Does anything outside of thought really exist? || Acharya Prashant (2017)

To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here

Does anything outside of thought really exist

Question: Acharya Ji, you have said in one of your videos, “In matters of Truth, thought is not useful. It is even a handicap.” But thought is all I know, and have ever known. If I close my eyes, everything is a thought. My family is a thought, my children are a thought, even God is a thought. And the Teacher is a thought.

If everything, that I have ever known, is a thought, then why should I believe, that something outside of thoughts, and space and time dimensions, exists? Every thing that tells me, that something ‘beyond’ exists, is thought. And if thoughts are not to be believed, or taken seriously, then I am screwed, because I have been on a wrong quest.

Why should I belittle my thoughts, and term them frivolous and false? Outside these thoughts, there is nothing that I can know of, so why to condemn them?

Acharya Prashant Ji: You will have to answer it, looking at your own life.

How will you explain ‘love’? Thoughts have reasons. Thoughts have causal linkages – backward and forward. Each thought, comes from somewhere, and leads to something. How do you explain ‘love’? Where does ‘love’ come from? Do you have to think, to ‘love’?

How do you explain sleep?

You would admit that when you are sleeping, nicely, comfortably, then you are not thinking. Are you in distress then?

Your problem is not that you are not convinced of a thought-free state.

Your problem is that you are not convinced of a thought-free state – for yourself.

If I say that in sleep, you are thought-free, and yet blissful. You would retort and say, “Yes, there is bliss. But not for me.” You want to experience the bliss, along with everything, that you are. In sleep, bliss is there. But all that, that you are, is not there. So that bliss, appears so useless.

You are not questioning freedom from thought. You are questioning, whether there is freedom from thought, for you, as you are. No, there is no freedom that way. So, you have to make a choice. You have to decide. whether you are more particular about preserving yourself, or is that bliss, dearer to you?

Are you getting it?

That which you are questioning, is not totally unknown to you. You do not really dispute it. If you have ever known Silence, or Love, then you cannot dispute that there is something beyond the little ‘you’. If you have been ever awestruck by anything, then you cannot dispute, that there is something beyond ‘you’.

Come closer.

If you have ever listened carefully to me, then you cannot dispute that there is something beyond ‘you’. And that is not the product of thought, because I do not give you the time to think.

When you are with me, do you get the space, the occasion to think? You don’t. If you are attentive, then you are taken to a place, where there is just ‘you’. The baggage of thoughts, the swarming of the bees, is not there.

So you know, that THAT exists. That you may call as – Silence, or Truth, or God, whatever. You know that, THAT exists. Hence, I am re-reading your question. Now, your question is, “Can THAT exist with ‘me’? Can ‘I’ exist with ‘THAT’? can the two be simultaneous? Can the two remain separate, and yet concurrent?

No, they can’t.

Jab hari tha tab main nahin,

Jab main hun hari nahin.

(When there is God, then I am not.

When I am, God is not).

Simple. Full stop.

That ‘beyondness’, is beyond dispute, because all dispute is thought.

That ‘beyondness’ is beyond questions as well, because all questions are thoughts.

That ‘beyondness’ is beyond my teaching, and your listening, if my teaching and your listening, are a thought.

‘Beyondness’, need not be proved, because beyondness, is such a cunning thing. All you are saying is, what you are saying is alright, but there is something beyond this. But, how do you disapprove that? You can only disapprove something that exists. In ‘beyondness’, what you are saying is, that whatever exists, has something beyond it. Now, how do you fight that?

Hence, the saints are always on a very sold footing. You cannot quarrel with them. They say, “What you have is alright. But there is something bigger than this.” How do you fight with that? And they are saying that – ‘That’ which is bigger than ‘This’, is not in the same dimension, as this thing.

How do you fight with that?

Because, in this dimension, you can prove that there is no Taj Mahal, bigger than the existing Taj Mahal. And this dimension is all that you know of. In this dimension, there is scope of proofs and rebuttals. But, what they are saying is that there is another dimension, that is beyond proofs. There is a Taj Mahal in a dimension, that is beyond any Taj Mahals. So, where there can be no Taj Mahal, there is a Taj mahal, that is better than this Taj Mahal.  Now, fight that.

They are not claiming anything at all. What they are saying is, “Where there can be no Taj Mahal,” by this they mean – a world that is not yours. A world in which space and earth do not exist. So, where there can be no Taj Mahal, there exists a Taj Mahal, more beautiful than this Taj Mahal.

Now, you cannot even take the first step, to even counter such a statement. Why? Because your first step will come from thought or imagination. And, what they are saying is – “In that world, there is no thought. So, you cannot enter with thought.” And thought is all you have.

Please understand.

What they are saying is, “There is another dimension, that is untouched by thought”. And you start thinking – ‘what that dimension could be?’ And you have lost it. And the saint is smiling.

The only way now, you can counter the saint is, by…..

(silence)

You want to investigate that dimension, right? And the saint is saying, “In that dimension, there is neither space, nor time, nor earth, nor moon. There is nothing. No person, no animal. No thing, no idea, no past, no past, no future.”

That is that dimension.

“And in that dimension, there is a Taj Mahal, more beautiful than this Taj Mahal. No you want to investigate that dimension. How do you investigate that dimension? You want to enter that country. Kabir keeps talking again and again, of another desh, another amarpuri. You want to investigate, you want to prove Kabir wrong. You want to prove that no such amarpuri exists.

For that, what will you need to do? What is the necessary condition?

Questioner: You will want to have proofs.

Acharya Ji: Kabir is saying that there is another dimension, in which there is a Taj Mahal. And in that dimension, there is no thought. You cannot enter that dimension with thought. Now, you want to investigate that there is a Taj Mahal in that dimension. What will you have to do?

You will have to enter that dimension. And you cannot enter that dimension, with thought. So, what will you have to do? What is the condition? You will have to be…..Silent. Because Kabir is saying, that only Silence can enter there.

Your intention is to investigate whether that Taj Mahal, exists. And whether that Taj Mahal is more beautiful than this Taj Mahal. But, what is the password to that dimension? Even if you want to investigate that dimension, what is the password?

Listeners: Silence.

Acharya Ji: So to enter that dimension, even for the purpose of suspicious investigation, what will you have to do?

Questioner 1: Be Silent.

Acharya Ji: Be Silent. The moment you are silent, Kabir smiles. That is all, that he wanted. That is all, that he wanted. The moment you are silent, you discover that Silence itself, is the Taj Mahal, that is more beautiful, than all the Taj Mahals.

Now, you don’t want to look at some building, any construction. This de-contruction, this des-truction, is more beautiful than any construction. Done! Game over. The first step -Silence- is the last step. Now, there is no need to enquire that whether the world is indeed, just as Kabir describes it.

And he describes it in very colorful ways. He says, “The Sun is forever shining there. There is no sunset. And even as the Sun is shining there, you can enjoy the beauty of the moon and the stars. And there is no death, no old-age, no disease, no fear, and no suffering.”

You want to counter all that. You say, “No, no. This cannot be possible. To counter it, you will have to go there.” To go there, you will have to be ……

Questioner: Silent.

Acharya Ji: Silent.

The moment you are silent, Kabir runs away.

His mischief, is successful.

Excerpted from a ‘Shabd-Yoga’ session. Edited for clarity.

Watch the session: Does anything outside of thought really exist? || Acharya Prashant (2017)

To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here

Donate via PayPal:

(In multiples of $10)

$10.00

Those who want to silence the mind will keep wanting|| Acharya Prashant

Editor’s Note: To receive regular updates on WhatsApp regarding wisdom articles by Acharya Ji and to get an opportunity to connect to him directly, click here.

Those who want to silence the mind will keep wanting

Question: Acharya Ji, how to attain stillness of the mind?

Acharya Prashant Ji: ‘Stilling the mind’, or ‘Stopping the mind’, are very popular and lucrative catchphrases. There is a small problem. The problem is – for the mind, everything is a verb. Everything is a verb. Everything denotes action. So when the mind says, “Stop,” even that means – ‘do’ the act of stopping.

Mind only knows movement. Mind does not know anything called ‘stillness’, or ‘stopping’. So we may find it tempting, to talk of stopping the mind. But the moment yo usay, “Stop the mind,” you have started a new action.

Do you get this?

The moment you say, “Stop the mind,” you have just started a new action. Now it doesn’t matter whether you want to make the mind ‘do’ something, or whether you want to make the mind come to a pause. Essentially, you are doing the same thing. You are ‘doing’. Essentially you are doing the same thing, which is that you are ‘doing’.

In making the mind run to a particular place, you are ‘doing’ the running.

In making the mind stop, you are ‘doing’ the stopping.

So, this stopping is no stopping, and hence all attempts of stopping the mind, or stilling the mind, are necessarily going to go waste.

For the mind, even ‘silence’ is something, even ’emptiness’ is something. Even ‘nothing’ is something. So, language is not very useful here. Language may lure us into believing, that we are stopping the mind, but all that we are doing is that, we are still ‘doing’.

That is why, methods that aim at stopping the mind, tricks, techniques, that all fail, because they are all actions.

And no action is going to lead to non-action.

It is not possible, to run harder, to stop. Yes, you may get exhausted and fall down, but the tendency to run, will remain. It is possible to keep chanting a particular phrase, for hours and hours, for many years. And that may make the mind, so exhausted and bored, that when you enter into that activity repeatedly, it just stands in one place, out of frustration and boredom. But that does not mean, that it’s tendency to run around has stopped.

The moment it gains favorable conditions, it will again start running. That is why effects of traditional meditation, do not last. That is why you have to repeat the practice, over and over, and again and again.

One must ask a basic question: what kind of peace it is, that comes and goes? Is it peace at all? That which comes and goes, necessarily has to be a movement, a  wave, an action. Only ‘something’ can rise and fall.

How can peace rise and fall?

Peace, by definition, is an absence, a nothingness.

If you have to exert yourself, again and again, in order to retain your peace, it only proves that it is not peace at all.

It is some kind of enforced silencing, of the mind.

Like kids, that hush down on seeing the teacher. Would you call that silence? That is mere temporary wordless-ness. Out goes the teacher, and out goes the so-called silence.

Do you get this?

So, first of all, one has to drop this belief in one’s capacity to silence the mind, or even in the concept of a ‘silent mind’. There is nothing called ‘a silent mind’. There is something called ‘Silence’ which is beyond something-ness, which is an absolute, which cannot be used as an adjective, to describe something else.

Are you getting it?

You cannot have a ‘silent mind’. Mind, when silent, dissolves in the Silence. All that remains is Silence. What do you mean by a ‘silent mind’ then?

But we want to believe, and we have a stake in believing, that just as we, the ego-sense, try to control its destiny, through a thousand ways, through ten kinds of efforts, through multiple attempts arising from doership, it would also attempt to, and succeed in, controlling the mind, or silencing the mind.

What is the mind? Some kind of an object? Who would control the mind? Who are you who would whip the mind in submission, or trap it, or seduce it, or counsel it? Who are you, who is stalking? When you say, “I will silence the mind,” who is this ‘I’? So, even after silence, this ‘I’ would remain. What kind of silence is this?

Is it not obvious?

Silence and Mysticism, Spirituality and Mysticism, they are one.

They go together.

And Mysticism, is about being comfortable, with the unknown.

Not having that urge, to be in control.

Not trying to be a master of your destiny.

“I do not know whether the mind can be silent, I do not know whether any method will succeed. I do not know whether there is this thing called ‘silence’. But I will honestly know that, which is in the purview of knowledge. I will know that which can be known. And beyond that, I will not venture. It is not my province. Why should I dare enter forbidden areas?”

“And it is not even about forbidden. It is not as if I have the capacity to enter it, and I have been just outlawed from there. I do not even have the capacity to enter it. I do not even have the capacity to imagine entering there. I do not even know what lies there. I do not even know whether actually, there is any place called ‘there’.”

This, crudely, is the beginning of Mysticism.

There, you do not claim to be knowledgeable.

There you do not claim to be the doer, or the master.

There you just submit yourself.


Excerpted from a ‘Shabd-Yoga’ session. Edited for clarity. Watch the video session: Acharya Prashant: Those who want to silence the mind will keep wanting

To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here

Donate via PayPal:

(In multiples of $10)

$10.00

 

Acharya Prashant on J. Krishnamurti: The ego uses both sex and meditation as an escape

The ego uses both sex and meditation as an escape

Editor’s Note: To receive regular updates on WhatsApp regarding wisdom articles by Acharya Ji and to get an opportunity to connect to him directly, click here


“Love is a state in which there is no ‘me’; 
love is a state in which there is no condemnation, no saying that sex is right or wrong, that this good and something else is bad.

Love is none of these contradictory things.

Contradiction does not exist in love.”

~ J. Krishnamurti

Question: Krishnamurti says that one craves sex, because in that, one finds no ‘me’, ego, and hence no conflict. And one uses it as an escape. Why does one not use, meditation too, as an escape? Is it because that one lacks understanding, energy, or is it because that the outside influences and inherent tendencies, acquired and hence biological, are too strong?

Does this call for an inner strength stronger than the outer influences? How would one describe this inner strength in words, if it exists?

Acharya  Prashant Ji: The basis of the question is, that one probably does not use meditation as an escape. But one does use meditation as an escape. One uses everything, as an escape.

One uses meditation, in precisely the same way, as one uses sex, or any other means of getting away.

Of course, Krishnamurti is spot on, when he says that, in the experience of sex, there is no ‘me’, no ego, and hence no conflict. So, there is a great peace, a silence, a touch of the beyond.

That peace, that silence, that touch of the beyond, is one’s ultimate desire.

But, is one ready to go beyond the touch? The ego is so afraid, and so stupid, that it is terrified of the one, it loves. That it wants to run away, from the same healing touch, it so craves for.

One will have ‘a little’ of it, one does not want ‘the whole’ of it. A little of it, ensures continuity of the ego. A little of it implies that one could have the healing touch, and yet remain what one is, yet continue with one’s ways. That much, is acceptable to the ego. But only that much, not beyond that.

The ego says, “My first priority, is to remain, exist, and after that comes everything else. Even the Truth must be subservient to my first priority.” So, liberation is alright, as long as, it is a second of liberation. Peace is alright, as long as, it is five minutes of peace. But, if silence threatens, to take over the entire life, if peace starts dominating noise, to the extent that noise might be completely annihilated, then the ego rejects.

The ego wants Truth, but only a modicum of Truth.

The ego wants peace, but only a sliver of peace.

The ego is foolish.

It’s first priority is always, it’s own sustenance.

So when, the ego will enter meditation, it will enter false meditation, it will enter limited meditation.

People meditate for five minutes. People set a particular time to meditate. I would ask, professional meditators, people who have been practicing meditation for so long: if you love meditation so much, why do you get up from it? If you love meditation so much, why do you limit it to half an hour of the morning time? Why don’t you let meditation, your entire life? Why can’t you live meditatively?

They would not have an answer. The answer is clear. The answer is: if you start living meditatively, rather than limiting, just isolating, relegating meditation to a corner of your daily schedule, then your daily schedule itself, would be threatened. You do not want to allow that.

The ego does not want to allow that. The ego says, “Meditation is good, as long as it is for half an hour. Then it will serve my my ends. I can become a little peaceful. Mind you, just a little peaceful. I can become a little peaceful, and then go about doing my usual, daily tasks.”

“Even if meditation has to be there, it has to be there as a servant of my daily priorities. I want to go to the same office, and continue with the same humdrum business, and to be effective in the same humdrum business, and to perform more efficiently in the same office, I want to be meditative.”

“I will not let meditation overpower me. I will not let meditation, become a canopy, over the space of my life. I will not let meditation become, a complete solution, that dissolves me away.”

“I will use meditation as a tool. I will use meditation as a tool, to remain more of what I anyway, and already am” – that is how the mind uses meditation, that is how the mind uses sex, that is how the mind uses Truth and God.

Because you are disturbed, dull, restless, after the entire day’s soul-sapping routine, in the night, you use sex as an entertainment, as a relief, as a getaway. Using sex as a relief, enables you, to wake up the next morning, and again continue with your routine, and then again hit the bed in the night, again use sex as a dissipator, again use sex as a temporary healer, and then again go back to the same shop, same work, same office, same society, same people, same routine, that disturb you.

Sex, Meditation, Prayer, God – in that sense, all of them, just are used by the ego, as enablers.

They enable the ego, to continue, as it is.

One returns to his shop, and then goes to the temple. Going to the temple, enables one, to return to his shop.

One does, what one does the entire day, and then in the evening, one wants to atone. One goes and confesses. It might be an evening, or it might be a Sunday in the church. One goes and confesses. Or one would write a letter of guilt, confession, admission, to a teacher. One would say that I wasted the entire day. One would say that I am a lousy man, an evil man. And all that confession in the evening, enables one, to conveniently again embark the next morning, on the same beaten path.

That is how we work.

We exploit even the highest.

If a prophet would come to us, we would use him to serve our petty purposes. Don’t you see, what people do when they go to holy places, to pilgrimage, to a Dargah, to a Guru? They go there, and they ask about their little things. That is all the relationship that they have, with the Guru, or the Pir, or the Granth, or the temple, or the Gurudwara.

Let everything exist, to allow me, to even help me, remain as rotten as I am. That is the world view of the ego. That is how we look at the entire universe. Unfortunately, that is also, how we look at the one, beyond the universe.

The ego is an exploitative being. The ego is a stupid being. It exploits the one, it ought to surrender to. It goes to the ocean, and asks only for two drops. And it thinks it is being quite clever, in asking, just as much as it can hold.

Can you look at the mind, the psychology of the person, who has the entire ocean available of him, and is instead asking for only as much, as his limitations would allow? Can you see that?

Sex is a window. Organised meditation too, is a window. Every moment in life, is a window. But the ego is scared of free, open, unlimited space. It would have only as much of the sky, as the window would allow. That is why one is so agreeable, to the five seconds of peace that orgasm brings, but one is not agreeable to Samadhi, because Samadhi is infinite peace.

One wants customised Samadhi. One wants temporal Samadhi. One wants Samadhi that can be used and exploited. One wants Samadhi, that would not be a total and final dissolution. One wants Samadhi, that one can be on the top of. And that is why, one never gets Samadhi.

And that is why, that which is so easily available, and one’s innate nature, remains elusive.


Excerpts from a ‘Shabd-Yoga’ session. Edited for clarity.

Watch the session:  Acharya Prashant on J. Krishnamurti: The ego uses both sex and meditation as an escape


Editor’s Note: To receive regular updates on WhatsApp regarding wisdom articles by Acharya Ji and to get an opportunity to connect to him directly, click here


Donate via PayPal:

(In multiples of $10)

$10.00

Books by the Speaker are available at:

Amazonhttp://tinyurl.com/Acharya-Prashant

Flipkarthttps://goo.gl/fS0zHf

What stops you from being your true self?

To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here.

What stops you from being yourself

Question: Acharya Ji, I feel there are certain things in me, which I am not able to trace out or figure out. There is some shame, or something else, which does not allow me, to be what I am.

How to overcome that?

Acharya Prashant Ji: You see, you are what you are. That can neither be disputed, nor changed, nor challenged. There is no threat ever, to who you are. Never! Your deepest identity is safe, secure, inviolable. But ‘you’ – the ‘person’, the ‘woman’, the ‘lady’, has an unfortunate power. And that power is bestowed on each one of us. What is that power? That power is – to not to take refuge in your real identity. The power is to choose something else except the – Real One.

And that’s the only shame. Call it ‘shame’, call it ‘suffering’. Call it whatever! You can use any of those so-called negative words.

Any concept you believe in, will take you away from what you really are!

The leaf cannot have a concept about the roots. The leaf has to just look at it’s leaf-ness. The leaf has to look at the life juice flowing in its veins. And that’s the blessing of the roots and also the proof of the roots. The sap in the leaf is both – the blessing of the roots and the proof of the roots.

But instead, the leaf decides to apply memory, and knowledge, and intellect, to have a model framework about the roots. Then the leaf would burden itself, and grow pale very soon.

Getting it?

Drop your concepts. You don’t need any concepts. Your being, your physical being, your psychological being, itself is the proof of the great Truth. Beyond that you don’t need any concept.

A silent mind, is the final proof of Divinity.

Why do you want to rush the mind here and there, to search for Divinity?

Look at the foolishness, the contradiction. Where lies the proof of Divinity? In the Silent Mind. So, if the mind is silent, Divinity is already proven.

A silent mind itself is the great self, the Atman.

But the mind says, “I will wander, and rush, and explore, and figure out, and find, and search.” And what not. And in doing all that, it has gone….away from Divinity. And that is such a tragic thing to happen- tragic and amusing, both. Amusing and bemusing. In searching for yourself, you…..go away from yourself.

The more concepts you have about Holiness, the more you will find yourself starved of Holiness.

Holiness is not a concept.

Don’t try to live in paradigms.

If you live in paradigms, you will lose out on paradise.

There was this man. He had a fight with his woman. So, he won’t talk to her. He won’t talk to her. But you look at his mobile phone, and you see two things. One, a lot of disconnected calls. She would call him, and he would not receive the calls. Secondly, the screen saver was the face of the beloved.

That’s how we live.

When He calls, we choose not to….receive the call. And to compensate for His real presence, what do we do? We keep His photo on the mobile screen. Those photos are the concepts that we carry about God! The mobile is not there to look at his photo, the mobile is there to receive his calls, when he calls. Here, I am talking of mind, the mobile.

Mind is troubled when it has to receive the call, but it finds security in keeping his image, His photo. Don’t receive his calls, but keep His…..image. Use your mobile as a spiritual reminder. Receive the call, don’t keep thinking about it.

The image will never be, even a patch on what He actually is.

Drop the images!

————————————————————————————————————–

Excerpts from a ‘Shabd-Yoga’ session. Edited for clarity.

Watch the session: Acharya Prashant: What stops you from being your true self?

To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here.

Donate via PayPal:

(In multiples of $10)

$10.00

Acharya Prashant, with students: How to have confidence in oneself?

T19

(To receive regular updates on WhatsApp regarding wisdom articles by Acharya Ji and to get an opportunity to connect to him directly, click here)


Question: I don’t have confidence in myself. How to gain it?

Acharya Prashant: The question comes from an extreme – “I do not have confidence in myself.” But surely, this question addresses a pain that all experience in varying degrees, on various occasions.

There is nobody who does not feel short of confidence at one point or another. There are many, who keep feeling perpetually short. There are others, who feel confident most of the time, but find that their confidence is deserting them often when they need it.

You say you want ‘confidence’ in yourself. You want confidence in yourself only when you are in doubt. When things are just flowing smoothly, is there need for confidence? When there is no fear, is there need for confidence?

Confidence is a medicine.

Confidence is not your natural state.

Just as, medicine is not health. When you feel sick, then you ask for medicine and the role of medicine should be to make itself unnecessary. You do not want to have a medicine that you will perpetually need. What you must rather perpetually have, is a normal and ordinary state of health. What you must normally have is a state of fearlessness, in which confidence is not needed at all.

If you are requiring confidence, it means that something has already gone wrong.

Now, do you want to cover up what has gone wrong? Or do you want to directly address what has gone wrong? Because if the wrong stays wrong, then you will keep on needing confidence more and more, and more frequently.

When you are addressing your friends, do you require confidence? No! But when you are making a public presentation, then you require confidence. Do you notice that? When you are with your family members, do you require confidence? Hardly ever! But when you are in front of an interviewer, then you say that you require confidence.

Read more

Acharya Prashant on Khalil Gibran: You know your real face, and your real home?

(To receive regular updates on WhatsApp regarding wisdom articles by Acharya Ji and to get an opporunity to connect to him directly, click here.)

“Your life, my friend,

is a residence far away from any other

residence and neighbours.

Your inner soul is a home far away from

other homes named after you.

If this residence is dark,

you cannot light it with your neighbour’s lamp;

If it is empty you cannot fill it

with the riches of your neighbour;

Were it in the middle of a desert, you could not move it to a

garden planted by someone else…

Your inner soul, my friend,

is surrounded with solitude and seclusion.

Were it not for this solitude and this seclusion

you would not be you and I would not be I.

If it were not for that solitude and seclusion,

I would, if I heard your voice, think myself to be speaking;

Yet, if I saw your face, I would imagine that I were looking into a mirror.”

~ Khalil Gibran

Acharya Prashant: Poets have a way, of presenting the Truth. The way helps. The way is beautiful. But as happens with all ways to the Truth, the way itself is a bit of a hindrance to the destination.

What Khalil Gibran is saying here, is essentially very straightforward. The inner seclusion and solitude that he is talking of, is nothing, but your calm, peaceful, silent, immovable, center.

Seated at that center, with the calmness, the immovability, of the center, vested in the mind as well; the mind gains intelligence, the mind gains discretion.

Read more

You are a man of patterns

You are a man of mind. You are a man of reactions. You are a man of patterns. Who wants to talk to such a man?

An ordinary man in the name of learning from failures, Just tries to react differently. The second time a similar situation arises. And this he labels as learning from failure.

Zen is your essential core that reacts not, that it’s his own master. Has it’s own way of living.

Two or three years are needed so that all the pre-existing answers get clear. Not that the new answer is needed but the old answer need to go.



Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Zen: Have you any God?


 

Acharya Prashant on Zen: Have you any God?

Acharya Prashant: Joshu went to Hermit and asked, “What’s up? What’s up?” The Hermit lifted up his fist and Joshu said, “Water is too shallow to enter here and went away”. Joshu visited the Hermit once again, a few days later and said, “What’s up? What’s up?” The Hermit raised his fist again then Joshu said, “Well given, well taken, well killed, well saved” and he bowed to the Hermit.

A few things Right-living, Wisdom, Spirituality, Zen are all about a non-reactionary way of living. A non-reactionary way of living. So, Joshu asks the hermit, “What’s up?” He isn’t parlance as indicated. It means, “Have you any Zen?” Now, Zen is not an object. Zen is not a part of ‘duality.’ The answer to the question that asks, Have you any Zen, can neither be ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ as such. When Hermit raises his fist. It is inferior to remain in silent. It comes across as a reaction to Joshu’s question.

The situation become such that Joshu’s question becomes actually a provocations, a stimulus to which the Hermit reacts this is not really the way of Zen. The question demanded no answer. The question demanded rather the stillness of Zen or the silence of Zen. The question, “Have you any Zen?” is aching to the questions — “Are you God? Is the universe same as or different from it’s source? Are you in God or God is in you? Have you any Zen? Have you any God? Have you the Truth? Have you Love?” All these are questions in the same dimensions. To such questions ordinary answers don’t suffice.

So, upon seeing the response of the Hermit, upon seeing the raised fist of Hermit. Joshu says, “The water is to shallow to enter here.” Zen is still an intellectual thing for you, ‘shallow.’ It is not yet reached your depth. Zen has not yet reached your depth. It has still not yet penetrated your heart. No point talking to you.

You are a man of mind.

You are a man of reactions.

You are a man of patterns.

Who wants to talk to such a man?

Joshu walks away. Who wants to talk to a monk? For whom, Zen is a matter of questions and answers. Then comes another day, Joshu goes to the same Hermit and asks the same questions.

Now, see what happens. The first time the Hermit has had an experience. The experience say that when somebody asks you about Zen and you respond by raising your fist, you get an insulting answer and the questioner walks away. That is what the experience of Hermit has been, right?

In one situation, the Hermit has given one particular answer and that answer has ostensibly not sufficed. The questioner has walked away dissatisfied. Not only has he walks away dissatisfied. He has blatantly on the face of the Hermit said, “The water is to shallow here.” Now, what would an ordinary man do then when faced with the similar situation again?

Read more

The destination of all the words is Silence.

Words will always belong to the mental realm, to the path. What is beyond the path? The destination. Whatever is being said is being said so that you can be close to the destination. Words are for the sake of Silence if they are arising from silence. Words arising from the Silence are for the sake of Silence. Be directly established in the Silence.

You take a shortcut. You take a direct path. When you cannot comprehend the words, just know that the destination of all the words is Silence. So you directly go there. Why take the circuitous route? Words are like that mischievous tourist guide who wants to inflate his billing, so he will take you by the longest route possible. And in taking you through the longest route, he’s assuring you of his own importance, “You see, it was such a torturous route. You would’ve lost your way. Good that you hired me. See now I am navigating you through all this maze.” This is what words do.

Read more

One must be prepared to modify his conclusions all the time.

Just as all things come and go, conclusions also come and go. One looks at a room from a keyhole, and one gets a little, finite, contained glimpse. And one has a tendency to conclude because conclusion has an assurance of security, conclusion helps one believe that he knows. So, one wants to conclude quickly because one does not want to remain in uncertainty. But, the moment the keyhole widens, the moment you get another opportunity to have a relook at the room, you find that what you had been concluding, needs to be modified, or even totally changed.

So, like everything that rises and falls in the mind, conclusions also rise and fall. Now, how can one take his conclusions seriously?

Conclusions have a way of popping up and one must not suppress the mind’s tendency to conclude. At the same time, one must not be identified with the conclusions. Let the conclusions be there as some sort of a temporary phenomenon. Waves keep on rising and falling. Conclusions too must keep on coming and going. One must not have a permanent association with any particular conclusion. One must be prepared to modify his conclusions all the time. And that can happen only when you know the flimsiness of all the conclusions and all mental knowledge.

Just see that and when the conclusions come to you, then use them as a temporary method, as a temporary utility.



Read the complete article: Honest Observation is detachment itself

Honest Observation is detachment itself

BFB1Question: Acharya Ji, how does one look at this life, observe himself and yet not get involved with that which he is observing?

Acharya Prashant: If one is really observing, then the distance is natural. When you will observe your life, what will you see? You will see that everything that appears so important today is no more important tomorrow. You will see that nothing stays. Coming and going is the nature of all things. If you are honest in your observation, you will also see that there is nothing called a permanent self.

The one who was looking at things five years back, or two years back, or even two weeks or two hours back, is no more the one who is looking at things right now. And when you will see all this, when there will be honesty in observation, then obviously it will become very difficult for you to forcibly maintain a stickiness with the objects of observation. Read more

Going beyond words

BFB1

L: What is beyond the words?

AP: Words will always belong to the mental realm, to the path. What is beyond the path? The destination. Whatever is being said is being said so that you can be close to the destination. Words are for the sake of Silence if they are arising from silence. Words arising from the Silence are for the sake of Silence. Be directly established in the Silence.

You take a shortcut. You take a direct path. When you cannot comprehend the words, just know that the destination of all the words is Silence. So you directly go there. Why take the circuitous route? Words are like that mischievous tourist guide who wants to inflate his billing, so he will take you by the longest route possible. And in taking you through the longest route, he’s assuring you of his own importance, “You see, it was such a torturous route. You would’ve lost your way. Good that you hired me. See now I am navigating you through all this maze.” This is what words do.

Read more

Ego is like a continuous uninterrupted thirst, pining for disappearance

That, which you see appearing as sex after a particular age until a particular age, is nothing but the fundamental drive of the ego expressing itself. In a human being, the ego is very closely associated with the body. When the child is small, the chief concern of the body is just nourishment and security. So, the body seeks the mother, and when the body is seeking of mother, the ‘I’ tendency attached to the body which is actually the real seeker, is just trying to gain total fulfillment through the mother. The hope is not answered. The hope that mother will prove to be the one who brings total contentment proves futile.

Intimacy with the mothers brings deep joy to the kid, but only for a while. The kid also discovers that the intimacy is not unconditional. The kid discovers that the mother may sometimes ignore him that another baby may come and affection may get a little divided. The kid also discovers that the relation really does not have perfect understanding. There is still distance. There is still confusion, conflict.

Even if of a small magnitude, yet it is still there.

The child moves ahead. The ego now must find another means to the ultimate. The child now places his hopes upon looking at the world, gaining a relationship with the world, using the world as a playground. But, new discoveries, new relationships, fun, frolic, all kinds of sports and games, they also only partially and intermittently relieves his misery. He finds that it is great fun to be adventurous, to know what this world is all about. He finds that the great fun to make new friends and keep playing with them. Mischief, naughtiness – all have their own attraction. But none of them comes even close to the total, absolute, perfect, unconditional bliss that the ego is looking for.

This attempt, the second attempt too fails. The mother fails, the world fails, the friends also proved to be failing. Fun and frolic prove no good either. Now, the age of puberty arrives. Another door opens for the kid. His search for the total, his search for peace, his search to go into the most relaxing lap, his search for security, now is able to find another expression.

All this while, what has remained unchanged is the ego’s search, longing for peace, for settlement. The ego is like a continuous uninterrupted thirst, pining for disappearance. That is a permanent background. In the foreground is the theater, the podium of all human activity.

In the foreground, actions keep happening, characters keep changing. There are differences. Sometimes there is light on stage, sometimes there is shade, sometimes characters are weeping, sometimes they are laughing, somebody is making an entry, somebody has just found an exit. People are getting related, people are getting separated. All this is happening in the foreground of life.



Read the complete article: What is the energy behind sex?

You must be a temple dweller, who acts as the householder also

Your observations in the world, will never, never bring you to the Truth. Forget about the Truth, your observations will not even reveal the facts to you, if you do not start off with a clear mind.

I do not know who said it, but he said it beautifully, “We are not material beings, having spiritual experiences. We are spiritual beings having material experiences.”

That sums it up. You are both. The difference lies in seeing what you fundamentally are, what is the core and what is the gloss, what is the Truth and what is the manifestation of the Truth. You are both. But you must figure out, what you principally, primarily, fundamentally are.

You are not a Householder who can sometimes go to the temple. You must be a temple dweller, who acts as the householder also.

The worldly man says, “I live in a house and sometimes I go to the temple. The wise man says, “I live in the temple and acts sometimes as if I am a householder.” The worldly man gets neither the house, his house is full of stress and strife. Neither does he get the temple, as his temple is fake. The wise man gets both – the temple and the house. His temple is his house, his house is his temple.

And that gives you a hint. Is your temple, away from your house? Then you would be suffering, both in the house and in the temple. Then both are fake.

And this is one of the deepest errors that mankind has made. It has made temples, churches, and mosques, as separate and special places. Till the time, there is a house, there is a workplace, there is a marketplace and there is a temple; there would be confusion, separation, frustration and suffering in the house, workplace and marketplace, and in the temple. These two must be one. For the wise man, these two cannot be separate. And when these two are one, the wise man says, “I belong to the temple, which is also my house. He will not say that my house is my temple.

He knows that, fundamentally, he is ‘of the temple’. He is acting as if he is in the house. Not that he does not take up house related work, he does. But if you will ask him what is your primary identity, he will say “I am a temple dweller. He will not say I am a householder.” Though, I am repeating, though his temple and house are one. He could have easily said, that I am a householder and my house is my temple. No. He would say, “I am a temple dweller and the temple is also my house.”

And this creates all the difference.

What is your primary identity?

“Who are you?” That question must be rightly answered.

Who are you?



Read the complete Article: Begin in Truth, and roam about in the world

What is the energy behind sex?

gen 1The fundamental energy of sex is man himself, mind himself. There is the source, the core, then there is the ‘I’ tendency, and then there are the various forms that the ‘I’ tendency takes. Whatever be the form that the ‘I’ tendency takes, the form is utilized for the fundamental purpose of the ‘I’ tendency.

The ‘I’, the ego, has just one purpose, to satiate itself, to come to a completion. The ‘I’ is like a burning mass. It’s a thirsty unit. It wants to somehow quench itself. That is one thing.

Second thing is, the ‘I’ knows only one way of satiating itself, that is, through association with objects. The ego tendency, the ‘I’, believes that the route to fulfillment passes through the world, through objects. So, it keeps on getting associated with one object after the other in order to get fulfilled. The objects keep varying, the tendency does not vary. The objects keep varying, the intention of the ego does not vary. The intention is the same. The intention is to gain total fulfillment through the object. The intention is to use the objects as a means to come to the ultimate, to come to closure. Read more

Begin in Truth, and roam about in the world

BFB1

“Do your duties in the world and also fix your mind on the Lotus feet of the Lord”

“You are like ‘Elder, the pumpkin cutter’. You are neither a man of the world nor a devotee of God”

~The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

Acharya Prashant: We are referring to a man. A man is, flesh and blood. And a man is consciousness. You could say that on one end of man’s consciousness, lies flesh and blood, and on the other end, lies real living, realization, understanding, ecstasy, love. And man is both, rolled into one. On the end where man is flesh and blood, there is a primitive spell of conditioning. At the end, where man is realization and understanding, there is complete freedom – Freedom from conditioning and Freedom Absolute.

Man will always think and feel that he is one of these two ends and the other end will be a function of what he thinks and feels about himself. For example, if you deeply feel that you are flesh and blood, then you would still experience a void in your life. A general sense of dissatisfaction will be there. There would be something, that the mind would ask for, would chase. This, that the mind would ask for, this that the mind would chase, would be the God of this flesh and blood man. But because he has already thought of himself as flesh and blood, so this God too will be just flesh and blood. And sometimes, this, that he is chasing, he won’t even call it God.

Read more

It is that silence that is most lovable

Higher than the body’s consciousness & higher than consciousness is the relaxation of consciousness. Those who love body must discover that they actually love consciousness and those who are in love with consciousness and to be in love with consciousness means to be in love with the mind. And those who love consciousness must discover what they actually love is deep stillness, a silence behind consciousness.

Finally, it is that silence that is the most lovable. Finally it is that silence that enamors you. You are madly in love with that final stillness but because you are not penetrative enough so you keep thinking that you are in love with a superficial body. If you’ll look at it closely it will be easy to discover that it is not the body that you love and if you love thoughts, intellect, consciousness then too you must be little penetrative & you will find that it is not even somebody’s intellect, or thoughts, or sharpness or mental agility that you love, it is only his stillness you are crazily in love with.

That stillness, that silence is the finality. Body is alright as long as it is a manifestation of consciousness. As long as you love the body because the body is a physical manifestation of the mind it is alright. The body is lovable if you can see that body is nothing but the mind in expansion, the mind as material, then body is lovable. And the mind is lovable as long as you can see the mind is nothing but the center, the stillness, the silence in expression, in manifestation. The mind is an expression of the source & the body is the expression of the mind, then the mind & the body both are lovable.

When you are in love with the source then the mind is lovely and when the mind is lovely, the body is lovely. But if you are a body lover without knowing consciousness then life is hell and if you are a mind lover without knowing the base, the source of mind then again life is hell.

The body is sacred when it is an expression of the mind, when it is understood as an expression of the mind. And the mind is sacred when the mind is an expansion, a manifestation of the center of stillness, of silence, of nothingness. Starting from the start, everything is wonderful but if you are crazy after the fruit with no reverence for the root then the life is hell.



Read the complete article: How to really love a human being?

How to really love a human being?

21125331_1485233508231414_8341813784503617778_oQuestioner: “Acharya Ji, if to love a human being, as Osho says, has become an utter hell, then whom to love?”

Acharya Prashant: If to love a human being, as Osho says, has become an utter hell then whom to love? What do you mean by loving a human being? All of us are human beings here. Would you love any of these so called human beings if they are dead? Suppose the people here are freshly dead, just five seconds back they give up the ghost, would you love them? Why not? The body is still warm, they look exactly the same as they looked while they were alive, they are wearing the clothes, they are not stinking and if they are stinking they are stinking only as much as they always do. Nothing has changed in the body, why won’t you love them? Why do you go and bury or burn even your loved ones, the moment they are dead? Why? Read more

The right relationship tells you about yourself

BFB1

 

Question: Acharya Ji, J.Krishnamurti says, “In a right relationship, you come to know yourself.” Please explain.

Acharya Prashant: The question is, Krishnamurti says, “In the right relationship, you come to know yourself.” So, how does one know himself?

That which you have quoted, is in itself the solution. He is saying, “You know yourself in relationship.” What is it meant, when it is said that you know yourself in a relationship?

We always exist as somebody related to something. You take away everything outside of yourself, and it will become impossible for you, to say even one sentence about yourself. Everything and anything that we utter about ourselves is related to the world. And the world is supposedly, outside of yourself, is it not? Read more

Our moodiness is just our deep dependency, deep slavery.

Our moodiness is just our deep dependency, deep slavery. But there is another way of living. Want to know of that? That is, when whatever is happening, is happening only on the surface. Deep within myself, I find a point that no external situation can touch. A very deep, silent and composed point.

So you tell me a joke, I laugh. I laugh but that point within me will remain untouched. A very sad event has taken place, I will cry. I will cry but that point in me will not cry. That will remain stable, uninvolved, a non – participant. Then it is alright. If you can have that point within you which — in no situation, no happening, no voice, no sight — nothing can touch, then it is alright.

I am running very hard, the situation demands that I run very hard. But that point remains still stable. I am not nervous. There is a great danger. Let’s say, a great physical danger. I am doing everything I can in the face of that danger but still that point within me is not afraid, not at all afraid. Then you are not a slave. Then you are really free. Whatever happens, happens on surface. My core is untouched. That core remaining untouched, is the freedom of life.