Here is an excerpt from Whosoever’s latest book, ‘Shivoham Shivoham’, partly a commentary on Shankara, thought to be the father of Advaita Vedanta, and pictured below.
So this has to be found out – whether all the pleasures
are false, all the sorrows also are false – in
reality. if it is so, then what is real? Now there are only two
things – either there is happiness, or there is misery. when
this has been heard, that happiness and misery, both are
false, then it is necessary to think and contemplate
that when i am miserable, is it false? and
when i am happy, is that also false?
Those who know, they say that misery is false,
as well as pleasure. and then what remains? what
remains, only that is real. what remains is the very subject
of search of the aspirants, of the seekers of truth.
possibly, we are also here in search of that.
Na mantro na teertham na veda na yajnah
means: not the mantrãs, the holy places, the holy scriptures,
or the offerings to god. sankara says: all these i am not.
Aham bhojanam naiva bhojyam na bhoktã
meaning: i am not the food, neither the eatables,
nor the enjoyer of food. in the beginning, shankara talks
about the gross experiences of joy and sorrow, now he is
talking about the subtle experiences. he is saying: neither
I am the food which can be consumed, nor am I the enjoyer
who consumes the food. Not only that, the pleasure, the
satisfaction, which is experienced after eating the food,
that too I am not – because, what can be seen, known,
understood or experienced, I cannot be that.
Na mai mrityushankã na mai jãtibhedah
meaning: neither I am the fear of death, nor the
racial discrimination. Shankara is now talking about
more subtle experiences. he is saying: leave aside every-
thing, I am not even the fear which occurs at the moment of
death; because the fear of death is also a preconceived idea.
further he says, I am also not the racial discrimination.
It may be the distinction between the sexes, distinction
between man-woman, distinction between religion or caste
and creed – or it may be any other distinction – i am
beyond all types of distinctions, convictions,
beliefs, concepts and imaginations.
The essence of what Shankara is saying is:
whatever can be seen, known, understood and
experienced, I cannot be that.
Pitã naiva mai naiva mãtã na janma
meaning: neither I have a father, nor mother ; neither I
am born. Is it not too much ! Isn’t it a heart shattering, mind
blowing statement? Can you accept that neither you are
born, nor you have any mother-father? the sayings
of Shankara move from gross to
subtle, from subtler to subtlest.
That is how thinking and contemplation happens;
this is the practice of neti-neti; not this, not this. this is
neti-neti: the meditation technique of contemplation –
discarding one by one all that which can be seen, known,
understood and experienced. after discarding all, whatever
remains, that actually am I. and Shankara expresses that
in these words – Chidãnandarupah shivoham shivoham,
i.e., i am of the nature of consciousness and bliss,
which is the pure existence – sacchidãnanda.
Remember well! Being cannot be separated from
consciousness, consciousness from bliss, the bliss from
the being. listening to the teachings of awakened one’s may
be pleasing, but without experiencing them, how difficult
it becomes to accept and adopt them? Anyway, we will
continue to think and contemplate over these
teachings, during these ten days of the camp.
Pitã naiva mai naiva mãtã na janma
meaning: neither i have a father, nor a mother;
neither i am born. this does not mean that when you
return home, you tell your parents: you people are not my
mother-father ! [laughter] or tell your children that we are
not your parents, because shankara says so… and
gurudevam has also supported it. [laughter] this can only
be said by those who know. and this is not a matter to assert
or declare that neither i have a father, nor a mother; neither
i am born. this is only a matter of knowing the truth; and the
knowing must not be based on hearsay, but on experience.
Na bandhurna mitram gururnaiva shishyah
this means: am neither a brother, nor a friend ;
neither a master, nor a disciple – moreover, nobody
is my master; nor am I anybody’s disciple. we see the
person, we see the body, we don’t see that which
dwells within the body, but is not the body.
Shankara is talking about that, which is beyond the
body; which does not have any form, colour or shape.
When you take someone as your guru,
as your master, you consider him to be a person, that is
because you believe yourself to be a person, who has some
identity but he only can be a guru, who has lost his identity,
his individuality – in every way; who has known that he is not
a person, but that nameless, formless pure consciousness,
which has become one with the universal consciousness.
From outside, a guru appears to you as if he is a body,
but when he looks at himself, he finds that no
identity of any sort is possible for him.
That’s why I often say that even for a moment,
the real sadguru never feels that he is a guru; he finds
himself beyond all identities, which have been mentioned
above; he finds himself free from the name and form,
which are the foundations of identity.
Adi Shankara was said to have composed this song when he was just eight years old.
Here’s a beautifull version by Premal:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayxmdd35tqk&client=mv-vf-uk&safesearch=always
Mano Buddhi Ahankara Chitta Ninaham
Nacha Shrotra Jihve Na Cha Ghrana Netre
Nacha Vyoma Bhoomir Na Tejo Na Vayu
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego,
nor the reflections of inner self (chitta).
I am not the five senses.
I am beyond that.
I am not the ether, nor the earth,
nor the fire, nor the wind .
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Na Cha Prana Samjno Na Vai Pancha Vayu
Na Va Saptadhatur Na Va Pancha Koshah
Na Vak Pani Padau Na Chopastha Payu
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
Neither can I be termed as energy (Prana),
nor five types of breath (vayus),
nor the seven material essences,
nor the five coverings (pancha-kosha).
Neither am I the five instruments of elimination,
procreation, motion, grasping, or speaking.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Na Me Dvesha Ragau Na Me Lobha Mohau
Mado Naiva Me Naiva Matsarya Bhavah
Na Dharmo Na Chartho Na Kamo Na Mokshah
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,
nor greed,
nor delusion,
nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.
I have no duty (dharma),
nor any money,
nor any desire (kama),
nor even liberation (moksha).
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Na Punyam Na Papam Na Saukhyam Na Dukham
Na Mantro Na Teertham Na Vedo Na Yajnaha
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhokta
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I have neither virtue (Punyam),
nor vice (Papam).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.
I do not need mantras, holy places,
scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas).
I am none of the triad of
the observer or one who experiences,
the process of observing or experiencing,
or any object being observed or experienced.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Na Me Mrityu Shanka Na Me Jati Bhedah
Pita Naiva Me Naiva Mata Na Janma
Na Bandhur Na Mitram Gurur Naiva Shishyah
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I do not have fear of death,
as I do not have death.
I have no separation from my true self,
no doubt about my existence,
nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth.
I have no father or mother,
nor did I have a birth.
I am not the relative,
nor the friend,
nor the guru,
nor the disciple.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Aham Nirvikalpo Nirakara Roopaha
Vibhur Vyapya Sarvatra Sarvendriyanam
Sada Me Samatvam Na Muktir Na Bandhah
Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham
I am all pervasive.
I am without any attributes,
and without any form.
I have neither attachment to the world,
nor to liberation (mukti).
I have no wishes for anything
because I am everything,
everywhere,
every time,
always in equilibrium.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Many thanks for that, SS. This is the best article of Sannyasnews in my opinion. All is said. Those feet I want to kiss. Cheers!
Whose feet do you want to kiss, Tan?
Shankara’s?
Osho’s?
Or that other guy? What’s ‘is name…er – Whosever?
I am sure you have understood, SS. Anyway, Osho is not a jealous guy. Cheers!
John Lennon wrote his own version of a neti-neti song, I reckon he’s trying to say the same thing as Shankara, in a Liverpudlian style:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mYlwF0jP5-w&client=mv-vf-uk&safesearch=always#
No, he is not. Sorry!
I don’t believe in Lennon
I don’t believe in me too
I don’t believe in belief.
Good reply, Kavita.
I always felt Lennon’s song was moving, but his ending very poor. The song should read:
I don’t believe in Jesus,
I don’t believe in Buddha,
I dont believe in Kennedy
I dont believe in Magic
I dont believe in Gits,
I dont believe in Yoga,
I dont believe in Zimmerman,
I dont belive in Magic
I dont believe in I-ching…
ETC. ETC.
AND NOT finally “I believe in me (Yoko and me)…”
The final words should be: that belief itself is rubbish, even belief in himself (and Yoko)!
Here is Lennon’s song. Maybe someone rewrite the last lines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQcU5w915p8
Maybe you mean, Parmartha…
And that’s reality.
The dream was never real
What can I say?
The dream was never there
And so dear friends,
We just have to carry on,
The dream was never there!
“There is neither existence nor non-existence, all is Atman. Shake off all ideas of relativity; shake off all superstitions; let caste and birth and Devas and all else vanish. Why talk of being and becoming? Give up talking of dualism and Advaitism! When were you two, that you talk of two or one? The universe is this Holy One and He alone. Talk not of Yoga to make you pure; you are pure by your very nature. None can teach you.”
This is from another shaivite advaita text, the Avadhuta Gita, which was said to be sung by the tantric master Dattatreya.
Dattatreya also states:
“Think not lightly of your Guru should he lack letters and learning. Take the Truth he teaches and ignore the rest. Know well that a boat, painted and adorned, will carry you across the river; so also will one that is plain and simple.”
“I am pure knowledge, imperishable, infinite. I know neither joy nor pain; whom can they touch? The actions of the mind, good and evil, the actions of the body, good and evil, the actions of the voice, good and evil, exist not in me (Atman). I am the nectar which is knowledge absolute; beyond the range of the senses I am.
The mind is as space, embracing all. I am beyond mind. In Reality, mind has no independent existence.
.How can it be said that the Self is manifest? How can it be said that the self is limited? I alone am existence; all this objective world am I. More subtle than space itself am I. Know the Self to be infinite consciousness, self-evident, beyond destruction, enlightening all bodies equally, ever shining. In It is neither day nor night.
Know Atman to be one, ever the same, changeless. How canst though say: “I am the meditator, and this is the object of meditation?” How can perfection be divided?
You, Atman, were never born, nor did you ever die. The body was never yours. The Shruti (revealed Scriptures) has often said: “This is all Brahman.”.
You are all Brahman, free from all change, the same within and without, absolute bliss. Run not to and fro like a ghost.
Neither unity nor separation exist in you nor in me. All is Atman alone. “I” and “you” and the world have no real being.
The subtle faculties of touch, taste, smell, form and sound which constitute the world without are not yourself, nor are they within you. You are the great all-transcending Reality.
Birth and death exist not in the mind, not in you, as do also bondage and liberation. Good and evil are in the mind, and not in you. Beloved, why do you cry? Name and form are neither in you nor in me.
Oh my mind, why do you range in delusion like a ghost? Know Atman to be above duality and be happy.
You are the essence of knowledge, indomitable, eternal, ever free from modifications. Neither is there in you attachment nor indifference. Let not yourself suffer from desires.
All the Shrutis speak of Atman as without attributes, ever pure, imperishable, without a body, the eternal Truth. That know to be yourself.
Know all forms, physical and subtle, as illusion. The Reality underlying them is eternal. By living this Truth one passes beyond birth and death.
The sages call Atman the “ever-same.” By giving up attachment the mind sees neither duality nor unity.
Concentration is not possible either on perishable objects, on account of their mutability, nor on Atman. “Is” and “is not” do not apply to Atman either. In Atman, freedom absolute, how is Samadhi [state of inner union] possible?
Birthless, pure, bodiless, equable, imperishable Atman you knowest yourself to be. How then canst you say: “I know Atman,” or “I know not Atman.”
Thus has the Shruti spoken of Atman; “That You are.” Of the illusory world, born of the five physical elements, the Shruti says: “Neti, neti” (not this, not this).
All this is ever pervaded by you as Atman. In you is neither the meditator nor the object of meditation. Why, mind, do you shamelessly meditate?”
I know not Shiva [it can mean Brahman and high awareness],
How can I speak of Him?
Who Shiva is I do not know,
How can I worship Him?
I am Shiva, the only reality,
Like absolute space is my nature.
In me is neither unity nor variety,
The cause of imagination too is absent in me.
Free from subject and object am I,
How can I be self-realizable?
Endless is my nature, nothing else exists.
Absolute Truth is my nature, nothing else exists.
Atman by nature, the supreme Reality am I,
Neither am I slayer nor the slain
. On the destruction of a jar, the space in it unites with all space. In myself and Shiva I see no difference when the mind is purified.
Brahman alone is, as pure consciousness. In truth there is no jar, and no jar-space, no embodied soul, nor its nature.
There are no worlds, no Vedas, no Devas, no sacrifices, no castes, no family tribes, no nationalities, no smoke-path, no shining-path.
Some there are that prize non-dualism, others hold to dualism. They know not the Truth, which is above both.
How can the supreme Reality be described, since It is neither white nor any other colour, has no qualities such as sound, and is beyond voice and mind?
“I eat,” “I give,” “I act”; such statements do not apply to Atman, which is purity, birthless and imperishable.
Where the one Brahman alone is, how can it be said “this is Maya [by which the phenomenal world has been brought into existence]“, or “this is not Maya”, “this is shadow” or “this is not shadow”?
I am without beginning and without end. Never was I bound. By nature pure, taintless is my Self. This I know for sure.
From subtle substance (mahat) down to formed creation, there is nothing but Brahman; most clearly do I see this. Where then is the division of caste?
The absolute void and its opposite, all am I everlastingly.
. Atman is not male or female, nor is It neuter; neither is It happiness or suffering. How dare ye pervert It?
Atman is not purified by the six methods of Yoga. Absence of the mind makes It no clearer. The teachings of a Guru reveal It not. It is all purity, in Itself, by Itself.
I am neither bound nor free. I am not separate from Brahman.
Neither the doer nor the enjoyer of the fruits of karma am I. The pervader or the pervaded I am not.
As a volume of water poured into water is inseparably united with water, so, I perceive, matter and spirit are one.
Why do you call Atman personal and impersonal. Since you are neither bound nor free?
Pure, pure you are, without a body, unrelated to the mind, beyond maya; why are you ashamed to declare: “I am Atman, the supreme Reality”?
My mind, why do you cry? Realize thy Atman, Beloved; drink the timeless great nectar of non-duality.
Knowledge born of the intellect am I not. By nature Truth eternal am I. I am perpetual immutability.
Neither formless nor with form, described by the Vedas as “Not this, not this,” free from separation and unity, the true Self reigns supreme.
There is no father, no mother, no kinsman, no son, no wife, no friend, no prejudice, no doctrine. Why are you disquiet, my mind?
Why do the wise imagine the bodiless Brahman to be a body? In It there is neither day nor night, neither rising nor setting.
Since the imperfections of attachment and the like are not in me, I am above the suffering of the body. Know me to be infinite, like unto space, one Atman.
My mind, my friend, many words are not needed, and the world [hardly] comprehends reason. In a word, I have told you the essence of truth: “you are Truth, you are as space.”
In whatever place and in whatever state the Yogi dies, his spirit is absorbed into That, as, on the destruction of the jar, the space in the jar is united with absolute space.
Whether he dies conscious or in coma, in a holy temple or in the house of an untouchable, he obtains liberation, becoming the all-pervading Brahman.
The Yogis regard righteousness, prosperity, desire for Paradise and liberation, and also the moving and fixed objects, as mere will-o’-the-wisps.
The Avadhut in unshakable equanimity, living in the holy temple of nothingness, walks naked, knowing all to be Brahman.
Where there is no “Third” or “Fourth [note]“, where all is known as Atman, where there is neither righteousness nor unrighteousness, how can there be either bondage or liberation?”
How many such texts have we all read – and, beyond perhaps a bit of introductory inspiration for the beginner, how much practical use are they? Come on, be honest.
Osho was speaking through the commentaries over various masters and spiritual icons of the past. Many disciples who have their own disciples do the similar work of talking. In Osho’s style they talk on Krishna, Shankara, Buddha, Jesus, Sikh masters and whosoever get their fancy. Surely in the similar style talks are collected, edited and published in books format.
I FIND THIS TREND NOT COOL BUT VERY CHEAP.
VERY, VERY CHEAP AS ONE POUND FISH.
First of all, it diminishes the brand value of Osho. I have not seen any disciple of any previous masters copying the style of their master and parroting the same melody in their own throaty voice or writing the similar scriptures.
Secondly, Osho was a laborious reader. He researched His topics, sharpened His skills. I don´t think these gentlemen even read daily newspapers – what to say about contemporary literature on various human interest subjects? What they have read is Osho and on the basis of that they talk on similar lines.
Where is that goddamn originality if someone has got his original face?
Shankara wasn’t really the ‘founder’ of Advaita Vedanta philosophy.
Really, he revived Advaita Vedanta which was one of several ancient Indian methods, or philosophies.
Shankara took Sannyas at a young age in the 8th century.
It was all the rage at that time for Sannyasins to shave the head, and Buddhism , and it’s bald headed monks were becoming very popular.
So Shankara revived Hinduism in a sense.
So Shankara became initiated into Sannyas by a particular guru, and copied his style of a shaved,bald head, orange robes and carrying a stick.
Later, in the 16th century, Chaintanya, a devotee of Krishna, started singing “hari Krishna” and dancing in the street.
This kirtan soon caught on and Chaitanya soon had lots of followers.
The shaven- headed style was still in fashion, and the carrying of the stick, except the Hari Krishna’s had taken to leaving a small piece of hair at the back of the head, a “top knot”, which was meant to indicate that they believed in a personal relationship with God.
And they had some misgivings about Shankara’s non-dualism,
as they liked the idea of having a dual relationship with Krishna, so one of their guru’s came up with the idea of “dwaita”, instead of “adwaita”.
It was the custom in those days in India for different monks to argue and debate with other sannyasins with different philosophies, but sometimes these discussions would get out of hand and the bald- headed monks on either side would end up headbutting each other, out of frustration.
Erudite! SS.
The British Army after the Crimean War and the hell of lice infections invented the short back and sides – very short, to avoid the lice and the diseases they carried… and then it spread to the whole UK population. I hated it, and still do…dragged to the barbers when a child and it felt so cold in the English winter….
Yes, the ancient Rishis of India are always depicted as having long hair and beards, not disimilar to the ‘Poona 1′ style.
I wonder when certain yogis began the tradition of shaving the heads when taking Sannyas.
SS, to be most economical with their time & money perhaps!
PS: or some perhaps didn’t find any good enough hair shampoo !
Well, some of the sadhus kept their hair long anyway.
Seems this one doesn’t need to bother about any shampoo & time!
“Osho was speaking through the commentaries over various masters and spiritual icons of the past. Many disciples who have their own disciples do the similar work of talking. In Osho’s style they talk on Krishna, Shankara, Buddha, Jesus, Sikh masters and whosoever get their fancy. Surely in the similar style talks are collected, edited and published in books format.”
Shantam, what you say here is very true for me too; we are so used to the Original Whatsoever, so obviously I can understand this.
But Whosoever is a class apart in his contemporary batch (I won’t take names) and also due to Osho most of us learned about other Whatsoevers in His Light, which was not possible otherwise.
Fair point, Shantam.
Many imitators, in all walks of life!
Osho did do something original with his commentaries, and as far as I know no-one had commented in the way he did on such a broad range of previous masters, etc.
Those who teach originally need to find their own methods, and not imitate Osho.
True, Parmartha, but Osho was standing on top of the head of many different masters and teachings.
I think that he said something like that once when asked, if he was “the Master of Masters”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYcQ0RFAIi8
PS: SS, in my search engine this was the only song with those words. Wish that I could find a better one & I really mean it.
Thanks for explaining, Kavita.
Looks like morning aerobics class in the Sannyas Rest Home.
By the way, the original version of that song can be listened to and downloaded here:
http://www.sannyas.org/index.php?title=Buddha_Within
Ya, it sure does, SS, thanks for the link to the original. & btw, all three versions are wonderful in the link!
Thanks for the link, SS, very useful.
When Whosoever was not yet Whosoever, in his Koregaon Park residence he used to play the Dufly (a musical instrument) and then lead us into silence. I am grateful for whatsoever little/much he inspired in me in my formative years on this eternal journey.
Beautiful! Thank you!
We find ourselves on different sides
Of a line nobody drew
Though it all may be one in the higher eye
Down here where we live it is two
I to my side call the meek and the mild
You to your side call the Words
By virtue of suffering I claim to have won
You claim to have never been heard
Both of us say there are laws to obey
Yeah, but frankly I don’t like your tone
You want to change the way I make love
(But) I want to leave it alone
The pull of the moon, the thrust of the sun
Thus the ocean is crossed
The waters are blessed while a shadowy guest
Kindles a light for the lost
Both of us say there are laws to obey
But frankly I don’t like your tone
You want to change the way I make love
(But) I want to leave it alone
Down in the valley the famine goes on
The famine up on the hill
I say that you shouldn’t, you couldn’t, you can’t
You say that you must and you will
You want to live where the suffering is
I want to get out of town
Come on, baby, give me a kiss
Stop writing everything down
Both of us say there are laws to obey
Yeah, but frankly I don’t like your tone
You want to change the way I make love
(But) I want to leave it alone
Both of us say there are laws to obey
Yeah, but frankly I don’t like your tone
You want to change the way I make love
(But) I want to leave it alone
Lyrics
Song
Leonard Cohen – ‘Different Sides’
PM, how do you interpret the symbolism of “Different Sides”? Cheers!
Tan,
It’s a vast subject which I’m sure both you , I and everyone else is living to answer and love.
Its impossible to both type and consider the implications of each thought and subtlety that is provoked, and to its conclusive insight.
Better to sing it, although having said that, that all depends on one’s musical taste. I run from New Age Music, in the opposite direction.
But here are a few thoughts on the subject, by way of.
Let me start with betrayal. It’s a subject we often deal with here on SN in the various institutional Sannyas forms. One of the reconciling advices to deal with betrayal or any other situation of resisting nefarious reality is to, according to Daoist, spiritual and Osho insight, consider the situation welcome and intended.
I vaguely remember Osho mentioning that he welcomed the Ranch debacle. He also welcomed the ability to call a spade a spade and to expose fascism, apparently. But also, by the Daoist advice we have to consider that , when fully understood, we do not harbour any attachment to the indignity or treachery, nor wish harm to the person delivering it. Notice how Osho said he didn’t hate Reagan, or anyone else, apparently. And that is just by one example – I’m not saying his version of that story was absolutely factual or not.
Usually, in terms of justice or betrayal we seek redress and explanation at least as expiation of the act – a la Shakespeare…and understandably, mortally so. It’s not always a wise road to go up, as Shakespeare demonstrates too.
What might be attractive in listening to Osho or the prayer of unity a la Shankara is that complete resolution and self-sustaining disengagement from the world, from our consequence in it, which illuminates but is not identified with the consequences of the act of living. Perhaps we looked to Osho to anchor us in that qualitative shift of perception, whilst we had the chance to work on ourselves AND to absorb his energy. We joined in, in shifting the goal posts around, internally.
If one has that knack of changing the emotive and sensorial effect of life itself, so that one produces contentment over the input and output without concern, then apparently we are living the dream/reality…and well.
In my own experience, I recently mentioned to my friend here that my guidance for loving was always love songs, since being a teenager. Even Satoris may well have affected me but not the entirety of my continuing libido in the search for the perfect-partnered orgasm. Thank God! That hasn’t changed much but age is coming. I’m 56 . Cohen went up Mt Baldy at 62. Helppp!!
I was never impressed nor had the necessary status/strategy/stability to grab or offer the models of conditional and loving relationship in functional work-based society, nor did I enjoy the reckless interference in Sannyas therapy. Nor was I an independent Bohemian, with genius and flair and ambition. So here am I.
Reckless interference – why yes, you have to destroy things if you want something better to arise.
Lokesh (it’s not a verbatim quote, so apologies) mentioned once that Osho only wanted us to love him, and the rest of our love stories could go hang. Yep, that’s about the sum of it, and in a nice way, without repressed, smelly tibetan Buddhists everywhere, giving you the spooks.
By giving the ultimate Truth power over our reconciliation to just this aspect of forgiving life, and in betrayal for example, we perhaps fail to acknowledge the details, down here where we are two. Both internally and externally. Intrinsically and extrinsically.
Looking to All defining Truth as our only definition..? It’s a bit like anti-dependents giving you advice on committed relationships. Or narcissists waiting to be recognised as pure love. Something doesn’t feel real. Not only that but by using those models of ‘letting go’, ‘not being attached’, allowing ‘total and utter freedom’ in the glaring light of enlightenment, by rote nodding, we fail-ed to develop the simple skills of invocation and success within our own remit. Until we realised the mistake. Collectively perhaps, or independently.
There is nothing wrong refuting someone else’s tone of admonition, as they can and do likewise. In fact to recognise sociopaths, deceit, and lack of coherence is not a lack of trust in the commune or in relationship. But one must be ready to lose the privileges of relating solely by associative religious style or unspokeness or the fatality of attraction and the indulgences of pleasure in notional love relationships – when by even addressing the tone (and rendering ourselves accusable too) we know it’s not actually true what is being said, we are just being derailed by words.
We borrow and hide behind identities all the way along, to service ourselves with, it would appear to even the most honest of us, I’m sure. We self-deceive, but it’s easier to point to another. More fun, too.
“We get hooked like a fish, or try like a knight in an old-fashioned book, in our way to be free.”
It’s important at this point to openly create and offer choice, responsibility and consequences and not think that it/they will be reciprocated, simply because it/they are offered or worse…because it’s the (drum roll ) TRUTH! It might be, it might even be abused and transgressed. But that is its generosity. At that point one goes with the wind and “Frankly, my darling, I don’t give a damn.”
Perhaps that is the utter selfishness that lovers seek to avoid, but would be far better advised to declare and support openly, from the start. This is not impossible territory and is very rewarding on the path of love with its twists and turns. One may even relinquish the aim of being ‘self-sufficient, at one in God’, and prefer the harsh reality of living in bondage, attachment or asking and being asked uncomfortable questions with one’s lover over a restaurant meal that have everything to do with the search for a very specific set of answers in truth, AND attachment. Deal with it as it is.
“Down in the valley the famine goes on
The famine up on the hill
I say that you shouldn’t, you couldn’t, you can’t
You say that you must and you will.”
So how does this frankness truly open up? To get to the bottom of it we have to find lovers. There is no other way.
The lust and passion and love in sex releases the heart which then sets about handling the matter released to engage our identity, attachment and insight. No contract exists at this level. Love tends to put us just out of our depths all the time. Hence we must pay particular attention to letting that work.
“The pull of the moon, the thrust of the sun
Thus the ocean is crossed
The waters are blessed while a shadowy guest
Kindles a light for the lost.”
But if it was solely all about interference, we’d go crazy. Similarly, if it halts at familiarity, we often get shocked, sometimes painfully, into re-addressing the love letter, again.
“You want to live where the suffering is
I want to get out of town
Come on, baby, give me a kiss
Stop writing everything down.”
We are thus constantly obliged, in our mortality, not to escape from, but to indulge the senses. But in so doing we risk everything. And all that in the face of many other contexts, of other incipient forces which have a habit of interfering with our angelic origins too.
There’s plenty to enjoy and find ways of addressing and living without needing or wanting instant absolution in prayer. That prayer or devotion also gives us the energy and wit to carry on is a song in itself. We ourselves are living it, we are that prayer so we can’t do it any more or less…not anyone else nor any absolute advice from above in the unformed firmament which, in truth, is actually enjoyed by the very absurd search for it between one another -lovers, knowingly or unknowingly. There is NO otherness, THIS is the territory for THAT.
But there is, potentially, release from suffering into mutual, co-sponsored self-okayness if one enters into it and discovers there one’s own understanding of what brought it about (the lost). In the meantime, enjoy saying what’s happening and orientate the compass.
“I to my side call the meek and the mild
You to your side call the Words
By virtue of suffering I claim to have won
You claim to have never been heard.”
Enduring friendship is a great and more accessible quality than all the spiritual truths put together. We cannot live fully without a lover. It’s no metaphor. Love as friendship. We can do that quite easily, actually, without the Words…but the Vedas don’t mention my best friend making tea for me and more, when I was lost in the two and with no-One inside to make it alright.
That’s my version of the Different Sides to it all…for today.
Keep it simple.
Thanks for that, PM. Heard a few interpretations of ‘Different Sides’ and to me, yours is the best. How beautiful is that: “The lust and passion and love in sex releases the heart which then sets about…” A jewel in such simplicity – you said it…Cheers! XXX
Ok, Tan – you’ve got my number…See ya later!
SD,
I have malware, you may get infected with a virus if you, er…keep that up.
Tan…
Tell me it’s not true or I die…
(Sound of dustbin lids crashing offstage, and a sodden thump of a body landing on the ground, followed by a plaintive spoken regret: “I should never have asked her to pass the time by sitting on my face-book.”
PM,
Honi soit qui malware y pense!
(MOD: APOLOGIES FOR LATE CHANGE, SD)
MOD: IS THIS BLANK SPACE A FULL AND FINAL POST, PLEASE, TAN?
TAN: Hi Mod, I put a smile face but it won’t show, don’t know why. It happened twice. How r u guys?
MOD: OK, THX!
I am glad to know that you don’t prefer soup, Swami. Keep it up! XXX
Faithful followers may not have made themselves free from Conditioning, but surely they have made Osho free from his conditioning.
The way Osho is being projected in the world, one can think him as uncle of Eckhart Tolle!
Above is the joke from western side. On Indian front, it is even more hilarious. A few Indians in the public space walk, talk and gesture as if they are the successors of the departed one. Interestingly, any such successor thinks others are fake.
In my ‘conditioned mind’, there is no known graduate, post-graduate from Osho school but drop-outs, who want to write doctorate thesis.
“In my ‘conditioned mind’, there is no known graduate, post-graduate from Osho school but drop-outs, who want to write doctorate thesis.”
what’s wrong with being a drop-out in any case, don’t you in your innermost interiority consider yourself a fully-fledged Chief Justice of Osho?!!
There is nothing wrong to be a drop-out. It is in a way sense of dignity to chalk one´s own path. We both know such friends who dropped the sannyas and did not look back and now take every single step without any navigation device. My deepest respect for such people.
I also have immense respect for millions of Puneites who did not get allured by Osho and His work.
What I hate is half-cooked, half-baked cookies in the supermarket shelf. I don´t mind to be Chief Justice of Osho if there is a complete bench of 21 equally capable judges.
Under the influence of cocaine-like words of Osho, many go berserk.
No good.
Shantam said:
“What I hate is half-cooked, half-baked cookies in the supermarket shelf. I don´t mind to be Chief Justice of Osho if there is a complete bench of 21 equally capable judges.”
A prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
Don’t be too hard on the poor chap, Arps; being a very busy man, responsible for many very important projects as well as being a visionary and an (as yet unrecognised) authority on the Essence of Sannyas, Shantam, under great pressure as he always is, has simply omitted the ‘in’ before “capable”.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Extend your vision and see how far away it goes.
Can I remind you, “Your saviour is my master”.
“Under the influence of cocaine-like words of Osho, many go berserk.”
No good – depends what you mean by going “berserk”. To me, going berserk is the best thing for some.
Going berserk is good if it is not mixed with power. Then it is a deadly combination.
Rise and fall of Sannyas movement is one such fine example.
Your obsession with “the rise and fall of Sannyas movement” would seem to indicate you’ve gained nothing much from all those years ‘in the colours’, Shantam. I suspect it’s just a convenient way to avoid truly looking at and being responsible for your own fate, which appears to be basically a chronic condition of ‘stuck-ness’.
Besides, collective Sannyas is apparently alive and flourishing in many places, both publically visible and more privately, so your basic premise is built on sand.
Shantam, it is really amazing how you manage to bring everything down to this & only this.
Now I am wondering if by chance the present OIF team retire from their posts, do you think whichever new OIF team shall be able not to go berserk? In any case, que sera sera _/\_
Just by chance, I remember Osho saying, “Instead of Lord Acton’s famous saying, I would like to say: Power reveals and reveals absolutely.” (‘Tao: The Three Treasures’, Vol 2, Chapter 3).
Relax, Shantam. You met your master-baiter in Ibiza. Things must have got a bit too quiet for you since then.
Online jiggery pokery isn’t the same in reality, eh?
It will all work out…don’t worry…have you thought of other situations where you can do nothing except wait for others to notice you
Easy is right..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-33849863
Oi! Martyn, who you calling a wanker?
Not very inspired by any of the current threads. Legal wrangles for the OIF simply ain’t my cup of chai. Here is a track from an album I am working on.
https://soundcloud.com/luke-mitchell/chogyams-trumpet-on-ibiza
Lokesh,
I only write from my own experience.
I am projecting. From the known to the erm…known.
I also have (t )issues.
Hair on the palms of your hands?
Legal wrangles are eye-openers because most of us have the belief, Presence of master and intense meditation makes the slate clean from old mind-set, and therefore this and only this can usher humanity into new era.
It seems reality is different than the advertisements. Newman seems to be the brand name of jeans which has been faded away from the market.
Third male leg won´t increase the size by hanging bricks, even if bricks are made from the sand of holy rivers!
And you rather enjoy such a scenario, don’t you, Shantam?
As – setting aside the dubious assumption, couched in the naively unqualified terms rather typical of such pronouncements by you, that “most of us have the belief” that “presence of master and intense meditation makes the slate clean from old mind-set, and therefore this and only this can usher humanity into new era” – it sort of relieves you personally of any nagging sense of inferiority, of being somehow lacking, when you think you can point to certain people of apparently so-called ‘higher’ status in the extended Sannyas community and judge them to be ‘lacking’ too.
“Mmmm”, goes your little mind, “maybe I’m not such a hopeless failure after all!”
Satyadeva, you are free to write your opinion after reading my posts.
I appreciate that.
But the reciprocal response in a politically correct language is possible only if I know you are standing behind your words.
For this I have simple criterion, writers’ willingness to share their photo, which nowadays is one of the simplest possible things.
I take the spirit of communication in a very sacred way.
“I take the spirit of communication in a very sacred way.”
Is that why you so often fail to answer ‘difficult’ posts, which have put you in a corner? And why you’re often so lazy concerning facts? And why you fail to take the trouble to follow arguments closely enough so that your responses become thoroughly inadequate?
If so, I suggest you renounce your so-called “sacred” in favour of a far more rational, ‘scientific’ rigour, whereby there’d be at least a chance your hypocritical delusions might be effectively punctured (although I wouldn’t be holding my breath re that particular outcome).
“Usher humanity into new era”? Shantam, this kind of idea went out with flower power. What kind of new era do you envisage? Humanity’s evolution is a very long and drawn out process and actually is debatable. Individual evolution can happen more quickly, but won’t at all if caught up in notions of humanity entering a new era, because it isn’t.
It’s the same old, same old, and the big questions are the same as they were 2000 years ago and will remain the big questions for a long time to come.
Is the communication or discussion is possible when one comes in Bikini and other in Burqa?
And who knows, under the burqa is hidden some sword too?
I have this simple question to 75% of sannyasnews bloggers: why this hesitation to reveal your facial identity?
This hesitation is one of the symptoms how Sannyas spirit has fallen into a ditch. There is neither self-pride and nor self-esteem left.
Is this the state of freedom from self?
If yes…
Congratulations.
Total bollox.
Another instance of you picking on some utterly inconsequential non-issue and trying to make it ‘important’. Almost certainly another ploy to try to deflect others’ scathing criticism – as well as a means to neatly avoid the realities of your own life.
Transparently mediocre foolishness as usual, Shantam.
Shantam enquires, “I have this simple question to 75% of sannyasnews bloggers: why this hesitation to reveal your facial identity?”
From my experience on SN I have paid a price for being open about my identity. First with the idiot calling himself Sufi, and second with that twat calling herself Fresch. They both did shitty things to me because I revealed my identity, although no big deal.
Fresch made a big deal of why she did not reveal her identity and then abused the fact that someone else did. A very confused woman, if you ask me.
Shantam concludes with another question, “Is this the state of freedom from self?”
This is a very limited perspective to operate from. No matter how enlightened one happens to be, you, in one form or another, have to live in this crazy mixed up world. SN is an open forum. If someone wishes to hide their identity so what? It is no big reflection on their inner state, just a manifestation of having the freedom to choose in a very real way. It is also nobody else’s business.
“From my experience on SN I have paid a price for being open about my identity”
Lokesh, I am still paying it, although no big deal.
Moreover, the two names mentioned by you were faceless people with fictitious names. A real person won´t put the other real person in bad situation unless one is psychopath, coward or has no empathy.
For me, open forum means going to the naturist beaches. Those who have spent some time on naturist beaches and nudist resorts, it is a common experience, naked people are the most respectful towards the others. I mean, on a naturist lake to sit topless is also ok but only to take shoes off is quite vulgar.
With this in my mind, I prefer to respond to clean people with no masks.
If someone has something interesting to say it does not bother me if I know their true identity. After all, is that not the biggest illusion of all?