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

CHAPTER 12. DISCIPLINE, DEVOTION AND KRISHNA
QUESTIONER YOU OFTEN SAY THAT WHEN ”I” BECOMES WHOLE IT TURNS INTO ”NON-
I” OR ”ALL”. BUT WHAT YOU SAID A LITTLE WHILE AGO CONTRADICTS THIS STATEMENT.
IT SEEMS YOU ARE JUST SHIFTING THE EMPHASIS FROM ONE WORD TO ANOTHER. IS
THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHOLE ”I” AND THE ”NON-I”?
There is no difference. The whole ”I” means this much: that now there is no ”thou”, all thou’s have
become assimilated by the ”?”. And when ”thou” and ”I” become one there is no sense in calling it
”I” or ”thou”. So whether we say whole ”I” or ”non-l”, they are two ways of saying the same thing.
When ”I” becomes whole it is empty, it is a zero experience; or when ”I” becomes empty it becomes
whole. Whatever way you say it makes no difference. The ultimate truth can be said both ways –
positively and negatively; it includes both yes and no, and everything too. It is all right if you say
nothing about it; it is also fine if you speak endlessly about it. After all that is said and unsaid, truth
remains beyond it; truth is always the beyond. But in silence truth is complete, whole.
When we look at truth, what is, from a particular viewpoint, we are in difficulty. And we are all used
tO looking at truth from some viewpoint; we look at it through the screen of our ideas and concepts,
our emotions and feelings. And as long as we have our thoughts and concepts and viewpoints,
the truth that we see is bound to be fragmentary and incomplete. It is okay if we are aware that
our perception of truth is partial and fragmentary, but the difficulty is that every viewpoint claims to
be complete. And when a fragmentary vision claims to be the whole, when it lays claim to being
a complete philosophy, it gives rise to great confusion and illusion. There is no such danger if a
viewpoint is aware that it is simply a viewpoint. Complete perception of truth is possible only when
all points and angles of viewing disappear, when one is nowhere or everywhere, when one is free
of all ideas and concepts, of all words and images, of all associations. Then only knowing happens,
truth happens.
And there are two ways – only two ways – of saying the truth. One way is positive and the other
is negative. There is no third way of saying it. Buddha uses the negative way when he says truth
is utter emptiness, it is absolute nothingness, it is nirvana. On the other hand Shankara uses the
positive way, he calls it the supreme, the brahman, the whole. The irony is that while Buddha and
Shankara seem to be contradicting each other, they are saying the same thing: of course, their
words, their metaphors, their ways of saying it are different. While Shankara loves the positive way,
Buddha chooses the negative one.
If you ask me, I will say Brahman is another name for nirvana, and nirvana is another name for
brahman. And language comes to its end when both Shankara and Buddha meet. It is really there
that truth begins, that truth is.
Question 5
QUESTIONER: YOU HAVE SAID THAT WHILE SADHANA OR SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE LEADS
TO THE WHOLE ”?”, UPASANA OR DEVOTION LEADS TO ”NO-I”, AND THAT THEY ARE
DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT THEN YOU HAVE ALSO SAID THAT DEVOTION AND DISCIPLINE
ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING. PLEASE EXPLAIN.
No, I did not say that sadhana leads to the whole ”I”; I only said that sadhana takes you in the
direction of I or self. If spiritual discipline can take yoU to the whole ”I” then there is no difference
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 231 Osho