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

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