Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com

Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com

oshorajneesh.com
from oshorajneesh.com More from this publisher
24.04.2013 Views

CHAPTER 12. DISCIPLINE, DEVOTION AND KRISHNA Rumi’s song ends here. I think Rumi could not get inside the spirit of devotion fully; he fails to reach to the height of Krishna. He walks with him, but does not go the whole length. If I have to write this song, I would have the beloved say again to the lover, ”As long as ’thou’ remains ’I’ will be here – maybe in hiding. So go back again and return here after you are finished with ’thou’ too.” The awareness of ”thou” cannot exist without ”I”. Whether one uses ”I” or not, does not make a difference. As long as ”thou” exists for me, I exist Maybe my ”I” hides itself in the dark recesses of the unconscious, but it is there. Because who will say ”thou” if the ”I” is not there? So it does not make any difference if one says, ”Only thou art”; it is like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If I am going to write this poem I would have the beloved say, ”As long as ’thou’ is, ’I’ cannot be erased. So go back and get rid of ’thou’ as you got rid of ’?’.” But do you think the lover will return after losing both ”I” and ”thou”? He will not. And then my poem will be in real difficulty, because then it cannot be completed. The lover will not return – Who will come? And to whom? Then he will never come again, because the inner distance, in which coming and going happens, is gone. In fact, the distance is made by the awareness of ”I” and ”thou”; with the cessation of ”I” and ”thou” distance is completely obliterated. So on coming to its end my song will be in real trouble. Maybe, for this very reason Rumi concluded his song the way it iS. One cannot take it any further, because nothing remains to be said after it. The song has to be concluded there. There is no one who will go, and there is no one who will receive him. Who will go to whom? And for what? As long as one comes and goes, there is distance. And when ”I” and ”thou” disappear, distances disappear. And with the disappearance of distances the meeting happens, merging happens A devotee need not go anywhere. The meeting happens wherever he is. It is not a question of going anywhere; one has to die as a self and one comes close to the supreme. Question 2 QUESTIONER: PLEASE TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT MARTIN BUBER. Martin Buber’s whole thinking is concerned with the relationship, with the intimacy between ”I” and ”thou”. Martin Buber is one of the most profound thinkers of our age. But remember, profundity is not all; whatever the depth it is only the other end of the superficial, the shallow. Real depth comes when one is neither shallow nor deep, when both shallowness and depth disappear. Martin Buber has come upon something very profound: he says that life’s truth lies in the interrelationship between ”I” and ”thou”. An atheist, a materialist, believes that only matter is; there is nothing other than matter. His world does not consist of ”I” and ”thou”, it consists of ”I” and ”it”. There is no place for ”thou”, because for ”thou” it is necessary that another person possess a soul. So an atheist’s world is confined to the relationship between ”I” and ”it”. That is why it is such a complex world, where on the one hand he calls himself ”I” and as such invests himself with a soul, he deprives others of this l-ness and reduces them into things, into ”its”. A materialist reduces every man and everything into matter. If I Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 224 Osho

CHAPTER 12. DISCIPLINE, DEVOTION AND KRISHNA believe there is no soul or spirit, then for me you are nothing more than matter. How then can I call you ”thou”? Because only an alive man, alive with a soul, can be addressed as ”thou”. Therefore Martin Buber says a theist’s world is comprised of ”I” and ”thou” and not ”I” and ”it”. It is a theist’s world only when my ”I” addresses the world as ”thou”. This is how Buber thinks. But I will not say so. I will say that even a theist is, in his depth, nothing more than an atheist, because he divides the world into ”I” and ”thou”. Or you can say that Buber’s world is the world of a dualistic theist. But it is not true, because dualistic theism has no meaning. In a sense, an atheist is non-dualist because he says that only matter is. And so is a spiritualist who says that only one is, and it is spirit. And I think it is easier to attain to oneness, non-dualism from the hypothesis that there is only one; it is very difficult to come to monism from the hypothesis that there are two – ”I” and ”thou”. In this sense, a dualist like Buber may find himself in a more difficult situation than an atheist. A materialist is a non-dualist, a monist, and if some day he comes to know that there is no matter, that only spirit is, only consciousness is, then he will have no difficulty in being transformed. Even as an atheist he accepts the oneness of existence; he does not accept the dualistic interpretation. But a dualist’s problem is more difficult. He believes that existence is dual, it is matter and soul together. And as such it would be extremely difficult for him to attain to non-dualism, to the oneness of all existence. Buber is a dualist. He says that the world is comprised of ”I” and ”thou”. His dualism is human, because he cancels ”it”, and gives it the status of ”thou” with a soul. But it remains a dualistic approach nonetheless. There can be only a relationship between ”I” and ”thou”, there cannot be a unity, a oneness between them. However deep and intimate the relationship, there is always some distance between ”I” and ”thou”. If I am related with you – even if the relationship is really intimate – the very act of relatedness divides me from you; we are not one but two. And remember, a relationship is a double-edged sword which cuts both ways; it unites and divides at the same time. If you and I are related, it means we are divided as well. The point of meeting is also the point of parting. A bridge joins the two banks of a river and divides them too. In fact, whatever joins two persons or things is bound to divide them; it is inescapable, there is no way to avoid it. Two persons can relate with each other, but they cannot be one; relationship is not unity. Even in a love relationship, the division between the lovers remains. And as long as there is a division, a separateness, love cannot be fulfilled. That is why all lovers are dissatisfied, discontented. There are two kinds of discontent in love. You are discontented if you don’t find your lover, and you are discontented even if you find one. When you find someone you love and who loves you, you realize that in spite of the meeting, a distance remains and nothing can be done to mitigate the pain of this separateness. In spite of everything you do to do away with this separateness, this distance from your lover, it continues to torment you. So very often a person who does not find his love is not as miserable as one who finds it. One who does not find can still hope to find, but the one who has found is robbed of all hope – his discontent and despair are much deeper. In fact, no meeting can be real, because two make a meeting, and as long as there are two entities, unity or oneness is impossible. Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 225 Osho

CHAPTER 12. DISCIPLINE, DEVOTION AND KRISHNA<br />

Rumi’s song ends here.<br />

I think Rumi could not get inside the spirit of devotion fully; he fails to reach to the height of <strong>Krishna</strong>.<br />

He walks with him, but does not go the whole length. If I have to write this song, I would have the<br />

beloved say again to the lover, ”As long as ’thou’ remains ’I’ will be here – maybe in hiding. So go<br />

back again <strong>and</strong> return here after you are finished with ’thou’ too.”<br />

<strong>The</strong> awareness of ”thou” cannot exist without ”I”. Whether one uses ”I” or not, does not make a<br />

difference. As long as ”thou” exists for me, I exist Maybe my ”I” hides itself in the dark recesses of<br />

the unconscious, but it is there. Because who will say ”thou” if the ”I” is not there? So it does not<br />

make any difference if one says, ”Only thou art”; it is like Tweedledum <strong>and</strong> Tweedledee. If I am going<br />

to write this poem I would have the beloved say, ”As long as ’thou’ is, ’I’ cannot be erased. So go<br />

back <strong>and</strong> get rid of ’thou’ as you got rid of ’?’.”<br />

But do you think the lover will return after losing both ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou”? He will not. And then my poem<br />

will be in real difficulty, because then it cannot be <strong>com</strong>pleted. <strong>The</strong> lover will not return – Who will<br />

<strong>com</strong>e? And to whom? <strong>The</strong>n he will never <strong>com</strong>e again, because the inner distance, in which <strong>com</strong>ing<br />

<strong>and</strong> going happens, is gone. In fact, the distance is made by the awareness of ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou”; with<br />

the cessation of ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou” distance is <strong>com</strong>pletely obliterated. So on <strong>com</strong>ing to its end my song<br />

will be in real trouble. Maybe, for this very reason Rumi concluded his song the way it iS. One cannot<br />

take it any further, because nothing remains to be said after it. <strong>The</strong> song has to be concluded there.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no one who will go, <strong>and</strong> there is no one who will receive him. Who will go to whom? And<br />

for what?<br />

As long as one <strong>com</strong>es <strong>and</strong> goes, there is distance. And when ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou” disappear, distances<br />

disappear. And with the disappearance of distances the meeting happens, merging happens<br />

A devotee need not go anywhere. <strong>The</strong> meeting happens wherever he is. It is not a question of going<br />

anywhere; one has to die as a self <strong>and</strong> one <strong>com</strong>es close to the supreme.<br />

Question 2<br />

QUESTIONER: PLEASE TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT MARTIN BUBER.<br />

Martin Buber’s whole thinking is concerned with the relationship, with the intimacy between ”I” <strong>and</strong><br />

”thou”. Martin Buber is one of the most profound thinkers of our age. But remember, profundity<br />

is not all; whatever the depth it is only the other end of the superficial, the shallow. Real depth<br />

<strong>com</strong>es when one is neither shallow nor deep, when both shallowness <strong>and</strong> depth disappear. Martin<br />

Buber has <strong>com</strong>e upon something very profound: he says that life’s truth lies in the interrelationship<br />

between ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou”.<br />

An atheist, a materialist, believes that only matter is; there is nothing other than matter. <strong>His</strong> world<br />

does not consist of ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”thou”, it consists of ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”it”. <strong>The</strong>re is no place for ”thou”, because<br />

for ”thou” it is necessary that another person possess a soul. So an atheist’s world is confined to<br />

the relationship between ”I” <strong>and</strong> ”it”. That is why it is such a <strong>com</strong>plex world, where on the one h<strong>and</strong><br />

he calls himself ”I” <strong>and</strong> as such invests himself with a soul, he deprives others of this l-ness <strong>and</strong><br />

reduces them into things, into ”its”. A materialist reduces every man <strong>and</strong> everything into matter. If I<br />

<strong>Krishna</strong>: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Man</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>His</strong> <strong>Philosophy</strong> 224 <strong>Osho</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!