按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
and they began petting it with a totally different attitude once it was perceived that the dog was owned by the boss。
this is the way we all live。
as long as the mind exists； we shall continue to live like this。
so what i am saying is that sadhana
what is sadhana； spiritual discipline really？ sadhana means being free from this mind。
but once you have bee free； of what use will the sadhana be？ you will need to bury it along with your mind。
you will have to let go of the spiritual discipline as well； along with the mind。
you will have to tell your mind； 〃take this sadhana with you。
i was following it because of you。
now that you are leaving； kindly take this sadhana with you too！〃
when a person is free from both the mind and the sadhana； free from the disease as well as the cure
remember； if one is free from the illness alone but still continues the cure then one is not really free。
very often the illness does not prove to be as dangerous as getting hooked on the cure。
it feels rather easy getting rid of illness because the illness is painful。
one feels good about going through the cure； hence one never wants to drop it。
but does that make the cure something worth hanging on to？
a cure is desirable indeed for a man who is ill； but what meaning can it have for a person who is healthy？ for a healthy person； a cure is totally worthless。
since you are so determined to embrace illness； you are forced to accept the cure too。
but if you stop insisting on falling sick； the cure will bee totally meaningless。
the illness and the cure belong to the same plane； there is no difference between the two。
there cannot be； otherwise they would cease to function。
the cure exists on the same plane as the illness： the germs present in the drugs are opposite to the germs that cause illness。
it is true that the disease and the cure stand with their backs to each other； however； the plane on which they exist is the same。
i am not only talking against the disease； i am talking against the cure as well； because my experience is that； for the last thousands of years； a great deal has been said against the disease。
consequently； although people got rid of the disease； they latched on to the cure。
those who got attached to the cure turned out to be even more dangerous than the ones who were ill。
hence； both things need to be considered。
the illness and the cure both need to be dropped。
mind and meditation both have to be given up。
samsara and religion are both to be renounced。
one needs to arrive at a point where nothing is left …… either to hold on to or to drop。
then； only that which is； remains。
so when i talk about all these techniques …… whether it is about kundalini； chakras； the seven bodies …… they are all part of a dream。
the fact is； you are already dreaming； and you wont be able to e out of it until you have rightly understood what the dream is all about。
it is necessary we have a right understanding of the dream in order to e out of it。
a dream； a lie； has its own existence too。
it has its own place in this world； and there are means to get rid of it。
but ultimately； both are worth giving up。
hence i say to you； both are false； the samsara as well as the sadhana。
if i were to say one of them is true； how will you drop it？ then you will hold fast to it。
〃how can truth be dropped？ truth has to be embraced；〃 you might say。
so you may not hold on to anything； so you may not have any clinging； so you may not bee subject to any plexes； so you may not bee attached； i say to you： neither the samsara is true nor is the sadhana。
the falsity of sadhana is for the purpose of negating the untruth of samsara。
when both falsehoods attain parity and neutralize each other； then what remains is the truth。
that truth is neither of this world； the samsara； nor of the sadhana。
that truth is outside of both； or before both； or beyond both； or transcending both。
it exists when both are not。
thats why i am talking about a third type of man who is neither worldly nor a renunciate。
when somebody asks me； 〃are you a sannyasin？〃 i find myself in great difficulty； because if i say i am a sannyasin； i see myself caught in the same duality which exists between a worldly man and a monk。
similarly； when someone asks； 〃are you a worldly man？〃 then too i face the same difficulty； because if i say i am a worldly man； i once again find myself facing the duality that exists between a worldly man and a renunciate。
so either i should say i am both simultaneously …… which is meaningless
。
because if； at the same time； i am worldly and a renunciate both then the whole meaning is lost。
the meaning existed because of the duality： the meaning was in the dichotomy。
leaving the world meant being a sannyasin； not accepting the life of a renunciate meant being a worldly man。
so if i say i am both； the words lose their meaning。
the same difficulty arises if i say i am not both； because we have no idea there is something beyond the two； that there can be a third。
people say； 〃either you belong here； or there。
either affirm that you are alive； or admit that you are dead。
how can you say both are not true？ that wont be acceptable。
〃
the only way we live is by dividing things into two …… either this or that。
we either see darkness or light …… there is no room in our lives for dusk； which is neither。
grey has no place in our lives。
we divide things either into black or white； while the reality consists mostly of grey。
when grey bees a little dense it turns into darkness； when it bees sparse it turns into white …… but there is no room for grey。
either you have a friend or an enemy …… there is no third place in between。
as a matter of fact； the third place is the really true place …… but it has no room in our language； our way of thinking； our way of life。
suppose you were to ask me； 〃are you my friend； or an enemy？〃 if i answer； 〃i am both；〃 you will have difficulty in following me。
how could i be both？ if i say i am neither； even then it turns out to be meaningless； because my answer carries