Mysticism is all about doing...nothing

I used to work hard at meditation. I did a lot of mantra repetition, several hours at a stretch. This was supposed to get me into an elevated state of consciousness where mystical sound and light phenomena would appear.

Now, my approach is to do as little as possible when I meditate each morning. I think of it as the lazy guy's way to enlightenment (assuming enlightenment exists -- a whole other question).

It's nice to know that a noted student of mysticism, Robert K.C. Forman, says that I'm on the right track.

Here's an excerpt from his book, "Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness" (which I've blogged about before).

The word mysticism, like religion, truth, and modernity, is pivotal but murky. It can denote the unintelligible statements of an illogical speaker, a schizophrenic's vision, someone's hallucinations, a drug-induced vision, the spiritual "showings" of a Julian of Norwich or a Mechthilde of Magedeburg, the unspoken, silent experience of God that Meister Eckhart called the "Divine Desert," or the Buddhist Nagarjuna's empty shunyata. 

...Roland Fischer has put forward a "cartography" of states of conscious arousal which includes all of these so called "mystical" states. Hallucinations, acute schizophrenic states, and the visions and auditions of a Julian of Norwich fall on the ergotropic side of the chart. These are states of hyperarousal: cognitive and physiological activity are at relatively high levels.

On the trophotrophic side are hypoaroused states, marked by low levels of cognitive and physiological activity: here we find HIndu samadhi, mushinjo in zazen, the restful states associated with The Cloud of Unknowing's "cloud of forgetting," or Eckhart's gezucket.

...I propose reserving the term mysticism for trophotropic states. I will call ergotrophic phenomena such as hallucinations, visions, auditions, etc. "visionary experiences."

Forman is interested in exploring the nature of consciousness. He used to be (and maybe still is) the Executive Editor of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, a well-respected publication that I once subscribed to.

The contents of consciousness are different from consciousness itself. This seems almost indisputable. I've been conscious of countless different things throughout my life. Throughout, though, these things have appeared in a seemingly single consciousness.

As many "ergotrophic" mystics have said, if we reduce or eliminate the contents of consciousness, then consciousness pure and simple (or at least purer and simpler) will be evident.

Many people, including some commenters on this blog, place a lot of importance on what happens during meditation. Someone recently said that if you're not hearing inner sound or seeing inner light, you're not experiencing the Real Thing.

Others, and increasingly I'm among them, consider that it doesn't really matter what phenomena pop up in one's consciousness, because this doesn't lead to a genuine realization of what consciousness itself is.

And clearly consciousness is King when it comes to understanding the nature of reality, because if we aren't conscious of something, it doesn't exist for us.

Here's how I started off my previous post about Forman's book:

It’s astounding, really. We all confidently say, “I think…,” “I believe…,” “I feel…,” “I see….” Yet we don’t know who or what the “I” is. So how confident should we be about all those statements we make, to others and to our own self, when the nature of the statement-making entity is a mystery?

Do we construct reality or discover it? In some sense both, most likely. Forman says that modern philosophical constructivists and the ancient Buddhist scholar Paramartha agree on quite a bit.

But -- and this is the critical point -- on the fundamental claim that experiences are constructed by language, concept, and past experiences, they agree profoundly: every ordinary experience of an object is in significant ways shaped, delimited, and controlled by our previously learned, habituated perceptual and cognitive categories. And this, it goes without saying, is the key claim in the modern-day constructivist's account of mysticism.

How many devout Christians have a vision of Buddha while meditating?

When I was a member of an India-based spiritual organization, initiates were instructed to meditate upon the face of the guru. If some being appeared within one's consciousness during meditation, and it wasn't accompanied by the guru's form (the reality of which was to be tested by repeating a mantra), then that being was supposed to be ignored as a fake.

This is a good example of constructing reality out of concepts and expectations. The scientific method is a way of determining the relative extent to which a purported truth has been manufactured, or discovered.

However, when an experience is personal and one-of-a-kind, it can't be subjected to a research study.

So Forman's goal is to demonstrate that mystical knowledge isn't subject to constructivist criticisms. He does a good job of this.

To summarize the argument so far, we have said that constructivists claim that mystical experience, like any experience, results from prior shaping of expectations. This shaping, they say, is of the intentional object. But, we noted, there is no mental or sensory intentional object in the pure consciousness event and thus nothing to shape.

...Mystical experiences don't result from a process of building or constructing mystical experience, we've suggested, but rather from an un-constructing of language and belief. It seems to result from something like a releasing of experience from language.

Fairly frequently, commenters on this blog who subscribe to a particular belief system call me a quitter for having forsaken my faith in certain spiritual dogmas. That's absolutely wrong, given Forman's definition of mysticism.

By letting beliefs, expectations, effort, and such go, what remains is consciousness pure and simple (or like I said before, purer and simpler).

A frequently-heard adage is "self-realization before god-realization."

My churchlessness has adapted this to "self-realization, then see about realizing god." Meaning, we're going to have a much clearer view of reality if we get straight who we are before we start jumping to conclusions about a possible external divinity.

And this self-realization doesn't take any effort, according to Forman. It's right in front of our eyes. In fact, it is our eyes -- along with everything else we are.

Really, we know our minds, and indeed we know what it is to be a thinking, feeling conscious being, by virtue of the fact that we have a mind, or are conscious. It is a peculiarly diaphanous element, consciousness: hard to define, hard to contact, hard to know.

But it is only by virtue of our firsthand, first-person acquaintance with this ineffable and sui generis phenomenon that we know anything at all, and certainly know anything at all about our own minds.

We do not know it as we know the color of the desk or as we know another's fears. We know it in a peculiarly direct way: by virtue of being it.

Comments

[George]

I will need to read this again to digest it, there is alot going on. I suspect it will be more easily understood by those with extensive meditative experience.

What grabs me about mysticism is this self-realisation (know thyself). Leaving aside the divine aspect, its difficult to understand from Forman's vague words what the various stages of such self-realization feel like. I understand the experience is hard to convey, but no-one seems to even make the effort.

I thought perhaps self-realization meant going deeper and deeper into one's phycological make-up, analysing one's own thought processes and deeper to understand one's own prejudices, identifying one's own egos, strenths and weakeness and then finally reaching some sort of still clear primordial state where one recognises that at base there is no I, just a oneness with all.

What I was wondering is how accurate or precisely does an experienced meditator think they have truly understood themselves, for example how clearly or vividly during their meditiative experience can they pick out that they are impatient or intolerant or hungry for power or whatever.

[Jen]

Do we really know our own minds? For example when witnessing an argument between two people such as on this blog, its quite obvious to the detached observer to see both sides of the argument but for the persons involved they can’t seem to see their own misunderstandings and they stubbornly resist seeing the other person’s side of the argument.

So as programmed, conditioned and reactionary beings it takes a very long time to clear the mind, not only letting go of beliefs, expectations, effort and so forth during meditation, but also letting go of judgments, criticisms, our own sense of self importance etc… probably a long, long time before we experience pure consciousness within.

I don’t think having a more conscious state of awareness is about enjoying a mystical feeling when walking in the park, its probably more about being consciously aware and not losing one’s balance when things are not too easy or pleasant.

[tAo]

George,

My own view of "self-ralization" is rather different than what you have described. Mine is much more along a traditional eastern orientation.... which is that self-realization is a direct awakening into self-knowledge, and which (imo) is more specfically approached via self-inquiry (atma-vichara and jnana yoga). [the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Sankara will shed much ligt on this]

But there are other valid approaches as well, such as raja yoga (kundalini yoga), ashtanga yoga (from Patanjali), siddha yoga (similar to kundalini yoga), the various forms of bhakti yoga, and also tantra (which is not same as yoga) and even Ch'an (zen).

But it is important to nderstand that jnana yoga and self-inquiry is not really classified in the same vein as mysticism.

George, you said: "What grabs me about mysticism is this self-realisation (know thyself). [...] I understand the experience is hard to convey, but no-one seems to even make the effort."

-- Well actually a great deal of effort has has been made. There is an enormous amount of information out there regarding the specifics of self-realization. You just have to know where to look.

"I thought perhaps self-realization meant going deeper and deeper into one's phycological make-up, analysing one's own thought processes and deeper to understand one's own prejudices, identifying one's own egos, strenths and weakeness [...] and then finally reaching [...] where one recognises that at base there is no I, just a oneness with all."

-- Well that may be a more new-agey perspective, but it isn't qite the same as the traditional meaning.

"What I was wondering is how accurate or precisely does an experienced meditator think they have truly understood themselves, for example how clearly or vividly during their meditiative experience can they pick out that they are impatient or intolerant or hungry for power or whatever."

-- That type of contemplation or meditation may be how some see it and engage in, and that may be helpful to some people for various other reasons, but that sort of thing is not what I refer to whenever I speak of self-realization. The ideas relative to self-realization vary from one individual to another, from one orientation to another.

--------------------------------------------

Jen said:

"Do we really know our own minds?"

-- That all depends on who, and by what you mean by "know our own minds".

"it takes a very long time to clear the mind, not only letting go of beliefs, expectations, effort and so forth during meditation, but also letting go of judgments, criticisms, our own sense of self importance etc… probably a long, long time before we experience pure consciousness within."

-- I don't quite see it that way. It could take one instant, or a whole lifetime. I don't regard self-realization as particularly requiring any need to "clear the mind, letting go of beliefs, expectations, effort, letting go of judgments, criticisms, our own sense of self importance etc"

[Jen]

tAo,

It has been written that self-realization can happen in an instant, lucky for some, but maybe for others there has to be practice and observation of one’s own mind before it becomes true awareness or direct awakening.

[tAo]

Yes I am aware that much "has been written", and alot of that may or may not be altogether true. My point is simply that this thing referred to as self-realization does not necessarily require such things like "clear the mind, letting go of beliefs, expectations, effort, letting go of judgments, criticisms, our own sense of self importance etc".

Many people perform all sorts of efforts and strategies, but most (if not all) of those tend to be unnecessary and even counter-productive, and actually perpetuate avidya.

It is my humble opinion that simple self-inquiry aka atma-vichara remains as the single most effective and non-strategic means of tacit realization or recognition of one's prior true nature, or that which is always already the case.

[tAo]

In response to Brian's article:

Well you know it used to be that when I was young and restless, I used to be able to spend a lot of time doing little or nothing. In those days even when I was working or out and about partying and chasing women, it all was pretty mellow and effortless. There seemed to be a lot of time spent basically doing little or nothing.

Nowadays I rarely ever get to do nothing. The only time that I am able to actually do nothing is in the very dead of night, at about 2am or 3am when my wife is asleep and the countryside around my house is quiet... and yet I'm still wide awake.

Its funny how that now when I would like to do nothing I can't, but when I was young and into doing all sorts of shit, there was actually a lot of time spent just hanging out.

[Jen]

As quoted above "Really, we know our minds, and indeed we know what it is to be a thinking, feeling conscious being, by virtue of the fact that we have a mind, or are conscious."

Okay, so we are thinking, feeling, conscious beings but certainly not enlightened beings... no matter how many will try to pretend to be...

[Blogger Brian]

Jen, some questions:

How can you tell who is enlightened, and who isn't?
How would someone distinguish between a "pretend" enlightenment and a "real" enlightenment?
How would someone know for himself or herself whether he or she was enlightened? (meaning, how can enlightenment be recognized by the supposedly enlightened person?)

Answers to these questions presuppose that enlightenment can be defined, recognized, differentiated from non-enlightenment.

But different spiritual traditions have different views of enlightenment. So wouldn't there be various answers to my questions, depending on the belief system?

[tAo]

"we are thinking, feeling, conscious beings but certainly not enlightened beings"

-- That all depends upon what you define or mean by "enlightened". I personally don't think that the term "enlightened" means much of anything really. Its a term that many people use to imply some sort of rare special state or achievement. Which I happen to think is one of the biggest myths of all time. It doesn't matter what kind of state of cosmic consciousness someone may experience, and I've had far more and deeper of those than most people ever will. Its just an experience. It doesn't mean or change anything really. Those who haven't had that experience tend to seek it and to believe in the hype and the myth of it. They follow saviors and saints and gurus and teachings etc, all in hopes of attaining some supposed future "enlightenment". But they are wasting their precious time. This life is IT. This moment is IT. YOU are the Buddha. There is nothing for you to attain. You are already there. Enlightenment is the great big myth of all time.

[Jen]

“How can you tell who is enlightened, and who isn't?”

Probably I would judge say, a self-help guru, by his/her words or actions and then hopefully see through the pretense, if there is any.

Just some thoughts… maybe there are different levels of enlightenment, like there are different levels of consciousness. We do seem to create our own reality from our perceptions. I wonder if enlightenment is a higher form of consciousness or maybe it is just a myth.

[Jen]

tAo,

I liked your last comment, it was positive and uplifting! I need reminding - nothing to attain, already there... :)

[Yogi]

Dear tAo sir,
The Great Buddha has lost control and vision.
It needs to be resumed.

[Yogi]

Dear tAo sir,
And that can be achieved by being constantly there, going nowhere and attaining nothing.

[tAo]

Thanks dear Jen. You too are uplifting as well. Peace and Love.

Yogi, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you?

[OshoRobbins]

Jen,

It is not that self-realisation CAN happen in an instance.
That is a mis-understanding.
Self-realisation ALWAYS happens in ONE instance. It always happens NOW.

Understand this statement and great clarity will arise.

Self-realisation is not an EVENT - that happens at some specific TIME in the future.

It is not something that is attained by the mind through effort.

Everything else in life is an attainment that requires time and effort.

Naturally we come to spirituality with the same mindset.

So we set about trying to GET TO that state of self-realisation through effort in the
form of meditation or any spiritual practice.

This gives us the ILLUSION that we are trying to GET SOMEWHERE.

But WHERE are we trying to get to?

We believe that enlightenment is waiting for us in the future.
We beleive we have to work for it - meditate, chant or whatever.

This is the illusion of the mind. The mind wants to attain.

You make enlightenment a GOAL - something to aim for. And you start aiming.

You are on an endless journey and you will never arrive.

This is the trap of paths like RS, and all the traditional religions.

They subscribe to the idea that you have to DO something to get to a place
called 'sach khand' or 'enlightenment' or 'nirvana' or 'heaven'

The words don't matter. What matters is that there is a 'YOU' who is
TRYING to get somewhere.

As long as there is a YOU trying to get to some place - there will be effort
and it will take time and you will live in the HOPE that one day it will happen.

The truth is that you will never arrive because there is no such place.

You are on a journey to nowhere.

But actually you are already at the destination but do not know it.

The destination is the realisation that there is only ONE and you are it.

Not the YOU that you think you are - which is the personality and the body.

The YOU that you really are - which has no form and no real identity.

The moment you realise the truth - there is no longer a 'YOU' that realised it.

The 'YOU' (=EGO) disappears meaning that you realise that the personality is not real.

The personality is a made-up self-created identity. It is not YOU.

The personality is seeking enlightenment or 'God' or 'Sach Khand'.

However, the personality is not real so it can never find it.

How can the unreal find the real?

Enlightenment is a journey the destination of which is the realisation that there
was no journey in first place and nobody to undertake the journey.

The illusion is created by the 'separate YOU'. The moment the separate 'YOU' disappears,
the truth becomes obvious - namely that there is nothing to do attain or achieve as there
is no person to 'do' all this. There is no 'person' who is going to arrive at nirvana.

So in summary - there are TWO ways.

(1) TRY to get to 'self-realisation' through effort
(2) simply realise the truth

(1) strengthens the idea of the ego and a 'YOU' and thus keeps you trapped in the illusion.

Most people - including me - spend YEARS and DECADES in the (1) path and get nowhere.

The lucky ones like Brian Hines realise at some point that the whole path they are
following is a trap and they leave - which takes tremendous courage - because who
ever wants to admit that they were wrong for 20-30 years of their life?

[Jen]

Hi Osho,

Okay, so you are saying that self-realisation happens in each instant - instead of waiting for it to happen like some blinding flash of recognition - it is such a habit of working towards something.

[George]

tAo,

Sure i take your viewpoint on board, but you have not really described what your view of self-realization is, rather what it is not.

You do say it is a 'direct awakening into self knowledge', but what does that actually mean? What do you mean by self-knowledge, or more specifically what part of self becomes known?

I don't believe mine is a new agey look at all, its about as concrete as one can get when dealing with matter os the mind. Specifically, my query is whether meditation can provide a practioner with a psychology of his mind, where he is able to sift out and identify various components of conscioisness.

My example of delving deeper and finding strenths and weakenesses and ego is meant to be coarse and specfic. Since i consider the new agey stuff to be that which is ill-defined, vague or defined negatively, i.e. in terms of what ir is not, without making much of an effort to actually describe what it is like.

I get the feeling most mystics, especially the one's with a more rational side, are quit reluctant to actualy describe what the experience is like since they are worried about being thought to be irrational, but i would prefer such forthright courage than the vague profundities often hinted at, which do come acceoss as new agey and lacking any substance.

[George]

tAo

"It doesn't matter what kind of state of cosmic consciousness someone may experience, and I've had far more and deeper of those than most people ever will."

But surely it does. I mean i have never had a moment of cosmic consciousness, which surely is mindlowing stuff. You don't have to call it enlightenment, but its definitely something which is different from a state of normal consciousness or put another way, a state that most people do not usually experience.

A seccnd point is that while you do not specifically define this to be enlightenment, its quite possible others do, i can't see what difference the label makes when no-one really seems to have a clear definition of what 'enlightement' is or what it means to all.

Also, just as a matter of interest, based on what do you regard your experiences to likely to be deeper than others?

Not criticising, just tryung to understand your reasoning.

[George]

Osho Robbins,

"Enlightenment is a journey the destination of which is the realisation that there
was no journey in first place and nobody to undertake the journey."

So is enlightement a journey or not?

"Self-realisation ALWAYS happens in ONE instance. It always happens NOW."

I am in the NOW. As I type this i sit back and think to myself i am in the now, yet i do not feel my "I" dissapearing or merging with the cosmos.

You make a distinction between 1) and 2) above yet all the people who have done 2) appear to first have done 1) (i.e. the journey). Could it not be that the realisation they recieced from 1) prepared them for 2)? So in effect, there is a journey and it is all-important.

If you have indeed simply realised the truth, i.e. 2), do you feel there is any point in your normal 'self' from continuing to exist? After all if you have realised 2, surely there is nothing left for 'you' in this earthly realm and you might as well end it all since in fact there is no 'you'?

If there really is only One, why do you think so many different forms and things have arisen? Even if these forms are all illusory, my question is question why all this illusion? Why is the 'self' creating all this illusion if the self itself is illusory and unreal. If there is only One or oneness there should be no illusion.

[Roger]

The "thinking" can create different forms and things, that thinking allows to be risen. So, what is this "self" that is creating these illusions? In addition, how do you know there is only One and oneness?

I like the idea of a "normal" self, as opposed to one of those "weird" selves. This need to continue to exist, is totally groovy.

[jarendra]

all this talk of cosmic conscious awakening, all this discussion about self realization confirms only one thing, all these talkers know nothing, neither do they know no thing, or any thing or every thing, bottom line is these grand exponents don't know diddly squat about what they're expounding on here till dooms day and beyond.

Anyone that 'knows' anything about any thing, would most definitely not be posing around here like he 'knows' any thing about anything at all.

Perfect case of the blind leading the blind to no where at all. From here till eternity.

[Rain]

What I believe about mystical experiences is that they come from being aware, alert and open. It's like falling in love.It won't happen if you aren't out there where it could, but you can't demand it happen on a schedule either.
Openness and awareness is doing something because a closed mind will deny whatever they experience. I think such moments should also not be sought as some kind of new excitement but just as a further expansion of what life is about. It's not like you say today I want to have this mystical moment that will excite me. Well you might but I am not sure how real such excitement seeking is.

The part you said about doing nothing is true in the sense that we can't force what will be but we can be open to it and in the most unexpected ways or places. I also do not believe you can demand to have or even work to have what someone else experienced. We are each on our own life path. We will get what we need, not necessarily what the Jones's got.

[OshoRobbins]

Jarendra,
How does discussion here confirm anything? It is simply discussion. It neither confirms
nor denies anything.

So a realised person cannot post on this blog? A realised person must sit on a mountain top in silent meditation, or what?

If anyone who states anything knows nothing - then there is very little point in you even reading this blog - after all - anyone writing here must be blind according to you.

There is a saying "Those who KNOWS do not say and those who say do not know."

However, what this really means is:
Truth is not a theory and cannot be expounded in a lecture or a satsang. It is not something that can be stated like we make other statements. It is a state of realisation that may be triggered in the company of someone who is realised. It does not mean that the realised person cannot speak or make any statements.

[Blogger Brian]

jarendra...so interesting...you say that someone who talks knows nothing, and that anyone who knows wouldn't be posing around this blog like he knows anything.

Yet...you post comments on this blog claiming that you know something. Namely, how little everyone else knows.

So, I guess you don't know anything. And no one else knows anything. You know, I agree! Life, the cosmos, existence -- ultimately it's a mystery.

All we're doing is doing our best to understand it all. Imperfectly. Confusingly. Haltingly. Isn't that wonderful? Imperfect beings trying to come to grips with mystery.

[Roger]

Osho,

Liked your comment, on August 21st, 1:50am.

[George]

Roger,

"So, what is this "self" that is creating these illusions?"
--- yes exactly, what indeed, perhaps you can tell me, since i dont believe the natural world and its different forms are an illusion.

"In addition, how do you know there is only One and oneness?"
--- I dont. That is exactly my point, i believe there are a multitude of forms and difference and that this difference is needed for life itself to propagate and continue.

"I like the idea of a "normal" self, as opposed to one of those "weird" selves."
--- How would you describe a self which is supposedly illusory? normal or weird?

Jarendra,

Granted i know little of consciousness, which is what i am trying to work out and see if others do have some interesting insights to discuss. Do you have any?

Is a discussion of consciousness or self-realization off-limits other than to proclaim that everyone else is clueless, and particularly so, for trying to discuss the topic?

I like your views very much, often they are probably the most though-provoking of all, that is, when you actually put some thought into them, but these posts of yours are just pshycholigical propaganda trying to browbeat Brian into a position of humility. Please could you rather argue the actual point or why you consider it all to be such utter bullshit.

I agree that Brian, and all of us, can be closed minded, but you add nothing by simply telling everyone they are idiots, what is the point of that? You will simply be banned and this site will the worse off for it.

[OshoRobbins]

George,

My quote was
"Enlightenment is a journey the destination of which is the realisation that there
was no journey in first place and nobody to undertake the journey."

You ask the question,
So is enlightement a journey or not?

NO - there is no journey. A journey implies distance and a destination.
There is no distance, and no destination - and it therefore takes no time.

The distance, the destination, the goal, and the "I" that undertakes the
journey - are all fictional.

You write:

I am in the NOW. As I type this i sit back and think to myself i am in the now, yet i do not feel my "I" dissapearing
or merging with the cosmos.

Ha - You are not in the NOW - you are in memory and past/future.
You do not enter the NOW by thinking "I am in the now".

The 'I' will not disappear. You have already created a goal of it. You are waiting for the 'I' to
disappears (i.e. an experience of cosmic consciousness). You have created a distance
between the NOW and what you want to happen (i.e. for the 'I' to disappear).

Next point:
Everyone who realises the truth first undertakes the journey.
I am not sure it if it true in all cases - but yes - it is often the case.
Why? Because when you first seek - you do not have any idea of what the real journey is all about.
You are deluded and so you do what all deluded people do - you seek.

Is it necessary? No - it is the barrier.

Does it help - NO. It takes you in the opposite direction.

You wrote:
surely there is nothing left for 'you' in this earthly realm and you might as well end it all
since in fact there is no 'you'?

If there is not 'ME' what am I ending? Or what is continuing? And who am 'I' to end it or
continue it?

You wrote
If there really is only One, why do you think so many different forms and things have arisen?

There is no 'why.

You go to sleep - you dream and you create many forms in your dream. But in reality they are all
delusions - actually there is only you asleep on the bed and dreaming.

Where do the many arise from and why? It is a dream.

[Catherine]

Just practising my diddly squats. Ah! That's better. Which reminds me Tao- we're having a look at Scooby's home workouts and Tucson, eating plans.

When I was young I became quite irritated by the Buddhist teachers from different disciplines who would visit. Some would say do this, others would say do that, some were just downright taking the mickey out of us and others needed to do a load of work on themselves, it was obvious to the novice where they were headed. Sometimes they would tell us that 8 hours a day of sitting meditation was good, otherwise movie watching was a great way to meditate, of course walking meditation or standing meditation could always be practised on the way to the office, running was the thing, there again dharma and discussion would certainly create a refinement and concentration. Eating was a golden opportunity to practise presence of mind. I remember one of the leading Theravada monks was appalling- he'd just got bored with meditation and all that he had learned about getting enlightened and took to bullying his assistant who would complain grumpily to all the retreatants.

But how did I generally feel after a period of retreat and dharma- I felt as if my feet were more firmly planted on the ground, as if I was not so scattered all over the place, I was certainly much more together, and not toppled very easily, I also felt a little like a light bulb- not sparkey but very clean, clear and polished, also kind of neater and more graceful. It would take a while to mess it all up. I reckon that state would be a good one to get into for the possibility of being sane and thereafter if there is a special series of sounds that may occur, well that's a suitable frame.

People who do work in a factory,or office which requires long periods of concentrated effort where repetition and variety but also thought occurs, I think could reach this state of mind, provided there is also a basic moral code of behaviour- ta ta guru.

[jarendra]

Brian I hardly have time to answer you here because as you know my access here is rather limited so I leave you with this sombre thought.

Yes the mystery is the key, know one knows until they 'know' and then when they do, they don't go around discussing it till doomsday.

Also I should not be the one to tell you something you by rights should know by now, I mean you old enough in the search for knowledge or truth to know that Truth or understanding or love or knowledge is not taught but caught.

[Blogger Brian]

Jarendra, I don't know that either -- that truth is caught, not taught. How do you know that?

Didn't you say that no one discusses the truth once they know it? SInce you're discussing truth, I assume you don't know it.

So how do you know that the truth you don't know is not taught but caught, if you don't know it?

[George]

Osho,

ok, fair enough, there is no journey, one is either in the NOW (present) or not. So i am clearly not in the NOW, i.e. being self-realised.

So, how would i get from an illusory now to the real NOW? No journey, distance, time, goal or effort is required to experience NOW, but how then does one change the realisation of now as compared to NOW?

Could you explain in a positive sense what would take me in the 'right' direction to experience the NOW, rather than explaining what would take me in the 'wrong' direction (i.e. the journey)?

"actually there is only you asleep on the bed and dreaming."
--- no, actually the 'you' as well as the 'bed' must also be delusions. I understand you saying thats its all a dream, both the dream state and the wake state.

I can hazard a guess at where dreams come from. They come from MY physcical brain, which has evolved the capability of abstract perception to act and plan on inputs recieved and dreaming is possibly a way for my brain to catch up with all the sensory stimuli that has most recently been recieved during the waking state, both consciously and unconsciously percieved, but unable to act on or process properly since daily acitivity have required a different sort of cognitive focus.

If all is delusions, what is creating the delusions, since that surely is a delusion too? My point is that if there is only oneness, or some no-thing-ness, why would there be delusions at all? Why not just oneness?

[Roger]

OSHO,

"So, how would i get from an illusory now to the real NOW? No journey, distance, time, goal or effort is required to experience NOW, but how then does one change the realisation of now as compared to NOW?"

---Osho, could you unexplain how I can not get an illusion, regarding how not to change the realization of how the now is possibly not compared? I think, I may need this information.

Best wishes,
Roger

[George]

Roger,

May i ask why you are quoting me, while responding to Osho?

Is this what you would call being witty?

Peace and Love
George

[George]

"could you unexplain how I can not get an illusion"

I never asked for Osho to unexplain. You have got is completely wrong again, i am asking Osho for a positive explanation, not an un-explanation (whatever that is).

The explanation requested is how I might realise the NOW. Osho has explained how not to experience the NOW, but not the opposite.

I'm trying to understand the nondual view, why are you making out my questions are irrational? Indeed is it not the case that my presumption, that the world is real, is not accepted and provable view of reality?

On the other hand, the nondual view is that most are blinkered and an enlightened few have pierced the veil of illusion, for which there is no evidence at all.

Now it might be that what is provable is not necessarily true and it might be that the popular concensus is wrong. I am quite prepared to speculate and listen, but for goodness sake why are you trying to belittle my sincere, if not limited, attempt at understanding this nondual view?

[Jen]

George, yes, understanding non-duality is different to actually experiencing it so, being persistent in bringing one’s mind back into the now, being present and aware, open, becoming more conscious… at the same time not seeking… confusion is understandable.

[rakesh bhasin]

Dear Brian,

You write:

"Now, my approach is to do as little as possible when I meditate each morning. I think of it as the lazy guy's way to enlightenment (assuming enlightenment exists -- a whole other question).

It's nice to know that a noted student of mysticism, Robert K.C. Forman, says that I'm on the right track."

You have been practicing the technique for more than forty years and still you need a certificate from some that you are right. Your inner being should have given you the support in the beginning which subsequently must have been buttressed with experience. And by now you should have become an adept to enjoy its bliss.

With love & regards,

[Roger]

George, ask the questions, you need to ask.

It would be interesting for Osho to prepare an answer to the opposites. My supposed opposite to your statement. So, would the answers be opposite? Osho may find a way to bring the opposites together, through his answer. This could be an interesting exercise.

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, I was busy yesterday so didn't have time to attend to your request to look at IT's comment -- which, at first, you said you'd prefer to have deleted, since it criticized a statement which you didn't make.

Noting that now you said you wanted to have it deleted, I took a look and saw that indeed IT attributed a quote to you that Jen made.

I toyed with the idea of editing out the erroneous parts of IT's comment, but that wouldn't have left much that made sense. So I deleted it, along with your previous two comments regarding this issue.

[Robert Paul Howard]

So the record/archives are altered once again! Now someone is more satisfied.

Robert Paul Howard

[Blogger Brian]

Robert, it isn't right when a commenter puts words into someone's mouth that they didn't say. In the case it probably was an innocent mistake, but the mistake needs to be rectified.

Currently Neut er all, almost certainly (who likely is Walker/JAP) is posting comments under other people's names: me, Catherine, tAo, other names.

If he starts posting as you, you might feel differently about me deleting inaccurate comments.

What this current episode of "identity theft" shows is that religious true believers often lack the human decency that skeptics have. Their fundamentalism leads them to think "any action in the name of my god is justified."

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Thanks for your remark. But I, similarly, didn't find it to be within "human decency" when I was recently denominated "asshole." But you didn't seem to mind that.

Robert Paul Howard

[Blogger Brian]

Robert, I didn't notice the "asshole" remark. Or if I did, I didn't respond to it appropriately. Understand: I've been busy with other aspects of my life. I've been having to deal with Neut er all's constant spam comments. I'm sorry I didn't deal with the offensive comment. If you'll point out what post it was on, I'll attend to it.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1052789444]

The greatest friend of the soul is the unknown. -John O'Donohue