There
is a great attraction between man and woman for the simple reason that they are
mysterious to each other. The same thing creates conflict and the same thing
creates attraction. The farther away they are, the greater the distance between
them, the more the attraction between them.
THE VENERABLE MASTER SAID:
TAO MANIFESTS BOTH AS THE PURE AND
THE TURBID, BOTH AS MOVEMENT AND STILLNESS.
HEAVEN IS PURE, EARTH IS TURBID.
HEAVEN MOVES, EARTH IS STILL.
THE MASCULINE IS PURE, THE FEMININE
IS TURBID.
THE MASCULINE IS ACTIVE, THE
FEMININE IS PASSIVE.
MANIFESTING FROM ITS RADICAL
ESSENCE, TAO FLOWS FORTH EVEN TO THE LAST OF THINGS, BRINGING FORTH HEAVEN AND
EARTH AND ALL THAT IS IN BETWEEN.
THE PURE IS THE CAUSE OF THE
TURBID, AND MOVEMENT OF STILLNESS.
Taoism is not a religion in the
ordinary sense of the term, it is not a so-called religion; it is AUTHENTICALLY
religious. But to be authentically religious it has to be basically scientific.
Science and religion are separate only as far as their direction is concerned,
but not in their approach. Religion can be scientific without being a science;
science can be religious without being a religion. Tao is scientific without
being a science.
Science means trying to know the
objective world without any prejudice, without any A PRIORI conclusions. The
same is true about the inner world, the subjective world. One should approach it
also without any conclusions. A scientist cannot be a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a
Christian; if he is then he is not scientific. At least in his scientific
endeavor he should put aside all his prejudices.
If Galileo remains a Christian,
then he cannot discover the truth that the sun does not move around the earth.
If Copernicus remains a Christian even while he is doing his scientific
research, then he cannot go beyond the Bible. And the Bible is many thousands of
years old; it contains the science of those days. It is very primitive -- it is
bound to be so.
All religious scriptures contain
certain facts which they should not contain. They are not religious facts; they
are concerned with the objective world. But in the old days everything was
compiled in religious scriptures -- they were the only scriptures. Religious
scriptures have functioned in the world for thousands of years as encyclopedias:
everything that was known, was discovered, was theorized, was collected in them.
The Vedas in India are called
SAMHITAS; SAMHITA means a compilation, a collection. Their function was exactly
that of the Encyclopedia Britannica. All kinds of things are compiled in them:
the literature of those days, the science of those days, the astronomy of those
days, the geography, the history, the art; everything that it was possible to
know was compiled. As man has progressed, everything has become more and more
specialized.
Science means the search for truth
in the objective world; religion means the search for truth in the subjective
world. Just as there is a world outside you there is a world inside you, too.
And, of course, the inside world is far more significant because it is your
inside, it is your very being, it is your subjectivity. But about the inner
world we are still very unscientific -- we still live through beliefs. About the
outside world we have become a little more mature; we are ready to drop any
belief. If a certain fact is discovered which goes against our older theories,
we discard the older theories in favor of the new discovery. But the same is not
true about the inner; to the inner we have a very deep clinging.
Tao is in that way a scientific
approach to the inner -- you can call it the science of the subjective, the
science of being. This is one of the most significant things to remember while
we will be meditating over these sutras of Ko Hsuan.
The second thing to remember is
that Tao is the first revelation, realization, of the fact that existence is
polar. No other religion has been so clear about this tremendously significant
fact. "Existence is polar" means that existence is not logical, it is
dialectical; it is not Aristotelian, it is Hegelian.
Logic is simple, logic is linear;
dialectics is a little more complex. It is not simple because dialectics is
possible only if the opposite is also involved in it; if the opposite is not
there, there will be no dialectics. There can be no electricity without the two
poles, the positive and the negative. Electricity is not logical, it is utterly
illogical -- it is dialectical. There can be no humanity without the masculine
energy and the feminine energy. Just think of a humanity consisting only of men
or women: it will die, it will not be able to live -- it will not HAVE any
energy to live. Energy is created by the friction with the opposite.
The Hegelian formulation is: thesis
needs antithesis. Unless there is a thesis opposed by an antithesis there is no
dynamism; life becomes stagnant. Matter is possible only if there is
consciousness, and vice versa. The sky and the earth, God and existence, the day
and the night, summer and winter, birth and death, these are polarities opposed
to each other. But the opposition is only apparent; deep down they are
complementaries.
What Hegel discovered just two
hundred years ago Taoists had discovered almost five thousand years before. They
were the pioneers of dialectics; they were the first dialecticians of the world.
They contributed one of the most important insights to existence: you will find
it everywhere.
Life cannot exist even for a single
moment without its opposite because it depends on the opposite. The opposition
is only apparent; deep down they are complementaries. They have to be -- they
depend on each other. Man is not man without a woman, woman is not woman without
a man; they depend on each other.
That's why there is something
missing in a homosexual or a lesbian relationship -- there is no dialectics. The
homosexual relationship is far more logical, remember, and because it is logical
it is simple; because it is logical there is less complexity about it, less
conflict in it. It is not accidental that the homosexuals are called
"gay" people -- they ARE gay! They are happier than the heterosexual
people because there is no conflict. A man can understand another man more
easily than he can ever understand a woman. A woman can understand another woman
more easily than she will be ever able to understand a man because man is a
totally different existence. Their ways differ: they function from different
centers. To each other they look absurd.
The man functions through the
intellect; the woman functions through intuition. The man goes about everything
through reasoning; the woman simply jumps on the conclusion without going
through any reasoning. The man is simply amazed! He cannot find any clue. He may
have lived with the woman his whole life, still the woman remains a mystery. And
the same is true for the woman: the man remains a mystery. He cannot understand
simple things which she can see clearly: that smoking can bring cancer.
"Why do you go on smoking? Drinking alcohol will kill you sooner. Then why
are you poisoning yourself?"
Mulla Nasruddin's wife was telling
him... When he was drinking whisky one night, she told him, "I have told
you a thousand and one times, stop all this nonsense! This is slow poisoning!
This is slow suicide!"
Nasruddin looked at her and said,
"Please don't exaggerate! You have not told me one thousand and one times
-- maybe a few dozen times. Don't exaggerate. Moreover, I am not in any hurry,
so let it be slow poisoning! I am not in a hurry to die."
The man and the woman are
constantly arguing about each and everything; they never agree about anything.
They cannot agree: by their very natures agreement is not possible. There is
always tension. Hence gay people are really gay. When you see two homosexuals
hand in hand going for a morning walk you can see the joy! You never see that
joy between a husband and wife -- impossible. The gay relationship is simple;
but because it is simple, because there is no tension in it, no conflict in it,
there is no growth either. There is no pain in it, hence it is stagnant. There
are no more surprises in it.
The woman remains always to be
discovered by the man, and vice versa. You cannot exhaust discovering a man or a
woman. If you belong to the opposite pole it is an endless discovery; you will
never come to a conclusion.
Existence is not logical, and it is
good, otherwise there would have been only death and no life. If God were
Aristotelian there would have been no life at all. There would have been peace
all over -- nobody to know it nobody to experience it. It is good that God is
Hegelian, that he has created polarities.
Tao talks about YIN and YANG: that
is its most fundamental approach to understanding existence. And you have to go
deep into it.
There is a great attraction between
man and woman for the simple reason that they are mysterious to each other. The
same thing creates conflict and the same thing creates attraction. The farther
away they are, the greater the distance between them, the more the attraction
between them.
In modern societies, in advanced
countries particularly, the attraction is disappearing for the simple reason
that men and women are coming so close to each other, they are becoming almost
similar. They dress alike, they both have started smoking, they both drink, they
both behave in the same way, they both use the same language. The Liberation
Movement has contributed much to this nonsense.
The Women's Liberation Movement is
teaching women all over the world to be just like men -- strong, rough,
aggressive. They can be aggressive and they can be rough, but they will lose
something immensely valuable: they will lose their feminineness. And the moment
they become just like men they will not be mysteries anymore. This is something
new happening in the world; it has never happened before.
The wise sages of the ancient days
always made it clear to the old societies: make men and women as distinct as
possible. Nature makes them distinct, but culture also should help them to be
distinct. That does not mean that they are not equal; they are equal but they
are different, they are unique. Equality need not mean similarity; equality
should not be misunderstood as similarity. Similarity is not equality. And if
women start becoming like men they will never be equal to men, remember.
The Women's Liberation Movement is
going to do some very deep harm to the women's cause in the world, and this will
be the harm: they will become carbon copies of men, they will have a secondary
kind of existence. They will not be real men because they cannot be naturally so
aggressive. They can pretend, they can cultivate aggression, they can be rough,
but that will be just a facade; deep down they will remain soft. And that will
create a split in their being, that will create a schizophrenia in their being.
They will suffer from a dual personality and they will lose their
mysteriousness. They will argue with men with the same logic. But they will be
like men and they will become ugly. To be unnatural is to be ugly; to be natural
is to he beautiful.
I would like them to be equal to
men, but the idea of similarity should be dropped. In fact, they should become
as dissimilar as possible; they should keep their uniqueness intact. They should
become more and more feminine, then the mystery deepens. And that is the way of
existence, the way of Tao.
Only one modern psychologist, Carl
Gustav Jung, had some insight about this Taoist approach. He was the only one in
the West who had pondered over and studied Taoism deeply; he introduced Taoism
in his psychology, and he brought Taoism up to date. If you want to understand
Taoism it will be good to understand Carl Gustav Jung and his understanding
about Taoism; he was moving along the right lines. But after his death that work
stopped. He had taken only a few steps -- because Taoism is a vast ocean -- he
had moved in the right direction, but the work has stopped. It has to be
deepened. Many more people have to work to make the insight modern because the
language is old and sometimes the old language becomes a barrier.
For example, reading these sutras
many women here will feel a little offended. But Ko Hsuan means no offense; he
is simply using an old way. What could he do? That was the way in those days.
There is no evaluation -- he is not saying that the masculine is higher and the
feminine is lower -- that has to be remembered constantly, otherwise you will
immediately become closed. Particularly women will become closed to the sutras;
they will not be able to understand. And those women who have, unfortunately,
been associated with the Women's Liberation Movement, will immediately become
closed; they will not be able to understand the beauty of the sutras. So for
them particularly I have to remind you that it is not biological masculinity and
feminity that is meant, but psychological.
A man is not of necessity
masculine, a woman is not of necessity feminine. A woman can be masculine, for
example, Joan of Arc or, in India, Laxmibhai. These women were warriors, great
soldiers; they were not feminine at all. Biologically, of course, they were
feminine, their bodies were those of women, but their very souls were those of
men. They have to be counted as masculine. And there have been men -- poets,
dancers, musicians, singers, painters -- who were very feminine. So soft, so
round was their being that psychologically they were women. They may have been
able to reproduce children, they may have been able to become fathers and
husbands, but deep down they were not masculine; their psychology can only be
called feminine. It happens -- in fact, it happens more often than you will ever
think.
Secondly, every man and every woman
is also the opposite. Every man, to be alive, carries in the unconscious the
feminine principle, otherwise there will be no dynamism in his being, there will
be no tension, not enough tension to keep him alive. He will simply die; there
will be no reason for him to live. A certain tension is needed in his being. If
the tension becomes too much he goes mad; if the tension becomes too little he
will be dead.
There is a beautiful story in
Buddha's life:
A great prince became initiated,
became a sannyasin of Buddha. He had lived in great luxury his whole life, he
had been a great sitarist, his name was known all over the country as that of a
great musician. But he became impressed by Buddha's inner music -- maybe his
insight into music had helped him to understand Buddha.
When Buddha was visiting his
capital he heard him for the first time, fell in love at first sight, renounced
his kingdom. Even Buddha wanted him not to do such a great act so impulsively.
He told him, "Wait. Think. I will be here for four months" -- because
during the whole rainy season Buddha never used to move, in the rainy season he
would remain in one place. "So I am going to be here; there is no hurry.
You think over it. Four months time and then you can take sannyas, you can
become an initiate."
But the young man said, "The
decision has happened; there is nothing more to think about. It is now or never!
And who knows about tomorrow? And you have been always saying, 'Live in the
present,' so why are you telling me to wait for four months? I may die, you may
die, something may happen. Who knows about the future? I don't want to wait even
a single day!"
His insistence was such that Buddha
had to concede; he was initiated. Buddha was a little uncertain about him,
whether he would be able to live this life of a beggar. Buddha had known it from
his own experience; he himself was a great prince once. He knew what it was to
be in luxury, what it was to live in comfort, and what it was to be a beggar on
the street. It was a great, arduous phenomenon, but Buddha had taken time. It
took him six years to become enlightened, and slowly slowly he had become
accustomed to being without shelter, sometimes without food, without friends,
enemies all over for no reason at all, because he was not hurting anybody. But
people are so stupid, they live in such lies, that whenever they see a man of
truth they are wounded of their own accord -- they feel hurt, insulted.
Buddha knew the whole thing was
going to be too much for this young man. He felt sorry for him, but he initiated
him. And he was surprised and all the other sannyasins were surprised, because
the man simply moved to the other extreme. All Buddhist monks used to eat only
once a day; that new monk, the ex-prince, started eating only once in two days.
All Buddhist monks used to sleep under trees; he would sleep under the open sky.
The monks used to walk on the roads; he would walk not on the roads but always
on the sides where there were thorns, stones. He was a beautiful man; within
months his body became black. He was very healthy; he became ill, he became lean
and thin. His feet became wounded.
Many sannyasins came to
Buddha and said, "Something has to be done. That man has gone to the
opposite extreme: he is torturing himself! He has become self-destructive."
Buddha went to him one night and
asked him, "Shrona" -- Shrona was his name -- "can I ask you a
question?"
He said, "Of course, my Lord.
You can ask any question. I am your disciple. I am here to tell you whatsoever
you want to know about me."
Buddha said, "I have heard
that when you were a prince you were a great musician, you used to play the
sitar."
He said, "Yes, but that is
finished. I have completely forgotten about it. But that is true, I used to play
the sitar. That was my hobby, my only hobby. I used to practice at least eight
hours per day and I had become famous all over the country for that."
Buddha said, "I have to ask
one question. If the strings of your sitar are too tight, what will
happen?"
He said, "What will happen? It
is simple! You cannot play upon it -- they will be broken."
Buddha said, "Another
question: if they are too loose, what will happen?"
Shrona said, "That too is
simple. If they are too loose no music will be produced on them because there
will be no tension."
Buddha said, "You are an
intelligent person -- I need not say anything more to you. Remember, life is
also a musical instrument. It needs a certain tension but only a certain
tension. Less than that and your life is too loose and there is no music. If the
tension is too much you start breaking down, you start going mad. Remember it.
First you lived a very loose life and you missed the inner music; now you are
living a very tight, uptight life -- you are still missing the music. Is there
not a way to adjust the strings of the sitar in such a way that they are exactly
in the middle, neither loose nor tight, with just the right amount of tension,
so that music can arise?"
He said, "Yes, there is a
way."
Buddha said, "That is what my
teaching is: be exactly in the middle between the two poles. The tension has not
to disappear completely, otherwise you will be dead; the tension has not to
become too much, otherwise you will go mad."
And that's what has happened in the
whole world. The East has become too loose, hence there is death, starvation.
And the West has become too tight, hence there is madness, neurosis. The West is
breaking down under its weight. The East has become so lazy and lousy out of its
looseness.
A certain tension is needed, but
there is a state of tension which is also a state of equilibrium. And that is
the whole art of Tao. The equilibrating pulse of the mystical life, the
secret...
The words in this sutra are not to
be understood biologically, physiologically. Each man and each woman also have
their opposite within them. If you are a man consciously, then unconsciously
there is a woman in you; if you are a woman, then there is a man unconsciously
in you. Your conscious and your unconscious are polar opposites and there is a
tension between the two. That tension has to become neither too loose nor too
tight. This is the whole art of religion, or the whole science of religion.
Tao does not believe in miracles;
it believes in scientific methods to transform your life.
Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu
were walking together along a forest path one day when they came upon a
fast-flowing river which barred their way. Immediately Lieh Tzu sat down on the
bank of the river and meditated upon the eternal Tao. Ten minutes later he stood
up and proceeded to walk on the water to the other side.
Next, Chuang Tzu sat in the lotus
posture for twenty minutes, whereupon he stood up and also walked across the
river.
Lao Tzu, watching this in
amazement, shrugged his shoulders, sat down on the river bank like the others
and meditated for over an hour. Finally, with complete trust in the Tao, he
closed his eyes, took one step into the river and fell in.
On the other shore, Chuang Tzu
laughed, turned to Lieh Tzu and said, "Should we tell him where the rocks
are?"
Tao does not believe in any
nonsense. It is very pragmatic, practical, down to earth.
A street vendor was trying to sell
his product. All day long he would call out, "Try a bottle of my elixir --
long-life lotion!"
There was a boy helping him
distribute the bottles and taking the money.
The vendor kept calling out,
"Look! Long-life lotion! A wonder, gentlemen! A real miracle! Every morning
I drink one bottle, and look at me -- don't I look young? I am more than seven
hundred years old! "
The people were amazed and skeptical.
Finally one of the customers called the boy aside and asked, "Is your boss
really over seven hundred years old?"
"I can't guarantee it,"
answered the boy.
Everyone turned to the boy to hear
his answer.
"Why can't you guarantee
it?" asked the customer.
"Because I have only worked
with him for three hundred years," answered the boy.
All other religions are much more
concerned with such stupidities -- miracles, wonders. Not Tao. Tao is very
straight, hence there is a great future for Tao. When all other religions have
gone down the drain, Tao will still be around for the simple reason that it will
fit in with the scientific climate that is growing everyday on the earth. It
will not only fit in with the scientific climate, it will help and nourish it.
It will bring new visions to science because it does not ask you to believe in
anything, it simply wants you to understand.
These sutras are not to be believed
in. Please try to understand them, and try to understand them by putting aside
all your prejudices as men and women.
THE VENERABLE MASTER SAID:
TAO MANIFESTS BOTH AS THE PURE AND
THE TURBID,
BOTH AS MOVEMENT AND STILLNESS.
Don't be offended by the
"turbid"; it simply means muddy, not clear, vague. Both are
manifestations of Tao.
TAO MANIFESTS BOTH AS THE PURE...
And the word "pure" does
not mean anything moral, virtuous, et cetera; it has nothing to do with
morality. "Pure" simply means clear, transparent; and
"turbid" means muddy, not clear, vague. These are both manifestations
of Tao.
The ordinary man is turbid; the Buddha
is pure. The man who is sleepy is muddy, cloudy; he is surrounded by much smoke
of his own creation. The man who has awakened out of all dreams and desires has
a clarity; he has no smoke around him, no clouds. He is like a sunny day: the
sun is there without any clouds.
TAO MANIFESTS BOTH...
And remember, both are Tao. Never
forget it. The asleep person is as divine as the awakened one, as godly as the
awakened one. There is no intrinsic difference; the difference is only in
manifestation. One is full of dreams, desires, hence one is turbid; and the
other is finished with the dreams, has become tired of the dreams, has come to
know that they ARE dreams, and in that very knowing those dreams have dropped of
their own accord. Now his eyes are clear he can see through and through.
TAO MANIFESTS...
BOTH AS MOVEMENT AND STILLNESS.
So there is no need to insist that
you should be still; even in movement you can experience Tao. You can experience
Tao in stillness.
There are two possibilities. Buddha
sat for years in silence and then he experienced Tao. He calls it NIRVANA; that
is his name for Tao. And Jalaluddin Rumi danced for years, and then one day it
happened while he was dancing: through dance he attained to Tao. He calls it
God; that is his name for Tao. One can approach either through stillness or
through movement.
It is because of this fact that in
my commune both kinds of meditations are being used. People are dancing, people
are singing, and meditating. People are sitting in silence -- zazen, vipassana
-- and meditating. And one can move from one to the other because both are your
possibilities: you can find it in dance and you can find it in silence,
stillness.
In fact, your experience will be
far more rich if you can find it in both ways. If you are capable of finding it
in dancing and also capable of finding it while sitting silently doing nothing,
your experience will be far more rich than the experience of Gautam the Buddha
and Jalaluddin Rumi, both -- naturally, because you will enter the temple of God
from two opposite extremes, from two different paths. You will be more fluid and
you will have known the beauties of both paths -- because on one path you may
come across a few things and on the other path you may come across a few other
things. Both paths are full of different wonders. The dancer will come to know a
few things which the person who is sitting silently will never know. He will
reach to the ultimate peak, but he will not know a few things that happen on the
way of dancing. And the same is true about the dancer: he will not know a few
things which happen only on the way of stillness.
My emphasis is this: why miss any
enrichment that is possible. Why not be multi dimensional? Why not experience
God through as many ways as possible so that you know all the aspects of God?
And in that very knowing you will know that all the religions are unnecessarily
arguing against each other. Their arguments are absolutely meaningless -- they
are talking about the SAME God. But because they have known different aspects
they are insisting on their own aspect: that "This is the truth." And
the other is saying that just the opposite is the truth.
If you ask a Buddhist, "Can
one become enlightened through dancing?" he will immediately say,
"No," and his "no" will be categorical. He will say,
"It is impossible, because if one can know through dancing, why did Buddha
sit for years? Was he a fool? He would have danced!"
If you ask a whirling dervish, a
follower of Jalaluddin Rumi, "Can one find God just by sitting silently
doing nothing?" he will say, "No: Impossible -- absolutely no.
Otherwise, why should Jalaluddin have danced? Why should he have worked so hard
dancing day in, day out?"
When the ultimate flowering
happened he had danced for thirty-six hours continuously. Just as Buddha had sat
for seven days continuously not moving, not even moving his eyelids, Jalaluddin
had danced, not even waiting for a single moment, not even resting for a single
moment -- a mad dance for thirty-six hours till he fell down on the ground. But
when he opened his eyes, the old man had disappeared, the new man was born. The
new man was already there; he was a totally new person.
The Sufi will not agree that just
by sitting you can find it.
But I say to you I have found him
through both the ways: I have found him through movement and I have found him
through stillness. And I perfectly agree with Ko Hsuan that:
TAO MANIFESTS...
BOTH AS MOVEMENT AND STILLNESS.
HEAVEN IS PURE, EARTH IS TURBID.
Obviously. Heaven means absolute
clarity. The sky is pure; there is nothing in it. Nothingness is the purest
thing. The earth is full of many things, hence it is turbid.
And just the other day I was
telling you that you have to be both earthly and unearthly. Because, in fact,
you are made of both: something in you is contributed by the earth, by the
turbid, and something in you is contributed by the sky, by the pure, by the
clear. You are a synthesis of the earth and the sky.
Up to now, except Tao, all the
religions have chosen. Either they have chosen to be very earthly... For
example, Judaism is very earthly and Jainism is very unearthly. Jainism has
chosen the sky component of your being and Judaism has chosen the earthly
component of your being, but both are halves. They are not whole; something is
missing in both. Tao is whole.
And in my understanding, in my
realization, Tao is the only experience which is holy, because it is whole.
HEAVEN IS PURE, EARTH IS TURBID.
That's why I say to you be a Zorba
-- but not Zorba the Greek because then you are just turbid, just earth, just
muddy. I say to you be Zorba the Buddha -- not Gautam the Buddha because to be
Gautam the Buddha means you are just sky, no earth, absolutely other-worldly,
belonging to the farther shore. Why not be both? When it is possible to be both,
why miss anything? Why not use all the opportunities to grow and to be?
HEAVEN MOVES, EARTH IS STILL.
These are just metaphors.
Now this beautiful story..... more..
ENERGY ENHANCEMENT
THE
CORE
ENERGY TECHNIQUES !!
ENERGY
ENHANCEMENT, !!! ULTIMATE !!!!!! ANCIENT !!! !!! EFFECTIVE !!!!!
SUCCESSFUL !!!
1. Get into Intense alignment with Your Own Kundalini Energy and Immediate
Access to the Meditative State.
2. Remove your Energy Blockages with The Circulation of the Energies, the
Kundalini Kriyas, Ancient Taoist Energy Circulations which have worked
effectively for 5000 years to help all towards ENLIGHTENMENT.
3. The Grounding of all your Negative Energies through Alchemical VITRIOL -
Become Incredibly POSITIVE and ENERGETIC!!
4. Alignment with Your Higher Self - INCREASE YOUR IQ, INCREASE YOUR LUCK,
ACCESS YOUR HIGHEST ENERGIES!! ACHIEVE WHAT YOU WERE PUT ON THIS PLANET TO DO.
5. Learn how to USE and Increase the LOVE of Your Heart Center to ZAP YOUR
NEGATIVE EMOTIONS AND DEVELOP PSYCHIC POWERS TO HEAL YOURSELF AND OTHERS.
6. Overcome ENERGY VAMPIRES - MASTER ENERGY PROTECTION AND MAINTAIN YOUR HIGH
ENERGIES!!
7. EXPERIENCE INCREDIBLE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ENERGY ENHANCEMENT - THE CORE ENERGY
TECHNIQUES
8. ENERGY ENHANCEMENT Techniques are the source of all Successful spiritual
training courses over the last 5000 years. Become a Jedi Master, a Gandalf, a
Transmitter of the FORCE a Bringer of the Light!!
GET MORE ENERGY!!!
ENERGY ENHANCEMENT -
!!! ULTIMATE !!!
!!! ANCIENT !!!
!!! EFFECTIVE !!!
!!! SUCCESSFUL !!!
Take your time,
this site has much new wonderful information.
THE MASCULINE IS PURE...
"Masculine" means, at the
lowest, intellectuality, at the highest, intelligence. It is clear -- intellect
is clear. Two plus two is four, it is as clear as that. And the highest form is
intelligence. BUDDHA means one who has attained to the highest form of
intelligence. His words are very clear; his words are not at all in any way
muddy. You cannot find more clear statements than Buddha's; his statements are
not mystic, not esoteric.
In fact, he used to say to his
disciples, "Please don't ask me any metaphysical questions because they are
not needed, they are not going to help. Ask authentic, real questions, questions
that are your problems in life, so that I can help you to solve them."
He used to tell this story again
and again:
Once a man was hit by an arrow...
He was a philosopher, a great metaphysician. People rushed to him; they wanted
to take out the arrow, but he said, "Wait! First tell me whether the arrow
is real or illusory. "
Now, that has been one of the most
important metaphysical questions, in India particularly: whether the world is
real or illusory, real ormaya,
whether it exists or it only appears to.
The metaphysician was asking out of
his old habit. "If it is unreal, why bother? If it only appears to be
there, what is the point of taking it out? It does not exist. It is like a snake
which does not exist. It is only a rope really, but in darkness you have
misunderstood it as a snake. So there is no need to kill it. How can you kill a
snake which does not exist in the first place? "
He puzzled people so much with all
his metaphysical reasoning that they were at a loss what to do. It was difficult
to prove...
In fact, it is difficult to prove:
nobody has been able to prove conclusively that the world exists; there is no
way to prove it. It may be all illusory.
For example, I am talking to you,
but how can you prove that you are not dreaming? Many times you dream.
Asang writes to me, "Osho, I
am very grateful -- you come in my dreams." Now it will be difficult for
Asang to decide whether right now it is a dream or I am really here! There is no
way to decide.
In western philosophy, the man who
represents this philosophy is Berkeley. He says the whole world is your idea, it
is just an idea. It is in your mind; it does not exist really. It is just like a
dream phenomenon. It is made of the same stuff as dreams are made of.
He was going for a morning walk
with his friend, Dr. Johnson. And Dr. Johnson was a very realistic type of
person. When Berkeley told him that this whole world is just an idea, it does
not really exist, Johnson got so mad -- mad because he could not prove otherwise
-- that he simply took a big rock and threw it on Berkeley's foot. Berkeley
shrieked in pain, screamed, blood started oozing out of his foot.
And Johnson said, "Now what do
you say?"
And Berkeley laughed and he said,
"This is all just an idea! My screaming, your throwing the rock, even YOU,
Dr. Johnson, are just my idea. I am YOUR idea, you are MY idea. We are all
ideas. Your rock cannot prove that it is real, because sometimes I have screamed
in my dream. Sometimes rocks have been thrown at me in my dream, blood has come
out in my dreams. So what? What is the difference?"
It is impossible to disprove such a
philosophy. Shankara in India represents this kind of philosophy and Berkeley
represents it in the West; they both remain as yet unrefuted. Nobody believes in
them. I don't think that even they believed in themselves, otherwise they would
have stopped eating, making love, sleeping, because if it is all dream stuff why
bother? Berkeley continued to make love and produce children. What nonsense! He
continued to eat, and when he used to fall ill he would take medicine. Now,
killing one idea with another idea! I don't think they ever believed in
themselves.
Shankara says that the world is
illusory and yet he says: Renounce it. If it is illusory, why renounce it? What
can you renounce? If it is not there in the first place, how can you renounce
it? Something that is not can
be renounced? And if the world is not, if the seen is not, then where is the
seer? Without the seen the seer himself becomes illusory. If there is nothing to
renounce, the renouncer himself becomes illusory.
They don't believe in their own
philosophies but still they cannot be refuted; there is no way to refute them.
Thousands of ways have been tried, but nothing can refute them. For example,
Berkeley used to say when you go out of the room, your furniture in the room,
your books in the room all disappear because there is nobody to project the
idea. Obviously, if you take the projector out the film will disappear from the
will; there will be no pictures on the wall. Now how can you prove it? You can
say, "I can look through the keyhole." He will say, "So you have
come back through the keyhole. Again they will appear because the idea is
projected through the keyhole."
One man worked for years to find
out some way and he went on coming to Berkeley again and again. One day he went
with the idea that "Now I don't think you can deny this. When you are
sitting in a carriage you don't see the wheels of the carriage, but the carriage
is moving -- the wheels are there. You are not projecting them because you are
not seeing them, but the carriage is moving. The movement of the carriage proves
that the wheels are there."
Berkeley said, "You DON'T
know. That will be God's idea. The world is not only MY idea; ultimately it is
God's idea, it is God's dream. In fact, he is dreaming us too -- the driver and
the passenger and the carriage and the wheels."
It is impossible to deny such
philosophies. They are absurd, but they cannot be refuted.
Buddha used to say...
People, poor people, villagers
gathered and they looked at each other. "What to do with this man?"
Buddha was passing by; he heard the
whole story. He went to the philosopher and he said, "These questions can
be answered later on, we can discuss them later on at our ease. First let us
pull out the arrow because this arrow can kill you, and if you are alive we can
discuss it later on. And whatsoever you decide later on, that the arrow is real
or unreal, will be up to you. But right now you don't need philosophical
discussion, you need a physician who can pull the arrow, who can take out the
poison, who can give you some medicine as a protection. Right now no metaphysics
is going to help you. Okay, if it is unreal, let it be unreal! But later on we
can discuss it."
Buddha used to say that the same is
the situation of man, every man. You are suffering, so the whole thing is how to
pull out the arrow that is creating your suffering. It is not a metaphysical
question. His words are very clear, rational, intelligent, comprehensible by the
mind. He says only things which can be comprehended by any intelligent person.
That's why Buddha has become very important today -- because his approach seems
to be so intellectual.
THE MASCULINE IS PURE...
That means the lowest form is
intellect, intellectuality, and the highest form is intelligence.
... THE FEMININE IS TURBID
"Turbid" here will mean,
at the lowest, instinct and, at the highest, intuition. Now the mystics, the
Sufis talk in a totally different way. Their words are not so clear, their words
are vague. Their words are not easily comprehensible; you have to figure out
what their exact meaning is. And that is the state of the feminine mind. But
remember, I don't mean it biologically. Of course, biologically also the woman
functions more through instinct than through intellect...
Many people ask me, "Why have
all the Buddhas you talk about been men? Why not women?" For the simple
reason that the approach of the feminine mind will be totally different. They
cannot be Buddhas. They can be Meeras, Magdalenes, Lallas, Rabias, but they
cannot be Buddhas. Their approach is bound to be different. Meera will not talk
in an intellectual way; she will sing. Her singing, her dancing has a totally
different flavor. She will not argue -- argument is not the way of the feminine
mind; her argument will be her dance, her ecstatic dance. If you can see her
dance, if you can FEEL her dance... I will not say if you can understand her
dance because dancers cannot be understood, they can only be felt, they can only
be experienced. Her words will be very instinctive.
For example, Freud has condemned
very much all the women mystics he knew about. He never knew about Meera,
otherwise he would have condemned her the most. He knew about St. Theresa; he
has condemned her because she talks about being married to Christ. Now that is
enough for Freud to bring his whole sexual theory in. That's enough -- nothing
more is needed. Married? That means this woman is suffering from some sexual
perversion. She must have repressed her sexuality; and because she cannot have a
sexual relationship with a real man, now she is contemplating an unreal man in
the sky -- somebody called Christ, the son of God. Now she is trying to create a
love affair with Christ.
It is really a misfortune that
Freud never knew about Meera. Had he known he himself would have danced out of
joy! Because Meera uses such allegories: "My Lord, my beloved, when will
you be coming? I have prepared the bed! I have prepared the bed with roses and I
am waiting! And the night is passing and you have not come yet. And I am crying
and weeping for you! When will you come and make love to me?"
Now, she is not even speaking in an
indirect way, she is talking directly. Freud would have taken the whole thing
literally; that is his technique. He can prove that all these mystics are
perverts. In fact, he himself is a pervert because he cannot understand the
feminine mind at all.
That is one of the reasons why Jung
had to desert him, for the simple reason that his whole understanding was simply
intellectual; there was nothing intuitive in it. And Jung had a more feminine
mind, a deeper capacity to feel.
All men who have come in contact
with women know it, that they function in a very different way. You cannot talk
with a woman logically; it is impossible -- it is as if she belongs to some
other world, to some other planet. And the same must be the experience of women.
They can't understand men -- continuously in their heads, in their intellects,
never understanding anything of the heart. Man tries to argue, tries to convince
the woman logically, but she cannot be convinced. That is not her way; logic has
no appeal for her.
Slowly slowly the husband learns
that a rose flower is far more important than logic. If you bring a rose flower
to your wife she will understand it more than all your arguments. You can argue
for months, "I love you," and that won't convince her. Just bring a
rose flower and that will be enough. Her approach is instinctive. Man cannot
understand her because whatsoever she says seems illogical and absurd.
Slowly slowly husbands start
remaining silent, they become deaf. They allow the woman to talk:
"Whatsoever nonsense she wants to talk let her talk. Who listens?"
Do you know why God created first
the man and then the woman?
To allow the poor guy to say at
least two words!
Overheard at Vrindavan... One
sannyasin was saying to another sannyasin, "It took a lot of will power,
but I finally gave up trying to diet."
A lot of will power...
"Rob told me I was the eighth
wonder of the world!" said Shirl.
"What did you say?" asked
Pearl.
"Not to let me catch him with
any of the other seven!"
"Can you operate a
typewriter?" the boss asks the secretary.
"Yes, sir. I use the biblical
system."
"I never heard of it."
"Seek and ye shall find,"
replies the secretary.
Why do husbands become henpecked?
All husbands become henpecked. In fact, to be a husband means to be a henpecked
husband; there are no other kinds for the simple reason that how long can one
argue? And it makes no sense. You look foolish to yourself -- you are talking to
the walls! You argue and the woman cries! You tell her, "Cool down, and let
us sit down and talk it over at the table," and she starts throwing things!
She slams the door, she breaks cups and saucers. Now what is the point? You
cannot argue. There is no possible way to connect, to relate with a woman
coolly. That is not possible; it is always hot. Either you follow her or she
will create trouble. And from her side all your arguments are just nonsense!
Then there was the guy so henpecked
by his wife that when they were in the nudist colony she told him what not to
wear.
The man says to the lawyer,
"I'm going to ask for a divorce. "
"Why?" asks the lawyer.
"Because my wife is always
knitting!"
"But, for God's sake, that is
no reason to ask for a divorce! Lots of women knit."
"While they are making
love?"
The husband frequently traveled in
his work. One day he returned home unexpectedly and found his wife in bed with
another man. Enraged, he grabbed a gun and pointed it at the man.
The wife screamed, "Don't
shoot! Are you going to kill the father of your sons?"
The young lady walks into a
drugstore and asks, "Do you have intimate deodorants?"
"Yes, we do," answers the
druggist. "What kind would you like?"
"Chlorophyll "
"No, sorry, we will receive it
tomorrow."
"Tomorrow I cannot come. Could
you give it to my husband?"
"How am I going to know who
your husband is?" enquires the druggist.
"Oh, it is very simple. He is
a tall, dark-haired guy with a green moustache."
THE MASCULINE IS ACTIVE, THE
FEMININE IS PASSIVE.
MANIFESTING, FROM ITS RADICAL
ESSENCE, TAO FLOWS FORTH EVEN TO THE LAST OF THINGS, BRINGING FORTH HEAVEN AND
EARTH AND ALL THAT IS IN BETWEEN.
THE PURE IS THE CAUSE OF THE TURBID
AND MOVEMENT OF STILLNESS.
But don't forget because of these
anecdotes that Ko Hsuan does not mean that the biological masculine and feminine
are EXACTLY synonymous with the ultimate masculine and feminine. In a certain
way yes, they are related, but not totally synonymous.
[AT THIS POINT A CUCKOO BEGAN TO
CALL, LOUDLY AND INSISTENTLY... ]
This is feminine! Now she is
saying, "All this Tao is nonsense!" This is just a protest!
THE
LAW OF OPPOSITES...