guests count

website-hit-counters.com
Provided by website-hit-counters.com site.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

" Let me be “ nothing ” first.. To have everything in you.. To be everything for you. " - anand vikas.



Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

If my heart is having the ears..
It will surely hear
The song of your tearing eyes & its silent tunes..
Though I am not near to you at this moment..

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

If my heart is having the eyes..
it will surely
see the invisible love of you
which is behind of your visible eyes..
Though you don't say
even a single word at any moment..

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

Unless I am not having any fear to be myself..
I can’t share
the sheer joy of your loving heart in being with you..
Though I am so near to you at every moment..

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

If I am not able to be alone..
If I can’t love myself..
If I can’t trust myself..
Our love will remain
just as a stone
which is so burden on my heart.
Instead of being a flowering flower..

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

If my love is not born
out of the death of my mind,
out of the death of my ego..
every meet with you is just nothing but..
cheating myself and
cheating you in the name of love.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

If I cant be orgasmic
unto myself at every moment..
Every meeting with you
in romance also gives me only the guilt.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

I can be with you,
You can be with me..
Only if we clear the dust of our eyes
To see me in you..
To you in me..
To be as mirrors together
And to die as “ I ” and “ You ”
In the fire of love..
To remain the Only love.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.


dedicating to my unknown love.

love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.

Only if we clear the dust of our eyes.. To see me in you.. To see you in me..



I can be with you,
You can be with me..
Only if we clear the dust of our eyes
To see me in you..
To see you in me..
To be as mirrors together
And to die as “ I ” and “ You ”
In the fire of love..
To remain the Only love.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

Let me be “ nothing ” first..
To have everything in you..
To be everything for you.

dedicating to " love."
 
love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.


Saturday, December 11, 2010

The space which is out of deep Contentment.



I am the space for new,
I am the space for now,
I am the space for love.

when I say new
it is beyond of -
the old and new
which our minds knows.

when I say now
it is beyond of -
the past and future and the now
which our minds knows.

when I say love
it is beyond of -
the love and hate
which our minds knows.

when I use the " I "
it is beyond of -
the I which our minds knows.

The space which is out of deep Contentment.

love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

" Only then can a sannyasin have a communication with non-sannyasins. " - Osho.



Beloved Osho,

Why it is so difficult for Sannyasins to have deep relationships with Non-Sannyasins?

Osho –

It is natural.

To be a sannyasin means you are deprogrammed.

To relate with non-sannyasins is bound to
be difficult because they are programmed people.

Their programmed minds and your deprogrammed minds
cannot have anything in common.

You will think them stupid;

they will think you licentious, rebellious.

There is no possibility of communication.

It will become more and more difficult
the more sannyasins get deeper into meditation.

Then those people will not be able to understand at all.

They will think that you have been corrupted,
you have been brain washed,
you have been hypnotized.

All kinds of condemnation will come upon you from their side.

And from your side,
you cannot conceive how
people can go on believing in such stupid ideas.

Everything they believe in will look idiotic —
their God, their heaven and hell,
and their churches, their prayers.

You have become an outsider.

You do not belong to the crowd.

You have been able to see
something of which they are not aware.

It is just like a man having eyes trying
to communicate with a group which is blind.

There will be a thousand and one difficulties.

You cannot mention colors,
you cannot mention light;
you cannot mention a beautiful sunset,
because they will start laughing:

" You are living in fantasies — these things don't exist. "

And for you the problem is that you know they exist,
and you know that these people are blind and
they need some treatment for their eyes.

But you cannot force them;

they don't think they are blind.

They simply think that this is how one has to be.

And they are in the majority.

They may even violently force your eyes
to be destroyed just to help you,
so that you don't talk nonsense.

You talk about colors and rainbows
and flowers and sunsets and stars —
which are not part of their mind at all.

But they are powerful.

They are in the majority;

they have the government in their hands —

they can do anything they want.

And you cannot do anything against them,
nor would the heart of a sannyasin
like to do anything against them —
you can only feel compassion for them.

You can try to convince them,
argue with them,
but your arguments and your efforts
to convince them are not going to lead you anywhere,
because you are speaking two different languages.

It is one of the most difficult things,
and it has always been so.

Not only to sannyasins,
but to all people of greater perceptivity,
greater sensitivity,
the masses have been antagonistic.

Vincent van Gogh...

just a few days ago I sawa copy of one of his
paintings in which he makes his stars like spirals.

Nobody has painted stars like spirals —
you don't see them as spirals.

He was condemned even by the painters of his day.

All the critics were against him;

all the painters thought that he was crazy.

Every night you can see the stars,
but have you ever seen spirals?

It was just a few months ago that
astronomers came to realize that every star is a spiral.

The distance is so much —
that's why we cannot see the spiral.

But it is strange how Vincent van Gogh got the idea.

He was not a physicist — he had no instruments.

It took one hundred years
for scientists to develop delicate instruments,
sensitive instruments which
can see stars as they actually are.

But he had painted them a hundred years ago
exactly as they are finding them now.

Their photographs and
Vincent van Gogh's paintings are exactly the same!

But the poor fellow was not understood at all.

He was turned out of his home because his parents were poor,
and they said,

" We cannot afford to keep you.
You are now grown up.
We have given you all the education that we could manage—
now you can become a priest in a church.
We cannot afford for you to be a painter. "

His father was working in a coal mine;
his parents were really poor,
and you cannot say anything against them.

And Vincent van Gogh's first works are just coal sketches —
but they are tremendously beautiful.

Now even those coal sketches have a value of millions of dollars.

But his parents would not give him money for paints,
for canvases, and finally they had to turn him out.

One of his friends took pity on van Gogh and
asked him to stay with him until he got some employment.

And he fell in love with the sister of the friend—
just love at first sight.

The first day in the house of the friend,
he proposed to the girl.

The girl simply laughed;
they were more comfortably-off people —
better educated, middle class,
higher than Vincent van Gogh and his family.

She could not believe that this
poor beggar could even dare to ask her.

Jokingly,

she said,

" Can you give me any proof of your love?
Can you put your hand on this candle? " —
it was burning by their side.

He said,

" Yes! " and he kept his hand on the burning candle.

His whole hand was burnt.

The woman got frightened:

this man seems to be mad also!

She pulled his hand away,

but he said,

" Why are you pulling it away?
Let me keep it there until you say yes. "

The whole family gathered there.

They pulled him away from the candle —
he had burned his hand for his whole life —
and he was turned out of the house the next day.

A man of great sensitivity —
but no woman was ready to love him,
because he looked crazy.

Nobody was buying his paintings,
and still he went on painting.

His brother was employed —
his younger brother —
and was sending van Gogh the exact amount of money
so that he could have his food every day.

Each week he would send money —
enough for one week only.

And Vincent van Gogh would only eat four days in the week,
and three days he would fast and purchase canvases and paints.

And nobody was buying his paintings.

People were simply laughing and saying,

" He is simply mad!
We have never seen such paintings.
What is he doing? "

But it seems whatever he was doing is going to come true,
slowly, slowly.

If his vision of stars is now confirmed by physics,
it is simply a miracle that with bare eyes,
he could see that they are spirals.

Nobody in the whole of history has even thought about it,
so you cannot think that he borrowed the thought from somebody.

Nobody has seen stars like that.

And he could not prove anything;
he simply went on saying,

" This is how I see them. "

But everybody laughed,
because they also could see the stars but they didn't see spirals.

This tremendous sensitivity...
but he was misunderstood everywhere.

And finally.

when he was only thirty-three,
they drove him mad.

Hungry, starving,
and everybody laughing and condemning...
not a single painting was sold.

His brother tried to send a man with money and said,

" At least purchase one painting.
He will have the consolation that
somebody has purchased one painting. "

The man went —
he had no idea about painting.

Van Gogh was so ecstatic that somebody
had come finally to purchase a painting —
so he was showing him allhis paintings.

And the man said,

" Don't waste my time —
any will do. This is the money. "

You can understand how much
van Gogh would have been shocked.

He simply said,

" That means this money has been given to you by my brother —
because you are not even looking at the paintings.
I cannot sell any painting to you.
These paintings are not for people
who cannot understand them.

And just tell my brother never to do such a thing to me —
it hurts more. "

And it was found actually that that was the case.

Van Gogh died without selling a single painting.

Now only two hundred paintings have survived,
and each painting is worth not less that one million dollars;
each painting has a certain quality
that has never been found in anyother painting.

He became mad,
but he continued to paint even while he was mad;
in his madhouse he continued to paint.

Even the paintings he has done
in the mad houseare tremendously beautiful.

Perhaps he was not mad;
perhaps he was simply forced by the
medical profession and other painters
to feel that he was doing mad things.

After one year he was released,
because he was absolutely nonviolent;
he created no trouble for anybody,
he simply continued to paint.

In fact he was not willing to leave
because it was far easier in the hospital.

The hospital was paying everything for his paintings,
and he was getting food for seven days,
so this was far easier than to be outside.

But they forced him;

they said,

" We don't think you are mad,
and if you are mad
then there is no way to cure you.
You simply get out. "

Outside he could not manage and simply committed suicide.

He wrote a letter to his brother in which he says,

" What is the point of living in a world
where nobody understands you?
And there is no hope that anybody will ever understand me —
at least not in my life. It is better to withdraw. "

So this is not only with sannyasins,
it is an old story.

People of immense qualities,
but with a different perspective and
different sensitivity than the ordinary mind has,
have been tortured,
and there has been no way tocommunicate.
All that the sannyasins can do,
rather than arguing with those people,
is accept whatever condemnation they have and still ask them,

" Do you see that we are happier than you?
Do you see that we love more than you?
Can you see thatwe are more silent,
more integrated than you?
We may be brainwashed, hypnotized—
all your condemnations we accept."

Just raise the question,

" Are you more contented than we are? —
although we have nothing.
Are you less worried than we are? —
although we don't have anything that makes us not worry,
and we have everything that would make you commit suicide. "

Don't argue —
simply make it clear to them,
" We are homeless, we don't haveany money,
we don't belong to any society,
we have abandoned all the nations, all the religions.

Still, we are happy.

We don't know what is going to happen tomorrow,
but today is enough.
When tomorrow comes it will take care of itself. "

Rather than intellectual arguments,
existential comparison perhaps may help them.

Perhaps they may start thinking about it,
that there is some truth in it.

And that is the only possible way to bring them closer.

And once they are closer and open and ready to listen,
then there is every possibility ofcommunion.

First, you have to melt the ice —
and that is the biggest problem.

Once the ice is melted, then things become easier.

So first,
accept all their condemnation rather than retaliating,
arguing against it.

That will not help.

What is going to help is to just accept what they are saying,
then make an existential comparison and tell them,

" You canthink about it,
and if you feel that we have got something
that you have not got, we are ready to share it with you. "

And those people are in misery.

They may be pretending they are not,
butthey are in misery,
they are in suffering.

If you can just make a questionarise in their mind,
so that they can look at their fake masks and
can seetheir reality for a moment,
they will be ready to listen to you.

There is no other way.

You cannot force,
you cannot argue,
because on that ground
the conflict cannot be resolved.

It can be resolved only on existential grounds.

And that's where many sannyasins miss the point.

If people say,

" You are hypnotized, " you start arguing,
" We are not! " No,

you should say,

" It is possible; you may be right,
we may be hypnotized.
But what do you think:
being in misery and not hypnotized,
or being in bliss and being hypnotized —
what alternative will you choose?

And what is wrong in being hypnotized?

Have you ever been hypnotized?

Do you know what it is?

Have you ever experienced anything of it — or just heard the word? "

There are millions of people who have just heard words,
and they go on throwing those words around:
hypnotism, mesmerism, brainwashing —
and they don't understand a thing they are saying.

So rather than arguing,

you can say,

" If you know about brain washing, I amready:
brain wash me, so I can see what brain washing is.
If you know what hypnotism is,
hypnotize me,
so I can experience what hypnotism is."

Make onething certainly clear to them:

" You don't know —
you are simply throwing words about.

I was a student of a professor,
and there was always conflict with him for the simple reason that
he went on throwing words about and
he did not know what they meant.

I would insist,

" You explain that word.
And I will not be satisfied only by
an intellectual explanation.
I am ready — brain wash me,
hypnotize me, Iam ready."

But he was just throwing words about.

He reported to the vice-chancellor of that university
that I was a continual trouble because
I would contest each word, that he had to prove....

The vice-chancellor asked me to come to see him.

The professor was present there —

I immediately understood what the problem was.

he vice-chancellor said to me,

" Why do you create trouble? "

I said,

" I don'tcreate trouble. You just wait and see."

I asked that professor —
he was a Bengali man,
Professor Bhattacharya — I asked,

" Have you read the book written by Ouspensky,

TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS? "
.
He said,

" Yes!
It is such a famous book.
I loved it when I read it."

And Itold the vice-chancellor,

" Phone the library and enquire if there is any such book —
because I have simply made up the name of the book.

There is a book TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS,
but it is not written by P.D. Ouspensky,
it is written by Ludwig Wittgenstein —
and this man has never seen the book.

This is my whole problem in the class.

Do you think I am creating trouble or is this man the trouble?

Can't he behonest and say,

' I have never heard of such a book ' ?

But he cannot accept his ignorance — about anything."

The vice-chancellor phoned to the librarian;

thelibrarian said,

" P.D. Ouspensky has never written such a book.
There is a book of this name,
but the author is Ludwig Wittgenstein."

The vice-chancellor said to the professor,

" You have to understand that if you don't know,
you should not pretend to know.
And this boy has made his point absolutely clear."

I said to the vice-chancellor,

" This has been happening almost every day.
This man never goes to the library.
I have looked through the whole philosophy department in the library:
his name is not on a single book's card.

And I have looked in his house,
because he lives by the side of one of my friends " —
who was a professor of economics — "

and the houses are joined together,
they are sharing half and half.

So I just made an arrangement with my friend,

' Someday let me into his house.
I want to see what books he has.'

" And all that he has are magazines like PLAYBOY,
which I don't think have any philosophy.

I have not seen a single book which is concerned with philosophy —
and he is a professor of philosophy!

And do you think a professor of philosophy reading
PLAYBOY is going to discuss philosophy with me?

He has passed his examinations —
that must have been thirty years ago,
but in thirty years philosophy has moved on further and further."

That was the last time that the professor allowed me in the class.

The next day when I went into the class he said,

" Listen, you may be right.
Yesterday you put me in such a bad situation —
I don't want to argue at all.
Either you promise me not to argue
in the class or just don't come to my class."

I said,

" I always wanted not to come to your class
because it is so worthless.
But you have to give me ninety percent attendance. "

He said,

" I will give you one hundred percent,
but don't come to my class. "

I said,

" Can I come to your house sometime? "

He said,

" I don't want to see your face! "

I said,

" It is up to you:
if you have decided to remain retarded,
what can I do?
But once in a while I will try to come to your house,
because I want to help you to come out of your retardedness."

He was very angry with the economics professor:

" You allowed him in my house to look into my books —
and certainly there are no books,
just magazines and other things.
He brought the whole thing before the vice-chancellor,
and I felt so insulted! "

I went to the vice-chancellor and I said,

" This is the situation:
he is willing to give me hundred percent attendance,
but he does not want me to attend the class.
And I want to inform you that this is absolutely criminal.
You go to the class and check how many days I have been present."

The vice-chancellor did it;
he went to the class at the end of the month,
and I was marked as present the whole month.

He asked Bhattacharya,

" Are you sure that this person has been present the whole month? "

Bhattacharya became suspicious that
I must have been doing something behind his back.

He said,

" Yes, I am certain; otherwise why should I give him that
percentage of attendance unless he was present? "

The vice-chancellor asked the students.

Theysaid,

" No, we have not seen him for one month. "

Bhattacharya came to my room in the hostel that evening and said,

" Please, come to the class from tomorrow.
I am very sorry, and I accept that
I don't know anything about the latest developments in philosophy.
But you have given me somuch trouble
that if you don't come to my class, I am going to lose my job."

I said,

" Don't be worried — I will not do any harm to you.
I simply want you to understand that you should not throw names around.
You go on throwing names around like Martin Heidegger, Jaspers —
you know nothing about these people,
and I have been wasting my whole nights with these people.
You simply stop!
What is the point? —
if you are not knowledgeable, accept it.

" I am trying to become knowledgeable,
and I think it honorable of you to recognize that you DON'T know.
I don't think there is any disrespect in it,
because one cannot know everything in the whole world.
There are millions ofthings,
for everybody, that he does not know.

So you learn one thing:

when youdon't know,
you have to accept in the class that you don't know."

That discussion with him...

I went to the class the next day and
he really accepted three times in one hour
that he did not know anything about something.

And afterwards he thanked me,

" It was such a great release and freedom to say,

' Idon't know. '

I have never known such a relief.

It was a tension and anguish totell a lie,

knowing perfectly well that
I didn't know this man,
this philosophy, and still saying I do —
because this was my conditioning,
that the professor has to know everything,
at least more than the student."

I said,

" Forget that, and there is no problem " —
and since that day there was no problem.

In fact, even in the class he would stop sometimes and ask me,

" Perhaps you have some idea about this that you can explain to the class. "

He had been a very disrespected person;
he became a person very respected by the students —
just by accepting that he was ignorant about some things.

His humbleness created respectability.

It is a difficult task with people,
and you have to deal with different people in different ways.

No certain method can begiven,
because it may work with one person,
it may not work with another person.

So you have to be very watchful about the person to see what will work.

One thing is certain,

that they are all in suffering,
all in tension andanguish,
and they all want to get out of it.

So from there you have to find your clue, and the key.

And if you are watchful enough,
you can always find the clue and the key,
and a communion is possible.

And you have nothing to lose.

That person really wants to lose many things —

his misery, his suffering, hisanguish.

And he has nothing else;

his whole being is full of hell.

Don't fight with the person.

Try to accept whatever he is saying.

Ask him questions about what he says and
let him feel that he knows nothing about these things.

Once he accepts his ignorance about anything,
you have a loop hole from where you can enter into his being.

His knowledge is a protection of his personality,
his ego.

So first you have to make a dent somewhere.

So just listen to him and ask a few questions,
and you will be able to find where he is just absolutely ignorant.

Then you can make possible a little space to connect through.

And let him feel your love,
your compassion, your peace, your blissfulness.

It will take a little time for him to ask you,

" What has happened to you? "

But sooner or later he is bound to ask,
because he is sick,
and nobody wants to remain sick.

If you can prove that you have come out of the ordinary sickness of human beings...
Only then can a sannyasin have a communication with non-sannyasins.

love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

" Love is possible only when one has attained to being, not before. Before that it is always something else. " - Osho.




Osho:

Love is almost impossible in the ordinary state of the human mind.

Love is possible only when one has attained to being, not before.

Before that it is always something else.

We go on calling it love
but sometimes it is almost stupid to call it love.

A person falls in love with a woman
because he likes the way she walks,
or her voice, or the way she says " hello " or her eyes.

Just the other day I was reading that some woman said about a man,

" He has the most beautiful eyebrows in the world. "

Nothing is wrong in it--
eyebrows can be beautiful--
but if you fall in love with eyebrows
then sooner or later you will be disappointed,
because eyebrows are a very nonessential part of the person.

And for such nonessential things people fall in love!

The shape, the eyes... these are nonessential things.

Because when you live with a person,
you are not living with a proportion of the body;
you are not living with the eyebrows or the color of hair.

When you live with a person,
a person is a great and vast thing...
almost indefinable,
and these small things on the periphery
sooner or later become meaningless.

But then suddenly one is surprised:

What to do?

Every love starts in a romantic way.

By the time the honeymoon is finished,
the whole thing is finished
because one cannot live with romance.

One has to live with reality--
and reality is totally different.

When you see a person,
you don't see the person's totality;
you just see the surface.

It is as if you have fallen in love with a car because of its color.
You have not even looked under the bonnet;
there may be no engine at all, or maybe something is defective.
The color is not going to help, finally.

When two persons come together
their inside realities clash and
the outer things become meaningless.

What to do with eyebrows,
and with hair and the hairstyle?

You almost start forgetting them.

They no longer attract you because they are there.

And the more you know the person,
the more you become afraid because
you come to know the madness of the person,
and the other person comes to know your madness.

Then both feel cheated and both become angry.

Both start talking revenge on the other,
as if the other has been deceiving or cheating.

Nobody is cheating anybody,
although everybody is cheated.

One of the most basic things to realize is
that when you love a person,
you love because the person is not available.

Now the person is available,
so how can love exist?

You wanted to become rich because you were poor--
the whole desire to become rich was because of your poverty.

Now you are rich, you don't care.

Or think of it another way.

You are hungry,
so you are obsessed with food.

But when you are feeling well and your stomach is full,

who bothers?

Who thinks about food?

The same happens with your so-called love.

You are chasing a woman and
the woman goes on withdrawing herself,
escaping from you.

You become more and more heated up,
and then you chase her more.

And that's part of the game.

Every woman knows this intrinsically
that she has to escape,
so the chase can be continued.

Of course she is not to escape so much
that you forget all about her--
she has to remain in view, alluring,
fascinating, calling, inviting and yet escaping.

So first the man runs after the woman
and the woman tries to escape.

Once the man has caught the woman,
immediately the whole tide turns.

Then the man starts escaping and the woman starts chasing--

" Where are you going?
With whom are you talking?
Why are you late?
With whom have you been? "

The whole problem is that both were attracted to each other
because they were unknown to each other.

The unknown was the attraction,
the unfamiliar was the attraction.

Now both know each other well.

They have made love to each other many times
and now it has become almost a repetition--
at the most it is a habit,
a relaxation, but the romance is gone.

Then they feel bored.

The man becomes a habit,
the woman becomes a habit.

They cannot live without each other because of the habit,
and they cannot live together because there is no romance.

This is the real point where one has to understand whether it was love or not.

And one should not deceive oneself; one should be clear.

If it was love, or if even a fragment of it was love, these things will pass.

Then one should understand that these are natural things.

There is nothing to be angry about.

And you still love the person.

Even if you know the person,
you still love him or her.

In fact, if love is there,
you love the person more because you know.

If love is there, it survives.

If it is not there, it disappears.

Both are good.

To an ordinary state of mind,
what I call love is not possible.

It happens only when you have a very integrated being.

Love is a function of the integrated being.

It is not romance, it has nothing to do with these foolish things.

It goes directly to the person and looks into the soul.

Love is then a sort of affinity
with the innermost being of the other person--
but then it is totally different.

Every love can grow into it,
should grow into it,
but ninety-nine out of a hundred loves
never grow to that point.

The turmoils and troubles are so great
that they can destroy everything.

But I am not saying that one has to cling.

One has to be alert and aware.

If your love consists of just these foolish things, it will disappear.

It is not worth bothering about.

But if it is real, then through all turmoils it will survive.

So just watch...

Love is not the question.

Your awareness is the question.

This may just be a situation in which your awareness will grow
and you will become more alert about yourself.

Maybe this love disappears but the next love will be better;
you will choose with a better consciousness.

Or maybe this love, with a better consciousness, will change its quality.

So whatever happens, one should remain open.

Love has three dimensions.

One is animal-like; it is only lust, a physical phenomenon.

The other is manlike;
it is higher than lust,
than sexuality, than sensuality.

It is not just exploitation of the other as a means.

The first is only an exploitation;
the other (individual) is used as a means in the first (dimension of love).

In the second the other is not used as a means,
the other is equal to you.

The other is as much an end unto herself or himself as you are,
and love is not an exploitation but a mutual sharing of your being,
of your joys, of your music, of your pure poetry of life.

It is sharing and mutual.

The first is possessive,
the second is nonpossessive.

The first creates bondage,
the second gives freedom.

And the third dimension of love is godly, godlike:
when there is no object to love,
when love is not a relationship at all,
when love becomes a state of your being.

You are simply loving--
not in love with somebody in particular,
but simply a state of love,
so whatever you do, you do it lovingly;
whomsoever you meet, you meet lovingly.

Even when you touch a rock,
you touch the rock as if
you were touching your beloved;

even if you look at the trees,
your eyes are full of love.

The first uses the other as a means;
in the second, the other is no longer a means;
in the third, the other has completely disappeared.

The first creates bondage,
the second gives freedom,
the third goes beyond both;
it is transcendence of all duality.

There is no lover and no beloved,

there is only love.

That's the ultimate state of love,
and that's the goal of life to be attained.

The majority of people remain confined to the first.

Only very rare people enter into the second,
and rarest is the phenomenon I am calling the third.

Only a Buddha, a Jesus...

There are a few people here and there,
they can be counted on one's fingers,
who have entered into the third dimension of love.

But if you keep your eyes fixed on the faraway star, it is possible.

And when it becomes possible, you are fulfilled.

Then life lacks nothing,
and in that fulfillment is joy,
eternal joy.

Even death cannot destroy it.


Source :
(Love, Freedom, Aloneness:
The Koan of Relationships, by Osho;
" From Lust to Love to Loving, " pages 59 - 62.)

love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.

Monday, December 6, 2010

06.12.2009 - My sannyas Initiation. dedicating to all of our beloved friends on this first anniversary of my Sannyas Initiation.



Osho:

The qualities of a sannyasin are the same qualities
you will need on your spiritual journey in the inner world.

Traditional Sannyas is a Hindu concept of one
who renounces all worldly thoughts and desires,
and spends the rest of his life in spiritual contemplation.

Osho defines sannyas as:  

Now, sannyas is available to anyone who chooses to make the decision

“  to live life in its totality, but with an absolute condition, categorical condition:
and that condition is awareness, meditation,” 

“ The sannyas movement is not mine.
It is not yours.
It was here when I was not here.
It will be here when I will not be here.
The sannyas movement simply means the movement of the seekers of truth.
They have always been here. ”


BELOVED OSHO, WHAT ARE THE QUALITIES OF A SANNYASIN?

Sannyas is basically a rebellion about all structures, hence the difficulty to define.

Sannyas is a way of living life unstructuredly.

A sannyasin is one who no longer lives in the past or through the past;
who lives in the moment, hence, is unpredictable.

A sannyasin is not only free, he is freedom.

It is living rebellion.

Sannyas is exploration, not a program.

When you become a sannyasin
I initiate you into freedom, and into nothing else.

It is great responsibility to be free,
because then you have nothing to lean upon.

Except your own inner being, your own consciousness,
you have nothing as a prop, as a support.

I take all your props and supports away;
I leave you alone, I leave you utterly alone.

In that aloneness... the flower of sannyas.

That aloneness blooms on its own accord into the flower of sannyas.

Sannyas is characterlessness.

It has no morality; it is not immoral, it is amoral.

Or,

it has a higher morality that
never comes from the outside but comes from within.

It does not allow any imposition from the outside,
because all impositions from the outside convert you into serfs, into slaves.

And my effort is to give you dignity, glory.

My effort here is to give you splendor.

This is not revolution, this is rebellion.

Revolution is social, collective; rebellion is individual.

We are not interested in giving any structure to the society.

Enough of the structures! Let all structures go.

We want individuals in the world --
moving freely, moving consciously, of course.

And their responsibility comes
through their own consciousness.

They behave rightly not because
they are trying to follow certain commandments;
they behave rightly, they behave accurately, because they care.

Do you know, this word accurate comes from care.

The word accurate in its root means to care about.

When you care about something you are accurate.

If you care about somebody,
you are accurate in your relationship.

A sannyasin is one who cares about himself,
and naturally cares about everybody else --
because you cannot be happy alone.

You can only be happy in a happy world, in a happy climate.

If everybody is crying and weeping and is in misery,
it is very, very difficult for you to be happy.

So one who cares about happiness --about his own happiness --
becomes careful about everybody else's happiness,
because happiness happens only in a happy climate.

But this care is not because of any dogma.

It is there because you love,
and the first love, naturally, is the love for yourself.

Then other loves follow.

Other efforts have failed
because they were mind-oriented.

They were based in the thinking process,
they were conclusions of the mind.

Sannyas is not a conclusion of the mind.

Sannyas is not thought-oriented; it has no roots in thinking.

Sannyas is insightfulness; it is meditation, not mind.

It is rooted in joy, not in thought.

It is rooted in celebration, not in thinking.

It is rooted in that awareness
where thoughts are not found.

It is not a choice:

it is not a choice between two thoughts,
it is the dropping of all thoughts.

It is living out of nothingness.

THEREFORE, O SARIPUTRA, FORM IS NOTHINGNESS,
NOTHINGNESS IS FORM. (Part of the Heart Sutra)

Sannyas is joy in being.

Now how can you define joy in being?

It cannot be defined,
because each one's joy in being is going to be different.

My joy in being is going to be different from your joy in being.

The joy will be the same, the taste of it will be the same,
but the flowering is going to be different.

A lotus flowers, a rose flowers, a marigold flowers --
they all flower, and the process of flowering is the same.

But the marigold flowers in his own way,
and the rose in his, and the lotus in his.

Their colors are different,
their expressions are different,
although the spirit is the same.

And when they bloom, and when they can whisper to the winds,
and when they can share their fragrance with the sky, they are all joyous.

Each sannyasin will be a totally unique person.

I am not interested in the society.

I am not interested in the collectivity.

My interest is absolutely in individuals --in you!

And meditation can succeed where mind has failed,
because meditation is a radical revolution in your being --
not the revolution that changes the government,
not the revolution that changes the economy,
but the revolution that changes your consciousness,
that transforms you from the noosphere to the christosphere,
that changes you from a sleepy person into an awakened soul.

And when you are awakened, all that you do is good.

That's my definition of 'good' and ' virtue ':
the action of an awakened person is virtue,
and the action of an unawakened person is sin.

There is no other definition of sin and virtue.

It depends on the person --
his consciousness,
his quality that he brings to the act.

So sometimes it can happen that
the same act may be virtuous and
the same act may be sinful.

The acts may apparently be the same,
but the people behind the acts can be different.

A sannyasin is a person
who lives more and more in alertness.

And the more there are people
who exist through awareness,
the better the world that will be created.

Civilization has not yet happened.

Sannyas is just a beginning,
a seed of a totally different kind of world where people are free to be themselves,
where people are not constrained, crippled, paralyzed, where people are not repressed,
made to feel guilty, where joy is accepted, where cheerfulness is the rule,
where seriousness has disappeared, where a nonserious sincerity, a playfulness has entered.

These can be the indications,
the fingers pointing to the moon.

First quality: an openness to experience.

People are ordinarily closed;
they are not open to experience.

Before they experience anything
they already have prejudices about it.

They don't want to experiment,
they don't want to explore.

This is sheer stupidity!

This is the vicious circle of the closed mind.

He comes full of ideas, he comes readymade.

He is not available to new facts,
and the world is continuously bombarded with new facts.

The world goes on changing and
the closed mind remains stuck in the past.

And the world goes on changing,
and every moment something new descends into the world.

God goes on painting the world anew again and again and again,
and you go on carrying your old, dead ideologies in your heads.

So the first quality of a sannyasin is openness to experience.

He will not decide before he has experienced.

He will never decide before he has experienced.

He will not have any belief systems.

He will not say,

" This is so because Buddha says it. "

He will not say,

" This is so because it is written in the Vedas. "

He will say,

" I am ready to go into it and see whether it is so or not. "

Buddha's departing message to his disciples was this:

" Remember "...

and this he was repeating for his whole life, again and again;
the last message also was this --

" Remember, don't believe in anything because I have said it.
Never believe anything unless you have experienced it. "

A sannyasin will not carry many beliefs; in fact, none.

He will carry only his own experiences.

And the beauty of experience is that the experience is always open,
because further exploration is possible.

And belief is always closed; it comes to a full point.

Belief is always finished.

Experience is never finished, it remains unfinished.

While you are living how can your experience be finished?

Your experience is growing, it is changing, it is moving.

It is continuously moving from the known into the unknown
and from the unknown into the unknowable.

And remember, experience has a beauty because it is unfinished.

Some of the greatest songs are those which are unfinished.

Some of the greatest books are those which are unfinished.

Some of the greatest music is that which unfinished.

The unfinished has a beauty.

Experience always remains open --that means unfinished.

Belief is always complete and finished.

The first quality is an openness to experience.

Mind is all your beliefs collected together.

Openness means no-mind;
openness means you put your mind aside and
you are ready to look into life again and again in a new way, not with the old eyes.

The mind gives you the old eyes, it gives you again ideas:

" Look through this. "

But then the thing becomes colored;
then you don't look at it, then you project an idea upon it.

Then the truth becomes a screen on which you go on projecting.

Look through no-mind, look through nothingness --shunyata.

When you look through no-mind your perception is efficient,
because then you see that which is.

And truth liberates.

Everything else creates a bondage, only truth liberates.

In those moments of no-mind, truth starts filtering into you like light.

The more you enjoy this light, this truth,
the more you become capable and courageous to drop your mind.

Sooner or later a day comes
when you look and you don't have any mind.

You are not looking for anything,
you are simply looking.

Your look is pure.

In that moment you become avalokita,
one who looks with pure eyes.

That is one of the names of Buddha --Avalokita:
he looks with no ideas, he simply looks.

This is the vision of no-mind. It can work miracles.

The sannyasin lives in openness to everything.

The second quality is existential living.

He does not live out of ideas:

that one should be like this,
one should be like that, one should behave in this way,
one should not behave in this way.

He does not live out of ideas, he is responsive to existence.

He responds with his total heart, whatsoever is the case.

His being is here-now.

Spontaneity, simplicity, naturalness --these are his qualities.

He does not live a readymade life.

He does not carry maps --how to live, how not to live.

He allows life; wherever it leads he goes with it.

A sannyasin is not a swimmer, and he does not try to go upstream.

He goes with the whole, he flows with the stream.

He flows so totally with the stream that
by and by he is no longer separate from the stream,
he becomes the stream.

That's what Buddha calls srotapanna --
one who has entered the stream.

That is the beginning of Buddha's sannyas too --
one who has entered the stream,
one who has come to relax in existence.

He does not carry valuations, he's not judgmental.

Existential living means each moment has to decide on its own.

Life is atomic!

You don't decide beforehand,
you don't rehearse, you don't prepare how to live.

Each moment comes, brings a situation;
you are there to respond to it --you respond.

Ordinarily people live a very strange kind of life.

If you are going to give an interview, you prepare,
you think what is going to be asked and how you are going to answer it,
how you are going to sit and how you are going to stand.

Everything becomes phony because it is rehearsed.

And then what happens?

When you go with such a rehearsal, you are never totally there.

Something is being asked and you are searching in your memory,
because you are carrying a prepared answer --
whether that will suit with it or not, whether this will do or not.

You go on missing the point. You are not totally there;
you cannot be totally there, you are involved in the memory.

And then the next thing happens:
when you are coming out then
you start thinking you should have answered this way.

This is called ' the staircase wit ':

when you are coming down the staircase, and you start thinking,
" I should have answered this, I should have said this. "

You become very wise again.

Before you are wise, after you are wise;
in the middle you are otherwise!

And in the middle is life.

Existence is there.

The third quality of a sannyasin is a trust in one's own organism.

People trust others, the sannyasin trusts his own organism.

Body, mind, soul, all are included.

If he feels like loving he flows in love.

If he does not feel like loving he says " Sorry " --but he never pretends.

A non-sannyasin goes on pretending.

His life is a life lived through masks.

His whole life becomes a false, pseudo life, a parody.

And he is never satisfied, naturally; he cannot be,
because satisfaction comes only out of authentic living.

If you are not feeling loving you have to say so; there is no need to pretend.

If you are feeling angry you have to say so.

You have to be true to your organism,
you have to trust your organism.

And you will be surprised: the more you trust,
the more the organism's wisdom becomes very, very clear to you.

Your body has its own wisdom --
it carries the wisdom of the centuries in its cells.

Remember to trust your own organism.

When you feel that the body is saying don't eat, stop immediately.

When the body is saying eat,
then don't bother whether the scriptures say to fast or not.

If your body says eat three times a day, perfectly good.

If it says eat one time a day, perfectly good.

Start learning how to listen to your body, because it is your body.

You are in it; you have to respect it, and you have to trust it.

It is your temple; it is sacrilegious to impose things on your body.

For no other motive should anything be imposed!

And this will not only teach you trust in your body,
this will teach you, by and by, a trust in existence too --
because your body is part of existence.

Then your trust will grow,
and you will trust the trees and
the stars and the moon and the sun and the oceans:

you will trust people.

But the beginning of the trust has to be trust in your own organism.

Trust your heart.

When you don't want to make love,
then love is the ugliest thing in the world.

Only the most beautiful can be the most ugly.

Love is one of the most beautiful experiences,
but only when you are flowing in it,
when it is spontaneous, when it is passionate,
when you are full of it, overpowered by it,
possessed by it, drunk with it, absorbed in it --only then.

Then it takes you to the highest peak of joy.

But if you are not possessed in it,
and you are not even feeling any love
for your wife or your husband, and you are making it...
then the English expression is right: making love.

Then you are making it, it is not happening.

It is ugly, it is prostitution.

To whom you are doing it is not the point; it is prostitution.

It is criminal.

And this is not going to make you in any way spiritual.

You will only become sexually repressed, that's all.

If you make love you will feel guilty,
if you don't make love you will feel guilty.

If your organisms are saying,

" Be together, grow together, flow together ";
if your organism is feeling happy
and thrilled and excited and there is ecstasy,
go with the woman one life, two lives, three lives,
as many lives as you want be together,
and you will be coming closer and closer to God.

And your intimacy will have a quality of spirituality.

A sannyasin is one who trusts in his own organism,
and that trust helps him to relax into his being,
and helps him to relax into the totality of existence.

It brings a general acceptance of oneself and others.

It gives a kind of rootedness, centering.

And then there is great strength and power,
because you are centered in your own body, in your own being.

You have roots in the soil.

Otherwise you see people uprooted,
like trees that have been pulled up from the soil.

They are simply dying, they are not living.

That's why there is not much joy in life.

You don't see the quality of laughter; the celebration is missing.

And even if people celebrate that too is false.

Celebration has to happen first in your own home, at close quarters.

Then it becomes a great tidal wave and spreads all over existence.

The fourth is a sense of freedom.

The sannyasin is not only free, he is freedom.

He always lives in a free way.

Freedom does not mean licentiousness.

Licentiousness is not freedom,
licentiousness is just a reaction against slavery;
so you move to the other extreme.

Freedom is not the other extreme,
it is not reaction. Freedom is an insight:

" I have to be free, if I have to be at all.
There is no other way to be.
If I am too possessed by the church, by Hinduism,
by Christianity by Mohammedanism, then I cannot be.
Then they will go on creating boundaries around me.
They go on forcing me into myself like a crippled being.
I have to be free.
I have to take this risk of being free.
I have to take this danger."

Freedom is not very convenient, is not very comfortable.

It is risky.

A sannyasin takes that risk.

It does not mean that he goes on fighting with each and everybody.

It does not mean that when the law says
keep to the right or keep to the left, he goes against it, no.

He does not bother about trivia.

If the law says keep to the left,
he keeps to the left --because it is not a slavery.

But about important, essential things.

About essential things the sannyasin will always keep his freedom intact.

And because he respects freedom, he will respect others' freedom too.

He will never interfere with anybody's freedom, whosoever that other is.

If your wife has fallen in love with somebody you feel hurt,
you will cry tears of sadness, but that is your problem.

You will not interfere with her.

You will not say,

" Stop it, because I am suffering! "

You will say,

" This is your freedom.
If I suffer, that is my problem.
I have to tackle it, I have to face it.
If I feel jealous, I have to get rid of my jealousy.
But you go on your own.
Although it hurts me,
although I would have liked that
you had not gone with anybody, that is my problem.
I cannot trespass your freedom."

Love respects so much that it gives freedom.
And if love is not giving freedom it is not love, it is something else.

A sannyasin is immensely respectful about his own freedom,
very careful about his own freedom, and so is he about other's freedom too.

This sense of freedom gives him an individuality;
he is not just a part of the mass mind.

He has a certain uniqueness --
his way of life, his style, his climate, his individuality.

He exists in his own way, he loves his own song.

He has a sense of identity:
he knows who he is,
he goes on deepening his feeling for who he is,
and he never compromises.

Independence, rebellion --
remember, not revolution but rebellion --
that is the quality of a sannyasin.

And there is a great difference.

Revolution is not very revolutionary.

Revolution also goes on functioning in the same structure.

A sannyasin is rebellious.

By rebellion I mean his vision is utterly different.

He does not function in the same logic,
in the same structure, in the same pattern.

He is not against the pattern --
because if you are against a certain pattern
you will have to create another pattern to fight with it.

And patterns are all alike.

A sannyasin is one who has simply slipped out.

He's not against the pattern,
he has understood the stupidity of all patterns.

He has looked into the foolishness of all patterns and he has slipped out.

He is rebellious.

The fifth is creativity.

The old sannyas was very uncreative.

It was thought that somebody becomes a sannyasin
and goes to a Himalayan cave and sits there,
and that was perfectly alright.

Nothing more was needed.

You can go and see the Jaina monks:

they are sitting in their temples, doing nothing -
absolutely uncreative, dull and stupid looking,
with no flame of intelligence at all.

And people are worshipping and touching their feet.

Ask,

" Why are you touching the feet? "

and they say,

" This man has renounced the world " --
as if renouncing the world is in itself a value.

" What has he done? "

and they will say,

" He has fasted. He fasts for months together " --
as if not eating is a value in itself.

But ask what he has painted,
what beauty he has created in the world,
what poem he has composed,
what song he has brought into existence,
what music, what dance, what invention --

what is his creation? --

and they will say,

" What are you talking about? He is a sannyasin! "

He simply sits in the temple and allows people to touch his feet, that's all.

And there are so many people sitting like this in India.

My conception of a sannyasin is that his energy will be creative,
that he will bring a little more beauty into the world,
that he will bring a little more joy into the world,
that he will find new ways to get into dance, singing, music,
that he will bring some beautiful poems.

He will create something, he will not be uncreative.

The days of uncreative sannyas are over.

The new sannyasin can exist only if he is creative.

He should contribute something.

Remaining uncreative is almost a sin,
because you exist and you don't contribute.

You eat, you occupy space,
and you don't contribute anything.

My sannyasins have to be creators.

And when you are in deep creativity you are close to God.

That's what prayer really is, that's what meditation is.

God is the creator,
and if you are not creators you will be far away from God.

God knows only one language, the language of creativity.

That's why when you compose music, when you are utterly lost in it,
something of the divine starts filtering out of your being.

That is the joy of creativity, that's the ecstasy --svaha!

The sixth is a sense of humor, laughter,
playfulness, non serious sincerity.

The old sannyas was unlaughing, dead, dull.

The new sannyasin has to bring more and more laughter to his being.

He has to be a laughing sannyasin, because your laughter is your relaxation,
and your laughter can create situations for others also to relax.

The temple should be full of joy and laughter and dance.

It should not be like a Christian church.

The church looks so cemetery-like.

And with the cross there it seems to be almost a worship of death... a little morbid.

You cannot laugh in a church.

A belly-laughter would not be allowed;
people will think you are crazy or something.

When people enter into a church they become serious, stiff... long faces.

To me, laughter is a religious quality, very essential.

It has to be part of the inner world of a sannyasin: a sense of humor.

The seventh is meditativeness, aloneness, mystical peak experiences
that happen when you are alone, when you are absolutely alone inside yourself.

Sannyas makes you alone; not lonely, but alone; not solitary, but it gives you a solitude.

You can be happy alone, you are no longer dependent on others.

You can sit alone in your room and you can be utterly happy.

There is no need to go to a club,
there is no need to always have friends around you,
there is no need to go to a movie.

You can close your eyes and you can fall into inner blissfulness:
that's what meditativeness is all about.

And the eighth is love, relatedness, relationship.

Remember,
you can relate only when you have learned how to be alone, never before it.

Only two individuals can relate.

Only two freedoms can come close and embrace each other.

Only two nothingnesses can penetrate into each other and melt into each other.

If you are not capable of being alone, your relationship is false.

It is just a trick to avoid your loneliness, nothing else.

And that's what millions of people are doing.

Their love is nothing but their incapacity to be alone.

So they move with somebody, they hold hands, they pretend that they love,
but deep down the only problem is that they cannot be alone.

So they need somebody to hang around,
they need somebody to hold onto, they need somebody to lean upon.

And the other is also using them in the same way,
because the other can also not be alone, is incapable.

He or she also finds you instrumental as a help to escape from himself.

So two persons that you say are in love are more or less in hate with themselves.

And because of that hate, they are escaping.

The other helps them to escape,
so they become dependent on the other,
they become addicted to the other.

You cannot live without your wife,
you cannot live without your husband because you are addicted.

But a sannyasin is one....

That's why I say the seventh quality is aloneness,
and the eighth quality is love-relationship.

And these are the two possibilities:

you can be happy alone and you can be happy together too.

These are two kinds of ecstasies possible for humanity.

You can move into samadhi when alone and
you can move into samadhi when together with somebody, in deep love.

And there are two kinds of people:

the extroverts will find it easier to have their peak through the other,
and the introverts will find it easier to have their greatest peak while alone.

But the other is not antagonistic; they can both move together.

One will be bigger, and that will be the decisive factor in
whether you are an introvert or an extrovert.

The path of Buddha is the path of the introvert;

it talks only about meditation.

The path of Christ is extrovert; it talks about love.

My sannyasin has to be a synthesis of both.

An emphasis will be there:

somebody will be emphatically more in tune with himself than with others,
and somebody will be just the opposite --
more in tune with somebody else.

But there is no need to get hooked into one kind of experience.

Both experiences can remain available.

And the ninth is transcendence,
Tao, no ego, no-mind, nobodiness,
nothingness, in tune with the whole.

That is the whole message of Prajnaparamita Sutra,
the Heart Sutra: gate gate paragate --
gone, gone, gone beyond --
parasamgate bodhi svaha --
gone altogether beyond.

What ecstasy!

Alleluia!

Transcendence is the last and the highest quality of a sannyasin.

But these are only indications, these are not definitions.

Take them in a very liquid way.

Don't start taking what I have said in a rigid way...
very liquid, in a vague kind of vision, in a twilight vision --
not like when there is a full sun in the sky.

Then things are very defined.

In a twilight,
when the sun has gone down and the night has not yet descended,
it is both, just in the middle, the interval.

Take whatsoever I have said to you in that kind of way.

Remain liquid, flowing.

Never create any rigidity around you.

Never become definable.



                                                                                       


" You have become a sannyasin.

Now it is a responsibility on you to
fulfill the commitment of sannyas —
and that is meditation.

Without meditation there is no sannyas.

It is only your pure consciousness rising upwards —
slowly, slowly moving beyond
the gravitation of lower things —
that will make you a sannyasin.

I can define sannyas as a
flying experience to the stars. "

-  Osho


06.12.2009 - my sannyas initiation.

this is my first anniversary sannyas initiation.

for the one,

who live moment to moment can't feel anything separately
which depends on particular occasion like anniversary
because every moment is a celebration for him..

that's why I am here saying it as
the first anniversary of my Sannyas " Initiation ".

for me,

Sannyas is not something which comes from outside,
which can take by someone from the outer world.

It is the state of being which comes
out of our deep emptiness through meditation.

that's why I am not having any more significance
to feel so glad in taking Sannyas Initiation from outside.

everyone may feel like he/she is a Sannyasin
because of having Sannyas Initiation.

but, for me..

the one who is really being moment to moment
through the light of his own inner world
without having the " spiritual slavery " too ..

is a sannyasin.

One who has enlightened is a Sannyasin.

just taking the Sannyas initiation is not enough.

while taking Sannyas Initiation,
we are taking the total responsibility of ourselves
for each and every moment of our life.

we are taking the responsibility of being grateful and
being " righteous " on the very significance
and the " respectfulness " of Sannyas by living it truly.

when I look into myself...

I am having so many questions on myself.

am I really respecting
the " Sannyas " by living it every moment..

am I really added at least any little of my fragrance
to the " Sannyas " with being " NOTHING "..

am I really living my life with such scientific,
poetic, joyful n meditative every moment??

am I really being a " disciple " ?

am I really being as a " true vehicle to my master " ?

am I really safe guarding -

my " mother " 's message
without polluting it from my side?

am I really..

am I really..

am I really..

??????? ...

a lot of questions are coming out from the deep with in..

am I having any words for any of these questions in me?..

I am not sharing all this with u
in any serious moods or any emotional way..

I am just sharing what I am,
through the words which are getting with a flow from my deep within..

when I am looking at my nudity so closely, carefully..

I am not yet a Sannyasin.

I am just a Sannyasin just because of
I took Sannyas Initiation which is not a true Sannyas.

wishing myself to be a  " Sannyasin "..

dedicating to all of you..

with the heart which is full of tears. 

gratitude for our friends
who has helped me for my Sannyas Initiation..

Aastha Jasani,
Swami Jeevan Ekin,
Swami Dhyan Yojan,
Ma Yog Neelam,
Swami Tathagat,
Swami Satya Vedant,
Ma priya,
Swami Anweshi,
Ma Agni Singh,
my fnd Venakatesh and

my beloved mom.

bowing to the feet of all these..

and gratitude to each and everyone
who has shared me in that camp..
with their love n friendliness.

love,
anand vikas,
+91 9703939628.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Osho: You Simply Sing The Song..

say YES to bay life

OSHO: My Way Of Life is Not Philosophy

OSHO: I Am A Threat - Certainly

OSHO: Why I am Talking - a Reminder

OSHO: I Live Spontaneously

OSHO: I Don't Have a Biography (1) (No Tengo Biografía)

OSHO: Life Is a Flux (La vida es un cambio continuo)

Osho on vegetarian food

OSHO: A Buddha Will Be Misunderstood (2 of 2)

OSHO: A Buddha Will Be Misunderstood ? (1 of 2)

OSHO: Nacho, Gao, Dhyan Mein Dubo

Thursday, December 2, 2010

" NO person can be possessed; no person can be reduced to property! This is ugly, this is sin! " - Osho.





BELOVED OSHO,

WHY IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIAN MAN AND WESTERN WOMAN NOT
SUCCESSFUL? IT ALWAYS BREAKS AT SOME POINT.
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM WHICH COMES IN,
WHICH STOPS THE RELATIONSHIP FROM GROWING MATURE?
PLEASE SAY SOMETHING.


Osho:


VEDANT BHARTI, all relationships break at some point – have to break.

You cannot make your house on the threshold, you should not.

Love is a door: pass through it.

Pass, certainly, don’t avoid it.

If you avoid it you will miss the deity in the temple.

But you should not make your house on the threshold, at the door.

Don’t remain there.

The door is just an opening. You have to move!

Love relationship is a must, but not the destiny,
not the end – only the beginning.

I am all for love.

But remember: love is something that has to be transcended too.

There are two types of people – both go neurotic.

One type is those who are so much afraid of love because they are afraid of dying.

They cling to the ego.

They avoid love.

They may call it religion, but it can’t be religion –
it is just sheer ego and nothing else.

That’s why the monks – the Catholic, the Hindu, the Buddhist –
they have such stronger egos, subtle but very strong, hidden but very strong.

The humbleness is only superficial, is just a sugar coating on the poisonous ego.

They have pious egos, but egos are there.

And a pious ego is more dangerous than an ordinary ego – because
the ordinary ego is apparent, you can’t hide it.

But the pious ego is very hidden and you can carry it in subtle ways for ever and ever.

So this creates one kind of neurosis:
people avoid love and they think they are going towards God.

You can’t go because you have avoided the door itself.

Then there is another kind of neurosis:
seeing the beauty of love, taking the courage to jump into it,
dissolving the ego for a few moments...
because in love it can only be for a few moments.

The ecstasy of love cannot be eternal,
because it is ecstasy between two parts meeting,
dissolving into each other.

Unless you dissolve with the whole you can’t have eternal ecstasy.

Dissolving with the part – with a man,
with a woman – you will be dissolving only in a very small drop of God.

It can’t be oceanic.

Yes, for a moment you will have the taste, and then the taste disappears.

This creates another kind of neurosis: people cling to love affairs.

If love dies with one woman, they change to another woman,
another man; they go on and on.

They start living on the threshold.

They have forgotten the deity, they have forgotten about the temple.

Love has to be transcended into prayer.

Never be in the neurosis of the first kind,
and never cling to the second kind of neurosis.

Go on... move on.

A great emperor, Akbar, created a small, beautiful capital in India.

It was never used because before it was completed Akbar died.

So his capital was never transferred to it from Delhi.

The place’s name is Fatehpur Sikri.

It is one of the most beautiful towns ever planned – and never used by any man.

Every small detail was looked into.

Great architects of those days were consulted, great masters were consulted.

Akbar asked all the great teachers in India of those days to give him a small
sentence which could be written on the door, the passage.

A bridge led to Fatehpur Sikri – a river had to be crossed and
Akbar had made a beautiful gate on the bridge.

Some Sufi suggested a saying of Jesus, and he loved it.

Many sayings were suggested,
but He loved it and that saying was written on the door.

That saying is beautiful.

It doesn’t exist in the Bible; it has come from another oral source.

It says: Life is a bridge – pass through it, but don’t make your house on it.

Love is also a bridge – pass through it.

So no love affair EVER succeeds.

Gives you hope, gives you great hope, but always ends in frustration.

That frustration is in-built; just as the ecstasy is in-built, so is the frustration.

In the beginning it is ecstasy, in the end it is frustration.

That frustration will lead you to go beyond, otherwise how will you go beyond?

When will you search for the real deity in the temple if you cling to the door?

If you think, ”The door is enough and I am contented,” then nobody will ever move.

Jesus says man reaches to God through love, love is God – but this is only half of the truth.

The other half is: man never reaches through love – man reaches only by transcending love.

When both are understood together, you have understood the phenomenon of love.

Love is God and love is not God.

In the beginning it is, in the end it is not.

In the beginning it brings ecstasy, those honeymoon days,
and then the frustration, the boredom that every marriage ends in.

Just think of two persons sitting together, bored.

All has been explored and there is nothing to explore any more.

This is the moment!

Either you can start looking for another man,
another woman, or you can start looking beyond love.

You have lived love, you have seen its beauties and you have seen its uglinesses;
you have seen its joy, you have seen its misery; you have seen its heaven and its hell.

It is not pure heaven, no; otherwise nobody will ever go to God.

It is pure heaven and pure hell – it is both.

Hell and heaven are two aspects of it.

In the beginning hope and in the end frustration.

Passing through that hope and that frustration again and again,
one day the understanding arises,

”What am I doing on the threshold? I have to go beyond!”

And not out of anger but out of understanding one goes beyond.

So the first thing: no relationship ever succeeds.

And it is fortunate that no relationship ever succeeds –
otherwise, when will you relate to God?

Why should you think of God?

Man thinks of God because love gives a glimpse.

Man thinks of God because love gives hope.

And man HAS to think about God because love gives frustration.

All hopes turn into hopelessness.

Without love there will be no search for God
because man will not have any experience of hope and
meaning and significance and grandeur.

Love gives you a glimpse of the beyond... don’t cling to it.

Take the hint of it, and search for something more, go on searching.

Use love as a stepping-stone.

You ask:

WHY IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIAN MAN AND WESTERN WOMAN NOT
SUCCESSFUL?

So first thing: no relationship is successful,
whether between Indian man and Western woman, or
Western man and Western woman, or
Indian man and Indian woman.

It can’t succeed; its very nature prohibits it.

It feels it is succeeding, but it never succeeds.

It comes very very close to success, but it never comes exactly to the point.

It takes you on great journeys, but it never supplies the goal.

It keeps your hope aflame, but just hope.

But good, at least it takes you to the threshold.

One step has been taken; half the journey is complete, but half the journey still remains.

And the second thing:

It is more difficult between an Indian man and a Western woman, or
a Western man and an Indian woman.

The problem is not between man and woman,
the problem is between Eastern and Western.

Man and woman are just man and Woman;

East and West make no difference.

But the minds are there.

Those minds create trouble.

The Indian has one kind of mind and the West has evolved a different kind of mind.

So when an Indian man is with a Western woman, or vice versa, there is no communication.

They don’t speak the same language.

It is not only that they don’t speak the same language –

English, German or French or Italian –
they may speak the same language,
still they don’t speak the same language,
because they have different kinds of minds.

Their expectations are different, their conditioning is different.

The Indian man says one thing and the Western woman understands another thing.

The woman says one thing and the Indian man understands something else.

Unless they drop the minds,
unless they become pure man and woman,
there will be great difficulty.

And Vedant Bharti must be asking this question out of his own experience.

One night, eavesdropping on Vedant Bharti, I heard this dialogue:

Vedant Bharti:

”Oh, my gorgeous, sweetest darling!
Am I the first man you’ve ever been to bed with?”

And the American girl:

”Of course you are!
Why do all you Indians always ask the same stupid question?”

Different minds.... The Indian mind is very male chauvinistic.

The Western woman is now a liberated woman;
she lives in a totally different kind of milieu.

She is not the woman you have lived with for centuries in India.

It can’t be possible now to possess a Western woman;
she is no longer property – she is as free as you are.

In India, the woman has been taken as property; man can possess her.

Not only ordinary man – even great men in India think of woman as a possession.

You may have heard the famous story of Mahabharata.

Yudhishthira, one of the very famous men in Indian history –
and has been thought to be very religious, he is known as DHARMARAJ,
a religious king, or a king of religion – playing, gambling, he even staked his wife.

He gambled her, because it was thought that your wife is your property.

He staked his kingdom, he staked his treasury, he staked everything;
then only the wife was left – he staked the wife too.

And still in India he is thought to be one of the greatest religious men.

What kind of religious man is this?

Just to think of staking an alive person, gambling?

But in India the woman has been thought of as property;
you are the possessor, and the whole and sole possessor.

In the West that slavery is no more, it has disappeared.

It is good.

It has to disappear from India too.

Nobody can possess anybody, man or woman.

NO person can be possessed; no person can be reduced to property!

This is ugly, this is sin!

What can be a greater sin than this?

You can love a person, but you cannot possess.

The love that possesses is not love – it is ego.

In India, the man is very male chauvinistic.

And the Indian woman has not yet asserted her freedom.

There exists nothing like the lib movement in India.

The woman still goes on living in the same way.

So when an Indian falls in love with a Western woman, the problem arises –
he starts possessing.

And the Indian mind is very much obsessed with sex; that too creates a problem.

You will be surprised when I say the Indian mind is very much obsessed with sex,
because you think India is very religious and moral.

Yes, it is,but its morality and religion are all so much based on
repression that deep down is the obsession with sex.

If your woman just holds somebody else’s hands, the husband is mad.

Just holding hands!

Holding hands can be just a simple gesture of friendship.

There is no need to give any sexual colour to it, but the Indian man cannot think that.

If his woman is holding hands with somebody else, that means
she is sexually relating to somebody else.

He will be in a rage.

He will not be able to sleep.

He would like to kill the man or the woman or himself.

Something has gone very wrong.

In the West things are looked at in a different way.

One can hold somebody’s hand just as a sheer gesture of friendship,
of lovingness, of sharing.

It need not have any sexual overtone to it.

Or,

even if it has, it is nobody else’s business.

It is the person’s freedom.

A person has to decide his life, how to live, with whom to live.

Nobody else can be the decisive factor, but that creates problems.

Just listen to this:

In the West sex is not so important as people in the East think it is.

Sex has almost become a sharing of energy, a loving play with each other, a fun.

It no longer has that seriousness that it used to have in the past.

In India it is still very very serious.

And when something is serious, remember, ego must be involved in it.

Ego is always serious; it makes everything serious.

And whenever something is playful, that simply shows ego is no more involved in it.

And ALL playfulness is good because it is liberation.

When you fall in love... if all Indian falls in love –
and here it is going to happen again and again –
when an Indian falls in love, he is falling very seriously.

That is the trouble.

And the woman may not think it serious at all.

She may think it is for the moment.

You appeal to her – for the moment.

There is no commitment in it; there is no tomorrow to it.

But the Indian mind is bringing not only tomorrow – the whole life.

Or there are people who even think of other lives in the future.

Those are hidden sources; you don’t talk about them, but the clash is going to happen.

She has fallen in love with you because she enjoys loving; it is a beautiful experience.

She has not fallen in love with you in particular – she is in love with love itself.

That is the difference. You are not in love with love itself –
you are falling in love with this particular woman.

It is a life-death problem for you.

If tomorrow she starts moving with somebody else, you will be mad.

But you misunderstood.

It was a gesture of the moment.

The American girl had just returned to New York from a holiday in England
and was talking to her best friend.

”Mabel, I’ve been thinking about Keith ever since I left England.
Now I’m back home and I don’t think
I should write to him as our friendship was only slight.”

”But, Wendy, you promised to marry him!”

”I know, but that was all.”

Marriage no longer has that seriousness that it has in the East.

Marriage is just a kind of friendship – nothing special about it.

If you don’t understand these different minds it is going to be a difficult problem,
communication will not be possible.

Man in the East has always enjoyed freedom – mm? – they say ”Boys are boys.”

But the woman has not been given any freedom.

In the West now there is no discrimination.

Man or woman – both are free.

And whatsoever man has been doing, now woman is also doing, it;
she has every right to do it.

In the East we played a trick.

The trick was that we placed woman very high on a great pedestal; we worshipped woman.

That was a trick to imprison her.

We satisfied her ego through worship.

We said,

”A woman is a goddess, a woman is purity. A woman is not of this earth. A woman has to be
virgin before marriage and then she has to remain monogamous for the whole of her life.”

And we gave to much respect for this, and we conditioned the women so much for this,
that they became addicted to the ego, and they remained on the pedestal.

Imprisoned there, chains there!

And man was enjoying all kinds of freedom.

Boys are boys....

The woman in the West has come down from the pedestal.

She says,

”Either you also come up on the pedestal or I am coming down.
We both have to exist on the same ground.”

And that’s how it should be.

”I say, old man,” said Clive to the host of the party,
’there’s this rather delectable young chick whom
I’m getting along with really well, if you know what I mean.”

He walked and continued,

”And I wondered if I might use your spare bedroom for a short while.”
”No, I don’t mind,” replied the host.

”But what about your wife?”
”Oh, don’t bother about her,” said Clive. ”

I’ll only be gone a short time and I’m sure she won’t miss me.”

”I KNOW she won’t miss you,” stated the host.

”It’s only five minutes ago that SHE borrowed the spare bedroom!”

The male ego has never allowed that to happen.

It has allowed itself all kinds of freedom; it has not allowed that freedom to the woman.

Now things have changed in the West.

Man and woman are standing on the same plane as human beings.

The woman is no more a goddess,
and she does not pretend and she does not WANT to pretend.

But the Indian mind is very much clouded by the past.

If you drop these minds, if you are just a man and a woman, then there is no problem.

The problems arise out of the Indian mind and the Chinese mind and the American mind –
if you drop the minds then there are no problems.

Then love can flow, and you can grow through it.

But still remember:

No love can be ultimate satisfying.

It can go a LONG way but it cannot go the whole way.

Finally you have to go beyond it.

Learn how to love by loving people,
then one day use that learning to fall in love with the whole,
with existence itself.

Only that day have you come home.


Source : Take It Eas, Vol 1.

love,
anand vikas.
+91 9703939628.