"There have been people who have told, in this country particularly, that the whole world is illusory, maya, it does not exist, but has it helped India in any way? The true test is there: whether it has helped, whether it has made people more authentic, more real. It has not helped at all. It has made people more deeply cunning, split, schizophrenic; it has made them hypocrites.
All the religions have done this, because they don't consider you. And you are far more important than the ultimate truth, because the ultimate truth has nothing to do with you right now. You are living in a dreamworld; some device is needed which can help you come out of it. The moment you are out of it, you will know it was a dream – but a person who is dreaming, to tell him that it is all a dream is meaningless...
And that's what has happened in India: people are living in maya, deeply in it, and still talking that "This is all maya." And this talk too is part of their dream; it does not destroy the dream. In fact it makes the dream more deeply rooted in them, because now there is no need to get rid of it – because it is a dream! So why get rid of it? It does not matter.
In a subtle way all the religions have done this: they have talked from the highest peak to the people for whom that peak does not exist yet."
~ Osho
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Does the right answer help?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Curiously, it's the dreamworld that Gurdjieff was addressing in his work.
Why do you say 'curiously'?
Had you in mind, V!
You're not Mr G's greatest fan...
No, I'm not. I think he was almost completely wrong, or at least that his influence has been somewhat malign, which may not be his fault. But rather than glancing blows at me, why not write a defence of Gurdjieff?
Or someone else could do it.
There is something valuable in the idea of waking up - and as Osho points out, it's not something you find in the Indian tradition.
One of the things that has arisen in mind today and I think I have been grappling with for a long time is:
There is a phrase "emotional truth" which I stumbled upon on the net the other day. It has mostly negative or new-agey connotations but the phrase does imply here authenticity, "being real", or being yourself. Of course, this may or may not have anything to do with ultimate truth. It just means being your own nature. So we could reject this as irrelevant. But the "ultimate truth" devoid of the "emotional truth" would seem to be an abstract, intellectual thing that hasn't deeply transformed the being. How do the ultimate and emotional truths become one? Only then can there be no hypocrisy.
And I think this does happen and is commonly experienced. Any time there is a true experience, when something that was previously theoretical becomes more deeply known, I think this happens. The ultimate truth goes deeper into the being. There is a quote by Hermann Hesse that goes something like:
"I have always know it but I have only just experienced it. Now I know it not only with my head, but with my eyes, my heart, my stomach."
I was also intrigued to find a passage in the Gita which I was looking for 3/33:
"Even a wise man behaves in confomity with his own nature; beings follow nature; what shall restraint avail?"
Swami Chidbhavananda's commentary goes on:
"Some plants grow tall and slender while others shrubby and stout; some fruits taste sweet while others bitter. The varying natures in the vegetation cannot be changed, but they can be augmented and enriched. Variation in nature is much more pronounced in the human than in other species. Dispositions are divergent even among the enlightened. One is an introvert and another an extrovert. A saint is given to devotion and a sage to discrimination. The yogi disciplines the mind while the man of action lovingly serves mankind. Attaining perfection is the thread of unity in the midst of mental variations. No violence should be done to the vagaries even in saints. Each must be allowed and encouraged to evolve in line with his temperament.
The earthy among men are bound fast to things mundane. Obstructing their worldly ways avails nothing. Inducing them to evolve in tune with their nature aids their growth. Slow sublimation of their nature is the greatest service that can be rendered to them."
Two verses later is the one about following one's own dharma rather than that of another. I think we need to understand our own nature which is the "emotional truth" and follow this, the path of least resistance, in the direction of ultimate truth.
Does this make any sense of am I talking garbage? (has been known to happen)
All of this makes a lot of sense, to me at least. The main post as well.
I think the point about emotional truth is vital. 'Trying to be better than you are' never works, because it's insincere. You can't get to the truth via pretense.
Some of the things I love about myself are no doubt false ... but equally, some of the things I regard as useless may turn out to have value. Until real discrimination is possible, it would be better to be content with what we have, and wait and watch.
Most of the problems that attend a spiritual path are caused by people trying too hard to fix things, even before it's clear that there is a problem.
Briefly, Gurdjieff's view of man was that he was asleep. I'm not aware that anyone else has ever put that in the spotlight to the same extent.
To be able to do any work (or Work)it is necessary to wake up.
I'm not sure this needs defending - it seems obvious and is to the point in responding to the original post. Very much so.
Of course it doesn't need defending, but you are ignoring the other aspect of Gurdjieff, namely, the idea that people don't have souls until they are given discipline by a conscious being. Or, that people don't have reason until given it by someone else.
There are a lot of ways of saying "Wake Up!" It could be "Wake up, you miserable, idle creature!" or it could be more gentle, more loving - an invitation to a respected friend.
I think that the journey we are upon is perhaps from one approach to the other. Gurdjieff put 'waking up' under a spotlight, indeed - a 2000 watt lamp ... but I'm not sure that is how I would want to wake up.
I guess it's the old principle, 'speak to the person in front of you'... so it varies from Zen exercises to 'you have immense talent, but you haven't realised it yet..'...yes yes, tell me please...
Kashmir Shaivism, developed around the same time as Shankara, says don't bother your head with maya, just look for the Lord in everything...
I recently heard something that I enjoyed, and this is an excuse to quote it:-
If you give a man a compliment, you feed his ego for a day.
But if you teach him to fish for compliments, he can feed it himself for life.
Post a Comment