existence does not occur with Principle, or else life would become worthless. There is something in this Existence that happens outside this Law. Whatever is non-significant obeys the Principle but the most profound experiences of life follow no regulations. They come suddenly, uncalled, without any cause, and knock at your door. The day, the advent of God takes place in a person's life, he cannot say that because he did such and such a thing therefore he attained Him. Then, he is only able to say: "What compassion, What mercy, my Lord! I have done nothing to deserve this honour. Whatever I did, had no connection with this, Your coming! How did You come? I never desired You, I never wished for You, nor did I ever seek You. And if I ever desired you, I desired you in a wrong way and if I ever sought You it was in places where You were not and if I ever wished for You I never believed You will ever come my way! Then this -- Your Coming! Oh Lord Oh Lord!" When God enters into someone's life, His advent has not the remotest connection with any action on the part of the individual. He comes suddenly, uncalled!
If everything in Existence was based on Principle, then we could say that Tao means 'Rit'. But that which is outside of this Regulation in Life and which is present every moment and appears suddenly, without a cause, we cannot leave outside of Life and Existence. So then, what shall we call Tao?
In his very first Sutra, Lao Tzu says! "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao." Now a path means that which can be trodden upon. But Lao Tzu says, "Not the path that can be trodden upon; not the path on which you can walk!" Now if we cannot tread this path, what is the point in calling it a path? If only we can walk on it, could it be a path. But Lao Tzu says otherwise -- "That which can be trodden is not the enduring, unchanging Tao!"
There are many things to this small sutra. First and foremost, the path that can be trodden, on which the incidence of walking takes place, the event of reaching does not take place there. Where we have to reach is nowhere away from us. It is here and now. If I have to come to you; I shall have to come along a path but if I have to go to myself, what path shall I follow? And the more I set out on a journey to reach myself the more I shall wander. I shall go further and further away! from myself. He who sets out on a path to find himself, will never reach himself. How will he? He will lose himself with his own hands by this search. He who wants to seek his own Self, has to leave all paths, for no path leads to the Self. In fact, no path is required to reach the self, for paths are required to reach 'the other'. He reaches his own self who leaves all paths and steps aside. He who does not walk, reaches! It is therefore that Lao Tzu says: "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao."
Lao Tzu says two things: One is, that it is not eternal and enduring. In fact, whatever path we can tread upon, will be formed by ourselves and since it is formed by ourselves, it cannot be enduring. It will be created by man and therefore not created by God. And how can a path that is carved out by us, lead to Truth? If we had the knowledge of the temple of Truth, then we could carve a road that leads up to it. Remember a path can only be made if the destination is known. If I know your house, I'll find a way to reach it. But this is very difficult that I should reach your house without following a specific way. Or else, how will I know where your house is?
An ancient Egyptian Scripture says: "When you meet God and you recognise Him, then you will surely say, 'Forsooth, I have always known You!'" If you cannot say this, then how will you recognise God? Then recognition is impossible. The meaning of recognition is to identify that which is known before. If God stands before me and I get up and ask Him; "What is Your good name?" I shall then never recognise God. And if at the very first glance I recognise Him -- that it is He! -- it means that at some moment, in some corner of my consciousness, through some opening, I have known Him -- to-day, I have recognised Him. We can only recognise what we have known. If you know already where Truth is, where is the need for a path for you? You have reached Truth, you have known it. So the one who knows, makes no paths; one who does not know, makes paths. And how can the paths made by those who do not know ever take you towards Truth?
That cannot be the enduring path.
Which is the enduring path? The Path that was never made by Man; it was when Man was not; and it will be when Man is not. It is that Path which is not created by the Rishis of the Vedas; that is not created by any Buddha, Mahavira, Mohammed, Christ or Krishna. At the most, they can only give news of this Path. So, which is the Enduring Path? In this context the Rishis never say that what they say is their own. They always say, "So it has been said by others before us: so has It always been known to Man. The tidings we bring is of that Path which is eternal. It was, when we were not and it was even when there was no one. When the Earth disintegrates and Life begins to depart, it still will be. Like the vast expanse of the Skies, it was always present. It is a different matter that our wings were not strong enough till yesterday to fly; today we can. It is yet a different matter that even today we cannot gather courage enough and sit at the edge of our nest, sizing up our wings, turning within our minds whether to fly or not to fly. But the skies are not formed by your flying. When you did not have your wings; when you were imprisoned within the ego: it still was. And even if today, in spite of your wings, you remain sitting and refuse to fly, the skies will not disintegrate on your account. Space is -- even without you. So the Enduring Path is that which is devoid of travellers. If a path depends on the traveller, it cannot be enduring.
And the path that is walked upon is ridden with deformities for the traveller walks with his maladies. This needs a little explanation.
He who steps out of all maladies does not walk any more -- there is no need to. He has reached. He who is filled with disease, keeps walking. He walks in order to escape his maladies; but whichever path he treads becomes infected with his disease. Wherever he halts, the place becomes unholy. Wherever he seeks, he only succeeds to create more smoke. It is just as when a man steps into a pool of stagnant waters and disturbs the slush below. All his efforts to put down the slush, will only help to raise the remaining slush from below. The more desperately he tries, the more turbid the water becomes, for more slush rises to the surface, making the water more dirty. If Lao Tzu happens to pass by, he would tell him, "Friend, come out! That which you try to purify, becomes impure, for you yourself are impure. Please come out. Leave the water alone. Sit on the shore, the water will purify itself. You leave all efforts for they are dangerous -- one and all!"
The Path on which sick people walk, cannot be the enduring path.
Also remember, it is only the sick who walk. Those who reach, those who are purified, who have known, they stop. For then there is no question of walking. In truth, we roam only because some desire goads us on. All desires are unholy. Even the desire of attaining God is unholy. The desire to attain liberation also is not without its stink. Actually wherever there are desires, the mind becomes ugly. A mind full of desire, is a mind filled with tension. Where there is the urge to reach; where there is the eagerness, the expectancy, there is born the madness of wandering. And then all sicknesses gather together.
Lao Tzu says: "THE PATH THAT CAN BE TRODDEN IS NOT THE ENDURING NOR THE UNCHANGING PATH." Is there then, such a path which cannot be trodden? Is there a path on which one does not walk and on which one can only stand? Can there be a path for standing alone? This appears contradictory. Roads are meant for walking and not merely to stand! But Tao is the name of that Path which does not reach you by walking on it; rather it reaches you by halting on it. Because by halting on it people have reached their destination, it is called a Path. Man keeps roaming and running on the roads of the corporeal world and they reach him nowhere. Therefore, these roads, in fact, are roads only in name. They are not the Path.
The second part of the statement is: The name that can be memorised cannot be the enduring and the unchanging Tao. The name which can be named, that can be recollected, that can be expressed in words, cannot be the authentic name. It cannot be the enduring, everlasting name which cannot be conquered by Time. Understand this further:
We give a name to every thing. It is convenient for human transactions, it is easier to establish relationships and describe things. If we do not use names, things become complicated and difficult. All movements are impossible without attributing names in this world. But remember, as soon as we give a name, we reduce the limitlessness of that particular thing and make it a limited entrance. Understand this a little: When we name an object we limit it within a certain boundary. A person is sitting next to you. You have no idea who he is. He is sitting close to you, his arm touching yours but you know nothing about him. As yet, his existence is enormous. Then you ask him and he replies, he is a Musalman. At once his existence will contract. All that is non-Hindu falls away -- that much part of Existence falls apart and he is now a limited boundary. Now he is a Musalman. Then you ask: "Are you a Shia or a Sunni?" He says, "I am a Sunni." Yet a part of the Musalman, falls apart.
You continue asking till he reaches the ultimate place where he will now be reverted to a single point. The Vast Existence contracts so that ultimately what remains is the puny, little Ego -- imprisoned on all sides. But then you will find it convenient. Then you can draw yourself up and sit away from him or you can take him to your heart. Then you can talk to him as well as anticipate his answers. Now this man is predictable. Now you can foretell whether it would be proper to be with this man or not. Now it has become easy and simple to deal with him. There is no longer any mystery about the existence of this man. Now he has become an object. We name a thing in order to put it to use -- so that we can deal with things and make use of them. Thus all our names are purely utilitarian there is no Truth behind them.
Can we also name God, the Ultimate Power? And will the name we give be meaningful?
When we name the most negligible of things, we cause its existence to be deformed. We give a name, the boundary is formed and the existence changes for the lesser. The actual fact is, that we shall never be able to name the Ultimate Power (God). The reason is simply this, that: nowhere do our eyes perceive Him; nowhere do our hands touch Him; nor do the ears ever hear Him -- nowhere is a meeting possible with Him. And yet those who have known say, "Our eyes see Him alone, everywhere. Our ears hear His voice alone; whatever we touch, it is He we touch and whomever we meet, it is Him!" But these are people who know. Those who do not, see Him nowhere. Then how will they name Him? And how can those also, who know, who see and hear Him everywhere name Him? For only that can be named which is at one place. One person we call a Musalman for he is found in the Masjid and not in the Mandir (temple). But if this man is encountered again in a temple, then again in a Gurdwara and again in a church; if he is found with a sandal-wood mark on his forehead performing Kirtan one day and found offering prayers in the Masjid the next day, it will be difficult to call him a Musalman. Then it becomes very difficult for you for wherever you go, you find the same man. It is now impossible to name him a Musalman. Those who know not, cannot name Him for they know not whom to name. And those who know, also cannot name Him, for they know all names are His. Everywhere, it is He and He and He!
Therefore Lao Tzu says: "Tao cannot be named." No name can be given that can be memorised. But names are given for remembrance. Names are given so that we can call, we can remember! If there is such a name, that cannot be remembered, it would be wrong to call it a name. What is a name for after all? A father names his son so that he can call out to him, refer to him. The usefulness of a name is in calling out that particular object. But Lao Tzu says: "The name that can be named, is not the Name." But it is for this very remembrance that names are given! Some call Him Ram, some Krishna, some Allah -- so that we may remember Him, call out to Him, whom we do not know. But how can we name Him, of whom we know nothing at all?
Whatever name we give Him, will speak for us but will give no news of Him whatsoever. When you say, "We have named him Ram," it shows that you are born in a Hindu family -- that is all. You say, "We call him Allah." It only shows you have been brought up in a house where He is referred to as Allah. This gives news of you but no news of Him. And this is why the one who calls Him 'Ram', fights with one who calls Him 'Allah'.
If he who called Him 'Allah', knew whom he was calling and if he who called Him 'Ram', new whom he was calling, there would be no quarrels. But we know nothing. We have only the 'name' and the One, whom we have named, we know nothing about Him at all! The condition laid down by Lao Tzu is a very strange condition: "The name that can be named is not His name." All names can be named (remembered). But is there a name that cannot be named? And if you cannot name, how will you know of it?
Bodhidharma stood before Emperor Wen. The King asked, "Bodhidharma, tell me something about that sacred Supreme Truth." Bodhidharma replied, "What is sacred? There is nothing sacred. Nothing is holy. Which Supreme Truth? There is nothing but Emptiness. There is nothing besides the Void." The King was startled. "Then may I ask," he said, "Who is this who stands before me and speaks?"... And you know what Bodhidharma replied? He said, "I do not know, who stands before you and speaks!" The king thought, he was out of his mind. "You do not know even this much?" He asked. "As long as I knew," replied Bodhidharma, "I knew nothing. Ever since I have known, I cannot even say that I know." For that which is known, that which is recognised and named -- is that any name?
Lao Tzu says, "That which can be remembered, is not the name." That which can be named, does not take you beyond Time. Only that can take you beyond Time, which is for ever beyond Time. Only that is beyond Time, which is beyond Time. That which is born within Time, perishes also within Time. If you say that I remembered God at 5 past 5, such a remembrance, will not take you beyond Time. That which is voiced within Time, reverberates and fades also within Time. God is outside of Time. Why?... Because within Time, there is nothing but variation and God is not variation. The exact meaning of Time, is variation. Have you ever realised how you become aware of Time? The fact is, you are only acquainted with variation, you have no knowledge of Time. Take it this way: We are so many people seated in this room. Now if for a full year we keep sitting here and none of us undergoes the slightest change, will we ever feel that a year has passed by? Actually we shall not be conscious even of the passing of a moment, if things remain just as they were. The knowledge of the passing of Time is experienced in the change in things around us. In fact, the sense of alteration is Time. Therefore, the greater the speed with which things change, the more we become conscious of time. You are more conscious of the passing of the day than the passing of night.
If a man lives for sixty years, he sleeps twenty years; but is there an account of these twenty years? None -- they pass in sleep. Things are more static in sleep, there are no drastic variations: the traffic on the road does not move so fast -- all things are at a standstill and you are alone. If a man is made to remain unconscious for a hundred years, he will have no knowledge of this period of time on awakening. He will be startled to see the change around him! And if he finds things and people just as they were before he became unconscious -- the same people around him; the clock ticking away on the wall, the wife cooking in the kitchen, the child away at school -- he will never know a hundred years have passed away! The knowledge of time is the knowledge of change, for all objects are moving, changing and that makes us conscious of Time. The greater the speed of variation, the greater the feeling of time-consciousness.
In the days of old, time-consciousness was not all that apparent. Things were more or less static -- almost where they were. The son found things exactly where his father left them. The son then left the things exactly where his father had left them. So things were almost static. It is not so now. Things are not today where they were yesterday and tomorrow, they will not be where they are today! Everything changes fast and hence the intense Time-Consciousness of this Age. Each moment that passes is very priceless. Whatever is formed within the boundary of Time, will change. No happening of the Eternal can take place within the precincts of Time. No ray of Immortality penetrates Time. It is just as: whoever enters the river, is bound to get wet. He who does not want to get wet, will have to stand at the shore. Whoever is within the flow of Time, will have to change. The unchanging, perpetual world starts only when you stand outside of Time.
Lao Tzu says, "The name that can be named, is not the Name." Remembrance is always within Time; it takes time to pronounce words. We cannot pronounce even a single word within the period of one moment. We pronounce the first part, then the second, then the third. Time flows even as I say the word 'Time'. I pronounce 'T' and one part of Time flows by, then 'i' and another part of Time flows by; and so a considerable amount of Time flows by, by the time I finish the word.
Heraklitus has said: "One cannot step twice into the same river." When you step a second time, the same water would have flowed further away. Heraklitus has been very sparing in his statement. The fact is, one cannot step even once in the same river! For when my toes touch the river, the waters are running away. When my toes enter the river, yet more water flows by; when my feet are well within the river, the waters that touch them, are entirely different from the waters that touched my toes! And then as I reach the bottom of the river, the waters are yet different. Not once am I able to touch the same waters. And it would have been alright even then, had the waters of the river alone been changing. The foot that touches the waters, also changes at the same speed! No, it is not possible to step twice into the same river. No, it is not possible to step even once into the same waters; and not only because the waters of the river are changing but because the one who enters the river, also changes. When I had touched the surface of the river, my mind was different; when my foot was half within the waters, my mind became something else; and as I reached the bottom of the river, my mind was again something quite different! Not only was the body changing, the mind was changing too!
Many a time Buddha would tell the person who approached him: "Remember, you are not the same person returning." Now the person may have come just an hour before. He is bound to be startled by Buddha's remark. He would question him: "What is this you say?" And Buddha would reply, "Definitely, I spoke, you heard -- and within this period, everything has changed."
The Zen Fakir, Bokozu, was crossing a bridge in one of his travels. His companion remarked; "Do you notice how swiftly the river is running?" And Bokozu replies: "Everybody can see the river flowing. Observe minutely -- how fast the bridge is flowing also!" The man is shocked. Do bridges ever flow? It is always the river that flows. He looks inquiringly at Bokozu, who continues his statement, "And this is not all. See yet more carefully -- how fast the people standing on the bridge are flowing away!"
All that occurs within Time, changes. Whatever is said here, fades away; whatever is within, is erased. All writings are the writings on sand -- not even sand but water! So the name of God that is taken by the lips by the tongue, by words, in place and time, is not the Eternal Name. It is not the Name that is beyond Time. And this Name, cannot be named. You can know it, you cannot express it. You can live it, you cannot express it. You can live it, you cannot pronounce it. You can be in the Name but you cannot place it on your tongue.
Lao Tzu says at the same time: "It is neither the enduring nor the unchanging Tao." And if God also changes, can we call Him God? And if the Path also changes, can it be called a Path? And if Truth changes, can it be called Truth? What is expected of Truth is, that no matter how much we go astray, how farther away we wander, when we reach, it will still be the same -- The Same. Whatever we are, however we are; after wandering for countless births, when we reach the Door, it will still be The Same, that it ever was.
There are two or three points with regard to this sameness that should be taken into account: That alone can be 'the Same,' that is Perfect. That which is not perfect, cannot remain the same; for within this imperfection lies the deep-seated desire to be perfect. And this is what brings about the changes. How can the river stand still at one place? She has to meet the Ocean! She has to run fast, go a long way -- there is a lot to be done! How can man remain at one place? God knows how many desires he has to fulfil -- how many Oceans to reach? How can the mind remain the same? It has to hurry along; it has a lot to achieve. He alone can be the same, who hasnothing left to be achieved; nowhere to go. He who reaches, loses him-self -- there beyond which there is nothing to Be. It is the same through Eternity. Remember sameness means perfection. There is no other quality in the consummate Perfection.
There is a very popular joke about Nasruddin. He got hold of a one-stringed instrument. He would keep his finger at one point on the string and play it day in and day out. The wife was disturbed to hear the same note throughout the day. One day passed, then another, then another. It was full eight days that fakir Nasruddin was at the instrument, playing one monotonous note! At last she could hold out no longer, "What is this music you are creating?" She asked him on the eighth day. "Every person in our lane is tormented by this one note you play day and night!" The incessant sound of the single note drove his neighbours mad and they all gathered together and approached him. "Stop for heaven's sake!" They told him. "Many a musician we have seen but never a one like you! You seem to be an amateur. You should move your fingers along the string and create different notes. What is this continuous tun-tun-tun? Our heads will burst! We have decided that either you leave the street or we will.... But tell us why a wise person like you, is indulging in such nerve-wracking madness?" Nasruddin replied, "The other musicians move their hand up and down in search of the proper place. I have found it already! I shall play only this." This is a joke of Nasruddin but this man has played many a profound and priceless joke! If ever God plays an instrument, He too must be playing just one single note. His Hand cannot be moving either this way or that -- there can be no flow, no change there.
Lao Tzu says: "It is not the same -- that which we can pronounce. That which man can pronounce, is not His Name."
Finally, there is one more thing to be understood in this Sutra.
Words and names, are all the creation of the mind. All creation is of the mind. It is the mind that conceives and forms and Mind is ignorance. The mind knows nothing. But it creates even that which it does not know. Then we get a feeling of satisfaction that now we know. If I were to tell you that you know nothing about God, you will be terribly disturbed. But if I were to say, "Why, you know everything about God? The mantra 'Ram-Ram' you repeat, that alone is His Name." Then you will feel relieved. If I were to say, "He has no name and remember, the name you have been repeating, has nothing to do with him," then the mind falls into a turmoil, in a vacuum, in an emptiness! It finds no support to stand, to hold on. And the mind will quickly try and find a support. Once this is found, there is no need to seek further. The mind provides substitutes for Truth and makes full arrangements. It says, "This is Truth. It will serve your purpose." Those who stop at the mind, stop on the paths that are made by man. They stagnate at the Shastras that are man-made. They stagnate at those names that have no connection with God whatsoever.
At the very outset of his original utterance Lao Tzu destroys all possibilities. He snatches away all props and supports. He destroys the complete foundation of all that the mind can do. We may well ponder -- if this is so, what is now left for Lao Tzu to write? What will he say? How will he say That, which cannot be expressed? How will he indicate the path that cannot be trodden? How will he bind the Changeless and Timeless ONE, he tries to suggest with words?
Lao Tzu's complete method is that of negation.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand a few things in connection with negation so that it is easier to understand Lao Tzu further. There are two ways of suggestion in this world. One is the way of positive suggestion. You ask me, "What is this?" and I reply: "This is a wall, or this is a door"..I take a name. The positive finger points directly -- 'this is it!' You ask, "Where is the wall?" I reply, "This is it." But that which can be pointed out directly can be nothing but base or paltry. The Vast Expanse cannot be pointed out with a finger.
The trivial can be pointed at with a finger but if someone asks, "Where is God?" we cannot say, "This is He." We cannot point a finger to God. Rather, all fingers are to be withdrawn into the fist in order to indicate God. When a person closes his fist and says "Here He is," it means the suggestion points nowhere. You cannot point in any direction for He is everywhere.
But the questioner will not be satisfied with this answer. If I close my fist, and say, "Here He is," he might take my fist to indicate Him. Then I shall have to say, "No, no, not my fist." And so negation will start. The man may further try to elucidate his question. He might say, "Perhaps, I have not made my point clear. Is God in the East?" I will have to say, "No", for if I say He is in the East, what happens, to the West? And when we affirm that He is in the East, knowingly or unknowingly we deny His presence in the West.
Directions are the intimations of the limited. What is left behind, is denied. So the second way is that of Negative -- Suggestion. When a person tries to explain with this way, he does not say -- "It is this, it is that"; rather, he says "It is not this, it is not this -- 'Neti-neti'". All his answers are to this effect. A lot of patience is required on the path of Negation, for whatever you ask, he will say, "Not this". Then a time will come when there is nothing more to ask. Then he will say, "This is He!"
It is just as you would begin to question me about thing