#2662 - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - Editor: Jerry Katz
- #2662 - Tuesday, December 5, 2006 - Editor: Jerry Katz
The Nondual HighlightsIn this issue Mukunda Rao responds to our article published in Highlights issue 2657: http://nonduality.com/hl2657.htmArticles by or about Rao also appear in the following Highlights issues:Mukunda Rao is author of The Other Side of Belief: Interpreting U.G. Krishnamurti.
Sorry to say that so long as he remained Acharya Rajneesh, Rajneesh was a brilliant expounder and interpreter of religious ideas and spiritual traditions. He had this extraordinary talent to connect Zen with Tao, Tao with Vedanta, Vedanta with Science, and construct out of them illuminating narratives. He was certainly unconventional and radical in his methods, scintillating in his interpretations; indeed he was an eccentric and controversial guru and did make people take notice of him. And several thousands became his willing, at times, blind, disciples too. But the day he appointed himself as the enlightened master, as Bhagwan, he became an insufferable megalomaniac. The proof of that is not far to seek. Listen to his one-time disciples and several available reports on Rajneesh in the media and books.
Anyway, Osho’s comments/criticism of U.G. Krishnamurti is understandable since it came after some of Osho’s close disciples left him and became friends of UG. However, what he says of or about UG is factually incorrect.
UG has never told people ‘to drop anger, to drop greed, to drop the ego’, simply because you cannot, for that which wants to ‘drop’ is anger/greed/ego!
UG did not stay/live with J Krishnamurti as his disciple for 12 years. There were of course several interesting encounters, dialogues and even arguments between the two. UG did respect and listen to JK’s talks but found JK’s ideas not true to his own experience, and ultimately rejected him as he rejected all other teachings/masters as well to come into his own and come upon the ‘natural state’.
UG’s meeting with Ramana was not like what Osho tries to make of it. As someone who was well acquainted with India’s ‘Enlightenment Traditions’, Osho should have been a little more creative in his understanding of the meeting between the two masters.
I hope the following quotes from UG should put at least a few things in perspective.
Man is always selfish, and he will remain selfish as long as he practices selflessness as a virtue. I have nothing against selfish people. I don’t want to talk about selflessness – it has no basis at all. You say ‘I will be a selfless man tomorrow. Tomorrow I will be a marvellous man’ – but until tomorrow arrives (or the day after tomorrow, or the next life) you will remain selfish. What do you mean by ‘selflessness’? You tell everybody to be selfless. What is the point? I have never said to anybody ‘Don’t be selfish.’ Be selfish, stay selfish! – that is my message. Wanting enlightenment is selfishness. The rich man’s distributing charity is also selfishness: he will be remembered as a generous man; you will put up a statue of him there.
You have been told that you should practice desirelessness. You have practiced desirelessness for thirty or forty years, but still desires are there. So something must be wrong somewhere. Nothing can be wrong with desire; something must be wrong with the one who has told you to practice desirelessness. This (desire) is a reality; that (desirelessness) is false – it is falsifying you. Desire is there. Desire as such can’t be wrong, can’t be false, because it is there.
You hope that you will be able to resolve the problem of desire through thinking, because of that model of a saint who you think has controlled or eliminated desire. If that man has no desire as you imagine, he is a corpse. Don’t believe that man at all! Such a man builds some organization, and lives in luxury, which you pay for. You are maintaining him. He is doing it for his livelihood. There is always a fool in the world who falls for him. Once in a while he allows you to prostrate before him. You will be surprised if you live with him. You will get the shock of your life if you see him there. That is why they are all aloof – because they are afraid you will catch them some time or the other. The rich man is always afraid that you will touch him for money. So too the religious man - he never, never comes in contact with you. Seeing him is far more difficult than seeing the President of your country – that is a lot easier than seeing a holy man. He is not what he says he is, not what he claims he is.
You never look at the problem. What is the problem? Anger, for example. I don’t want to discuss all those silly things which these people have been discussing for centuries. Anger. Where is that anger? Can you separate the anger from the functioning of this body? It’s like a wave in the ocean. Can you separate the waves from the ocean? You can sit there and wait until the waves subside, so that you can have a swim in the ocean, like King Canute who sat there for years and years hoping that those waves in the ocean would disappear so that he could have a swim in a calm ocean. That will never happen.
Where do you feel the anger, first of all? Where do you feel all these so-called problems you want to be free from? ... the desires? The burning desires. The desire burns you. Hunger burns you. So, the solutions you have or the means of fulfilling them (desire and hunger) is very simple and makes it impossible for that to burn itself out in your system. Where do you feel the fear? You feel it here in the pit of your stomach. It is part of the body. The body cannot take those high and low tides of energy that is there in your body. So you are wanting to suppress it for some spiritual or social reasons. You are not going to succeed.
Sages Are Different
The sage, or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in the state of undivided consciousness. He does not know that he is a free man so for him there is no question of trying to free others. He is just there. He talks about it and then he goes.
Gaudapada had no disciples. He refused to teach anybody. Great teachers never use any authority and they do not interpret anyone. The mystics help you to look at things differently, to interpret things differently. You cannot become a sage through any effort. It is not in your hands. A sage cannot have a disciple. A sage cannot have a follower because it is not an experience that can be shared. Even an ordinary experience you can’t share with others. Can you tell somebody who has never experienced sex what the sex experience is like?
It seems to have happened to some people during the course of history. Each one has given expression to that uniqueness in their own way according to their background. It is an expression of that background. Nature, in its own way, throws out from time to time some flower, but this end product of human evolution cannot be used by this evolutionary process as a model to create another one. If it throws out one flower, that is it, you see. You can’t preserve it. You can’t preserve the perfume of that because if you preserve it, it will stink. The evolutionary process or movement is not interested in using the one that it has perfected as a model for further creation. It has a creation of its own.
There is no teaching of mine, and never shall be one. ‘Teaching’ is not the word for it. A teaching implies a method or a system, a technique or a new way of thinking to be applied in order to bring about a transformation in your way of life. What I am saying is outside the field of teachability; it is simply a description of the way I am functioning. It is just a description of the natural state of man – this is the way you, stripped of the machinations of thought, are also functioning.
The natural state is not the state of a self-realized, God-realized man, it is not a thing to be achieved or attained, it is not a thing to be willed into existence; it is there – it is the living state. This state is just the functional activity of life. By ‘life’ I do not mean something abstract; it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. It has a profit motive: thought directs the activity of the senses to get something out of them, and uses them to give continuity to itself.
Your natural state has no relationship whatsoever with the religious states of bliss, beatitude and ecstasy; they lie within the field of experience. Those who have led man on his search for religiousness throughout the centuries have perhaps experienced those religious states. So can you. They are thought-induced states of being, and as they come, so do they go. Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the field of time. The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man. That beaten track will lead you nowhere. There is no oasis situated yonder; you are stuck with the mirage.
I’ve no message to give to the world. Whatever happens to me is such that you can’t share it with the world. That’s the reason why I don’t get up on a platform or give any lectures – it’s not that I can’t give lectures; I’ve lectured everywhere in the world – I’ve nothing to say. And I don’t like to sit in one place, surrounded by people asking set questions. I never initiate any discussions; people come and sit round me – they can do what they like. If somebody asks me a question suddenly, I try to answer, emphasizing and pointing out that there is no answer to that question. So, I merely rephrase, restructure and throw the same question back at you. It’s not game playing, because I’m not interested in winning you over to my point of view. It’s not a question of offering opinions – of course I do have my opinions on everything from disease to divinity, but they’re as worthless as anybody else’s.
What I say you must not take literally. So much trouble has been created by people taking it all literally. You must test every word, every phrase, and see if it bears any relation to the way you are functioning. You must test it, but you are not in a position to accept it – unfortunately this is a fact, take it or leave it. By writing it down, you will do more harm than good. You see, I am in a very difficult position: I cannot help you, whatever I say is misleading.
Your very listening has destroyed the revolutionary nature of this (his) breakthrough and has made this a part of knowledge, tradition, because you are the tradition. The listening mechanism that is operating there in you is the tradition. …By the time this has been accepted, the need has been created for somebody else to come and blast it. That is why I am talking. The very expression of this has created the need for something new to happen. That is its nature. That is the purpose, if there is any purpose, not to create a following but to create something new there. Something new is saving you from the burden of the past. The moment it is given expression to, it is old. Why be like those handing over the torch from one person to another and maintaining the hierarchical structure.
In other words, I am trying to free you not from the past, the conditioning, but rather from what I am saying. I am not suggesting any way out because there is no way. I have stumbled into this and freed myself from the paths of others. I can’t make the same mistake they did. I will never suggest that anyone use me as a model or follow in my foot steps.
My path can never be your path. If you attempt to make this your path you will get caught in a rut. No matter how refreshing, revolutionary or fantastic, it is still a rut, a copy, a second-hand thing. I myself do not know how I stumbled into this so how do you expect me to give it to another? My mission, if there is any, is to debunk every statement I have ever made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said you will be in danger.
My interest is not to knock off what others have said (that is too easy) but to knock off what I am saying. More precisely, I am trying to stop what you are making out of what I am saying. This is why my talking sounds contradictory to others. I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis but the total negation of everything that can be expressed.
I don’t want many people. I am trying to avoid all the seekers and if there are any finders they don’t need my help. By allowing myself to be surrounded by those people I am inadvertently participating in the illusion that by carrying on a dialogue or a conversation with me they are getting something. So I discourage people. Even if they just come and sit around me I try to point out the ridiculous nature of this get together. I try to finish it by saying, “Nice meeting you all,” but still they don’t go. They would sit with me for hours and hours. Even if I get up and go away they would be still there sitting and talking. They would be talking about what I did or did not say or what they thought I had said.
Still they keep coming back. Most of those who come to see me are religious buffs of all shapes, sizes and colours. Unless they have some sort of background in all this they can’t be interested in this kind of thing. They only come to receive some confirmation from me about what they are interested in but they find that they are not getting anything from me. Still they continue to come.