Those mortals who ever follow this, my teaching।
Faithful and free of fault-finding, they are released even from works।। 31।।
But those who, carping at this, do not abide by my counsel।
Know them—bewildered in all knowledge—lost, devoid of understanding।। 32।।
Each acts according to his own nature—even the man of wisdom।
Beings go to their nature; what can restraint accomplish।। 33।।
Geeta Darshan #8
Available in:
Read in Original Hindi (मूल हिन्दी)
Sutra (Original)
ये मे मतमिदं नित्यमनुतिष्ठन्ति मानवाः।
श्रद्धावन्तोऽनसूयन्तो मुच्यन्तेऽपिकर्मभिः।। 31।।
ये त्वेतदभ्यसूयन्तो नानुतिष्ठन्ति मे मतम्।
सर्व ज्ञानविमूढांस्तान्विद्धि नष्टानचेतसः।। 32।।
सदृशं चेष्टते स्वस्याः प्रकृतेर्ज्ञानवानपि।
प्रकृतिं यान्ति भूतानि निग्रहः किं करिष्यति।। 33।।
श्रद्धावन्तोऽनसूयन्तो मुच्यन्तेऽपिकर्मभिः।। 31।।
ये त्वेतदभ्यसूयन्तो नानुतिष्ठन्ति मे मतम्।
सर्व ज्ञानविमूढांस्तान्विद्धि नष्टानचेतसः।। 32।।
सदृशं चेष्टते स्वस्याः प्रकृतेर्ज्ञानवानपि।
प्रकृतिं यान्ति भूतानि निग्रहः किं करिष्यति।। 33।।
Transliteration:
ye me matamidaṃ nityamanutiṣṭhanti mānavāḥ|
śraddhāvanto'nasūyanto mucyante'pikarmabhiḥ|| 31||
ye tvetadabhyasūyanto nānutiṣṭhanti me matam|
sarva jñānavimūḍhāṃstānviddhi naṣṭānacetasaḥ|| 32||
sadṛśaṃ ceṣṭate svasyāḥ prakṛterjñānavānapi|
prakṛtiṃ yānti bhūtāni nigrahaḥ kiṃ kariṣyati|| 33||
ye me matamidaṃ nityamanutiṣṭhanti mānavāḥ|
śraddhāvanto'nasūyanto mucyante'pikarmabhiḥ|| 31||
ye tvetadabhyasūyanto nānutiṣṭhanti me matam|
sarva jñānavimūḍhāṃstānviddhi naṣṭānacetasaḥ|| 32||
sadṛśaṃ ceṣṭate svasyāḥ prakṛterjñānavānapi|
prakṛtiṃ yānti bhūtāni nigrahaḥ kiṃ kariṣyati|| 33||
Translation (Meaning)
Questions in this Discourse
Osho, the last verse says: all beings follow nature—that is, they act compelled by their own disposition. Even the wise act according to their nature; then what can anyone’s stubbornness do in this? Please clarify this meaning as well.
Krishna is preparing Arjuna for surrender. That is the master key: the point where one lets go of oneself and discovers the divine. So he is saying, for the sake of that surrender, that everyone acts under the sway of the qualities of nature—both the wise and the ignorant. And no one’s stubbornness can change this. Just as the ignorant die, the wise also die—and no one’s obstinacy can do anything about it. It is the very property of the body that whoever is born will die. In fact, the day one is born, dying has already begun. Whatever has one end has the other end too. On one side is birth; on the other, death. The wise die, the ignorant die. And if someone insists, “I will not die,” he is insane. Nothing is achieved by stubbornness.
But a question can arise: if the wise die and the ignorant die; if both live under compulsion and act under nature’s sway—then what is the difference between them?
There is a difference—and a great one. The ignorant live by stubbornly fighting the qualities of nature. They lose, yet they keep fighting. The wise, knowing that nature’s qualities are at work, do not fight—so they do not lose—and they live in witnessing. Both face death, wise and ignorant alike. The ignorant die trying to resist, “I will not die.” The wise open their arms and embrace death, knowing it is natural. Therefore the ignorant suffers the pain of dying; the wise suffers no pain in dying. The ignorant dies frightened, trembling; the wise, thrilled with joy, enters a new doorway into new life. Both die.
According to the order and qualities of nature, the same occurrences happen in both lives. The ignorant become young through the qualities of nature; the wise become young as well. The ignorant assumes, “I am young,” while the wise knows, “Youth is a phase, a stage on the journey—it comes and goes.” Then, when youth fades, the ignorant becomes unhappy, tormented, disturbed. The wise—when it fades—moves on, just as the sun sets in the evening and youth sets as well.
The only difference between the wise and the ignorant is this: the ignorant exhaust themselves by fighting even what is inevitably going to happen. The wise accept what is inevitably going to happen, and so they are not troubled. Nature’s qualities work the same on both; that makes no difference. Nature does not look to see who is wise and who is ignorant—nature has its own functioning, its own order, its own journey of qualities. Nature goes on just the same; the question of it “considering” someone does not arise.
Krishna says this to show that stubbornness is futile. Why is he saying it to Arjuna? Because Arjuna is taking a stubborn stand. He says, “I will abandon this warrior’s role; I will flee. I will stop the war. I will not do this. I will not kill people.” Krishna says: the one who must die will die; your insistence that “I will not kill,” or “I will kill”—both are stubbornness. The one who dies, dies; the one who does not die, does not die.
Krishna’s arithmetic is very clear. He says: do not indulge in useless stubbornness. Become just an instrument in this play, and let what descends from the divine happen. And let what happens through nature happen. Do not come in between; do not bring yourself in.
That is the only difference between the wise and the ignorant. The events are the same; the attitude changes, the angle of vision changes. Illness comes—the ignorant beat their chest and weep, “Illness has come!” The wise accept, “Illness has come. It is the nature of the body to become ill—otherwise how would it die? How would it grow old?”
The body is a vast institution, a conglomerate, joined by millions of microorganisms. A machine of such magnitude will sometimes malfunction; it will need oiling, repairs—these things will happen. There is no greater machine on this earth right now than the one a human being carries. There is no machine as complex, as intricate, as a human being. You are not some small event. You don’t have to do anything, so you never notice how enormous a machine is working twenty-four hours a day, day and night. From the very day of conception in the mother’s womb, the work began—and it continues until people place you on the funeral pyre. I say “until the pyre” because those whom we bury—the machine keeps working for many days even after burial. The soul has departed. Even the nails of the dead grow, the hair grows in the grave. The machine keeps working; it has momentum.
Like someone riding a bicycle who stops pedaling twenty steps before home—the bicycle still rolls on. Even if the rider jumps off, the bicycle keeps going ten or twenty steps. Momentum—the force of previous motion—carries it on. The dead in their graves grow nails and hair; the machine keeps functioning. It doesn’t at once realize the master has gone—only gradually does it come to know. That’s why I said, up to the pyre. Until we burn it, the machine keeps working, day and night. It is very automatic, self-operating. It has its own properties; they will keep unfolding.
The ignorant are troubled by everything: “Why did this happen?” And sometimes, even when it doesn’t happen, they are troubled: “Why didn’t it happen?” If it happens, they are upset; if it doesn’t, they are upset.
I have a friend. When he has an asthma attack, he is distressed. And on days when it doesn’t come, he is distressed too. He says to me, “Today the attack didn’t come—what’s the matter?” Even that makes him anxious. The attack has become part of his life’s pattern—if it doesn’t come, he feels uneasy, “Something is wrong.”
If sorrow comes, there is distress; if it doesn’t come, there is distress. If happiness comes, there is distress; if it doesn’t, there is distress. The ignorant know the art of turning everything into trouble—they know stubbornness. Stubbornness is the art of turning life into a problem. If you want to make life a torment, keep insisting in everything: fight whatever happens, and also fight whatever doesn’t happen. Then your whole life will become a burning, an anguish, a hell—and it already has.
Krishna says: there is no substance in this stubbornness, Arjuna. Know this: what happens, happens. Know this: what happens, happens.
The night Jesus was arrested and led to the crucifixion, people warned him at dusk, “You will be seized tonight; it is dangerous—escape.” Jesus said, “What is to happen will happen.” He remained there in the garden of Gethsemane. Later that night his friends said, “There is still time—we can still get away.” Jesus said, “When has anyone ever escaped what is bound to happen?” Then the sound of enemies approached; torches were visible—people were searching for him. His disciples, his friends, said, “Look, in the dark we can see torches—seems they are coming.” Jesus said, “If they are to reach here, the path will surely open for them.”
This—this is the mark of the wise.
Socrates was to be given poison. The court said to him, “Leave Athens and we will release you—we won’t give you poison. Or, stay in Athens but stop speaking the truth, and we will release you and not give you poison.” Socrates said, “I cannot promise anything. If truth is to be spoken, it will be spoken; if it is not to be spoken, it will not be spoken. How can I make a promise for tomorrow? I am not even sure there will be a tomorrow! How can I promise? Arrange your poison. I can make no promises. Who knows what tomorrow will be? Whatever comes, I am willing.”
Then his friends said, “This is not right. We will bribe and get you out of jail at night.” Socrates said, “I am willing. But let me ask you: if my death is to come tomorrow, will you be able to get me out beyond death?” They said, “How can we take you beyond death!” Socrates said, “Then why all this trouble? What is the need for so much anxiety? If I must die—and die I must—what difference do two days make? But why turn me into a thief for two days! Why this needless stubbornness? Fine—if death is coming, let it come.”
Then came the man grinding the poison to give Socrates. The poison was to be given at six, but it was quarter past six. Socrates himself came out and asked, “You’re taking so long!” The man said, “Are you mad? I’m delaying for your sake—so you might live a little longer.” Socrates said, “You are mad. How long can you really keep me alive? If death is to come, fine—let it come while the sun is still up, so I too may see what death is like. You are trying to create darkness.”
This non-stubborn personality is precisely the personality of wisdom.
So Krishna says, do not be stubborn. That is all he is saying. If you are stubborn, you will not be able to surrender. If you are not stubborn, you can surrender. Only the one who does not insist can surrender. The one who insists can never surrender.
But a question can arise: if the wise die and the ignorant die; if both live under compulsion and act under nature’s sway—then what is the difference between them?
There is a difference—and a great one. The ignorant live by stubbornly fighting the qualities of nature. They lose, yet they keep fighting. The wise, knowing that nature’s qualities are at work, do not fight—so they do not lose—and they live in witnessing. Both face death, wise and ignorant alike. The ignorant die trying to resist, “I will not die.” The wise open their arms and embrace death, knowing it is natural. Therefore the ignorant suffers the pain of dying; the wise suffers no pain in dying. The ignorant dies frightened, trembling; the wise, thrilled with joy, enters a new doorway into new life. Both die.
According to the order and qualities of nature, the same occurrences happen in both lives. The ignorant become young through the qualities of nature; the wise become young as well. The ignorant assumes, “I am young,” while the wise knows, “Youth is a phase, a stage on the journey—it comes and goes.” Then, when youth fades, the ignorant becomes unhappy, tormented, disturbed. The wise—when it fades—moves on, just as the sun sets in the evening and youth sets as well.
The only difference between the wise and the ignorant is this: the ignorant exhaust themselves by fighting even what is inevitably going to happen. The wise accept what is inevitably going to happen, and so they are not troubled. Nature’s qualities work the same on both; that makes no difference. Nature does not look to see who is wise and who is ignorant—nature has its own functioning, its own order, its own journey of qualities. Nature goes on just the same; the question of it “considering” someone does not arise.
Krishna says this to show that stubbornness is futile. Why is he saying it to Arjuna? Because Arjuna is taking a stubborn stand. He says, “I will abandon this warrior’s role; I will flee. I will stop the war. I will not do this. I will not kill people.” Krishna says: the one who must die will die; your insistence that “I will not kill,” or “I will kill”—both are stubbornness. The one who dies, dies; the one who does not die, does not die.
Krishna’s arithmetic is very clear. He says: do not indulge in useless stubbornness. Become just an instrument in this play, and let what descends from the divine happen. And let what happens through nature happen. Do not come in between; do not bring yourself in.
That is the only difference between the wise and the ignorant. The events are the same; the attitude changes, the angle of vision changes. Illness comes—the ignorant beat their chest and weep, “Illness has come!” The wise accept, “Illness has come. It is the nature of the body to become ill—otherwise how would it die? How would it grow old?”
The body is a vast institution, a conglomerate, joined by millions of microorganisms. A machine of such magnitude will sometimes malfunction; it will need oiling, repairs—these things will happen. There is no greater machine on this earth right now than the one a human being carries. There is no machine as complex, as intricate, as a human being. You are not some small event. You don’t have to do anything, so you never notice how enormous a machine is working twenty-four hours a day, day and night. From the very day of conception in the mother’s womb, the work began—and it continues until people place you on the funeral pyre. I say “until the pyre” because those whom we bury—the machine keeps working for many days even after burial. The soul has departed. Even the nails of the dead grow, the hair grows in the grave. The machine keeps working; it has momentum.
Like someone riding a bicycle who stops pedaling twenty steps before home—the bicycle still rolls on. Even if the rider jumps off, the bicycle keeps going ten or twenty steps. Momentum—the force of previous motion—carries it on. The dead in their graves grow nails and hair; the machine keeps functioning. It doesn’t at once realize the master has gone—only gradually does it come to know. That’s why I said, up to the pyre. Until we burn it, the machine keeps working, day and night. It is very automatic, self-operating. It has its own properties; they will keep unfolding.
The ignorant are troubled by everything: “Why did this happen?” And sometimes, even when it doesn’t happen, they are troubled: “Why didn’t it happen?” If it happens, they are upset; if it doesn’t, they are upset.
I have a friend. When he has an asthma attack, he is distressed. And on days when it doesn’t come, he is distressed too. He says to me, “Today the attack didn’t come—what’s the matter?” Even that makes him anxious. The attack has become part of his life’s pattern—if it doesn’t come, he feels uneasy, “Something is wrong.”
If sorrow comes, there is distress; if it doesn’t come, there is distress. If happiness comes, there is distress; if it doesn’t, there is distress. The ignorant know the art of turning everything into trouble—they know stubbornness. Stubbornness is the art of turning life into a problem. If you want to make life a torment, keep insisting in everything: fight whatever happens, and also fight whatever doesn’t happen. Then your whole life will become a burning, an anguish, a hell—and it already has.
Krishna says: there is no substance in this stubbornness, Arjuna. Know this: what happens, happens. Know this: what happens, happens.
The night Jesus was arrested and led to the crucifixion, people warned him at dusk, “You will be seized tonight; it is dangerous—escape.” Jesus said, “What is to happen will happen.” He remained there in the garden of Gethsemane. Later that night his friends said, “There is still time—we can still get away.” Jesus said, “When has anyone ever escaped what is bound to happen?” Then the sound of enemies approached; torches were visible—people were searching for him. His disciples, his friends, said, “Look, in the dark we can see torches—seems they are coming.” Jesus said, “If they are to reach here, the path will surely open for them.”
This—this is the mark of the wise.
Socrates was to be given poison. The court said to him, “Leave Athens and we will release you—we won’t give you poison. Or, stay in Athens but stop speaking the truth, and we will release you and not give you poison.” Socrates said, “I cannot promise anything. If truth is to be spoken, it will be spoken; if it is not to be spoken, it will not be spoken. How can I make a promise for tomorrow? I am not even sure there will be a tomorrow! How can I promise? Arrange your poison. I can make no promises. Who knows what tomorrow will be? Whatever comes, I am willing.”
Then his friends said, “This is not right. We will bribe and get you out of jail at night.” Socrates said, “I am willing. But let me ask you: if my death is to come tomorrow, will you be able to get me out beyond death?” They said, “How can we take you beyond death!” Socrates said, “Then why all this trouble? What is the need for so much anxiety? If I must die—and die I must—what difference do two days make? But why turn me into a thief for two days! Why this needless stubbornness? Fine—if death is coming, let it come.”
Then came the man grinding the poison to give Socrates. The poison was to be given at six, but it was quarter past six. Socrates himself came out and asked, “You’re taking so long!” The man said, “Are you mad? I’m delaying for your sake—so you might live a little longer.” Socrates said, “You are mad. How long can you really keep me alive? If death is to come, fine—let it come while the sun is still up, so I too may see what death is like. You are trying to create darkness.”
This non-stubborn personality is precisely the personality of wisdom.
So Krishna says, do not be stubborn. That is all he is saying. If you are stubborn, you will not be able to surrender. If you are not stubborn, you can surrender. Only the one who does not insist can surrender. The one who insists can never surrender.
Osho, a friend asks: The shraddha (faith/trust) that Krishna speaks of—could that also become blind faith? Why did Krishna not use the word vivek (discernment), which seems far more meaningful than shraddha? Please clarify.
Shraddha can never be blind; only belief can be blind. In fact, belief by its very nature is blind belief. Shraddha cannot be blind. There is a reason it cannot be so—there is a reason. Shraddha is the unity of a human being’s whole personality, the oneness of the total being. As I said, an integrated mind is what I call shraddha; a gathered, unified consciousness is shraddha. And if the mind that has gathered into one were still blind, then there would be no remedy for your seeing, because there would be nowhere else left to turn. Shraddha means your consciousness is whole. If even a whole consciousness does not become an eye, what else could ever become an eye?
The more consciousness gathers, the more it becomes an eye. As consciousness collects and abides in yoga, it becomes capable of seeing, capable of darshan. That is why we have called the experience of truth darshan—seeing. When consciousness wakes up fully and becomes one, it becomes a total eye and sees the truth. So we speak of the direct encounter with truth—one actually sees it.
Shraddha can never be blind. If it is blind, know that it is belief. This is the distinction I am making. Belief is blind; disbelief is also blind. Usually people think only belief is blind—we even say “blind belief.” But we don’t usually use the phrase “blind disbelief.” Have you ever considered it? Disbelief too can be blind.
An atheist says, “I don’t accept God.” Is this a seeing, insightful disbelief? Has that atheist known God? Searched? Looked everywhere it could be—and only then says, “There is none”? No. He says, “Since you cannot prove God, we say there is no God.” Even if no one can prove, that does not prove nonexistence; it only proves that existence cannot be proven. Disbelief is blind, and belief is blind. But the one who is neither in belief nor in disbelief gets eyes for the first time.
I sense what you are hinting at—you said the word vivek is higher.
No, not higher. There is a fundamental difference between vivek and shraddha; let me bring it to your attention.
Vivek is an individual event—yours. What you arrive at by your own thinking, enquiry, investigation—that is vivek, your discernment. But shraddha is not your personal event. You investigate, you think and search, and you find that it cannot be found that way; then you surrender yourself into the Divine. In that union of you and the Divine, the experience that happens is shraddha. Vivek depends on the individual; shraddha depends on the whole. Vivek belongs to the drop; shraddha belongs to the ocean. So long as the drop lives on its own strength, there is vivek—if rightly lived, vivek; if wrongly, avivek (non-discrimination). But when the drop stops living on its own, dissolves into the ocean and says, “The ocean’s life is now my life,” then there is shraddha.
Shraddha is vast; vivek is limited. Your limit is the limit of vivek; your limit is not the limit of shraddha. Therefore shraddha is infinite and vivek is finite. In vivek, you are at the center—there can be error, because you are not omniscient. In shraddha there is no possibility of error, because you have left it to the Divine. And if error happens even from the Divine, then there is neither any need nor any point in trying to avoid error—how would you avoid it then?
Vivek can wander; shraddha never wanders. Vivek can miss; shraddha is unfailing. For in the end, vivek is yours, while shraddha is not merely yours. Shraddha means: “By myself it will not happen. My hands do not reach so far as where truth is; my jump cannot span the abyss where the Divine is. By myself it will not be.” The moment this helplessness is truly felt—“I have a limit; by me it cannot happen”—in that very moment shraddha arises. Then we say: “Now you do it. I cannot do it; I cannot walk further—now you walk me; my hands do not work—hold my hand; my feet do not lift—lift them.” The moment a person is utterly exhausted, out of that very exhaustion the shraddha appears that unites one with the vast.
Vivek is not a great word. Understand this: hidden within vivek is thought, very refined thought. Call it the essence of thinking; like perfume distilled from many flowers, the distillate of much thinking is called vivek. But shraddha is without thought. It is not the perfume of any thought, not the fragrance of any flowers. It is not even our experience; it is the recognition of the incapacity of our experience. Therefore shraddha is a much greater word.
Yet I must say this: only the discerning reach shraddha; the undiscerning do not. That is the true use of vivek—as a means. The undiscerning end up in ashraddha (non-trust). The discerning arrive at shraddha. What do I mean? I translate shraddha as trust—simple, easy. I translate ashraddha as non-trust—difficult, complicated—trusting no one; not even the Divine, not even anyone at all; ultimately, not even oneself.
I knew a man who lived opposite our house in my village. He would lock his door, walk ten steps, then return to shake the lock. Then he would go, then look back to see whether anyone had seen him return. Then he would come back again and shake it. One day I was watching from the roof. I saw him return twice; I thought, he will surely return a third time. If trust didn’t arise after two checks, how would it arise after the third? But he saw me too. At the very spot where he always turned back, his feet hesitated. I called out, “Come back.” He said, “It’s only out of fear of you that I’m not returning.” I said, “Come here to me. What is the matter?” He said, “I just don’t feel trust. It seems it may have been left open by mistake! And I’m not even sure whether I did shake it or not!”
By now he had checked so many times that suspicion had become natural. Such a man arrives at total ashraddha. He cannot trust his wife, his son, his friends. He cannot even trust his own hands; he cannot trust his own mind. All his trust is gone. Such an ashraddhavan is dead while living. How did so much non-trust arise? Through avivek—misuse of discernment.
If one man deceives you and you conclude, “Never trust any man,” that is avivek. The truth is: even the man who deceived you today may not deceive tomorrow—people change. But one person deceived you and your trust in all humanity is gone! That is great indiscretion. You stumbled in one place and concluded you will stumble everywhere!
Once, traveling by train, the train stopped long at a station. A beggar came to the window and said, “I’m in great trouble.” I said, “Don’t tell me your trouble, because that will waste both your time and mine. Just tell me what I can do.” He looked at me, suspicious—without telling the trouble, how can he trap someone? When he unloads his tale for five minutes, it becomes hard to refuse. He said, “No, my trouble is…” I said, “Don’t speak of trouble. Tell me what I can do.” He gathered courage and said, “Give me one rupee.” I said, “Take one rupee.” So simple! No need to narrate trouble. He went away very uneasy. He kept looking at the rupee, then back at me, as if to say, “This man doesn’t seem trustworthy. What’s the catch? He didn’t ask anything, didn’t hear my trouble. Usually even after telling the whole story no one gives anything. And this man…!”
Five or seven minutes later he returned. He had taken off his cap. He came to the window again: “I’m in great trouble.” I said, “Don’t start with your trouble. Tell me what I can do.” He looked at me full in the eyes—perhaps I’m mad? He took heart and thought, “It can’t be that he forgot me just because I changed my cap.” He said, with effort, “Give me two rupees.” I said, “Take two rupees.” Again he kept turning back to look at me, then at the money.
Two or three minutes later he came again. He had taken off his coat too. He came to the window. Before he could speak I said, “Don’t begin with your trouble.” He said, “What kind of man are you? I’m the same person—don’t you see?” I said, “I think you don’t see that I am the same person.” He began to hand back the three rupees. I said, “Keep the money. Don’t return it. You take it. You have earned it—you’ve done your full effort.” He set the money down at the door: “I won’t take it.” I asked, “Why?” He said, “The one who showed me such trust—I cannot deceive him like this.”
Let one man deceive us, and we conclude the whole world has deceived us—so we sit guarded against everyone, though we have nothing to protect. This is avivek leading to ashraddha. Gradually non-trust spreads in every direction. Vivek leads to shraddha, slowly trust permeates everything. Avivek brings you to a place where you see nothing but deception; vivek brings you to a place where you see nothing but trust.
So I say: vivek has value, but as a means. Its worth is to carry you to shraddha. But vivek is not greater than shraddha. Shraddha is a deep, profound realization.
There is no greater bliss in this world than to come to a total trust that all is the Divine. No greater ease than the remembrance that all around is my own Self. No greater realization than: all hands are mine, all eyes are mine, all feet are mine. The name of such a sense of oneness is shraddha. The day no “other” is seen anywhere, that very day God is seen. That is what we can call surrender.
Krishna is teaching surrender. If vivek leads you to surrender, that is enough. But vivek itself does not become surrender. It can only point out: “By your own effort you will not attain truth.” That much—negative—work it can do. If even that much is seen, vivek has done its job. Now you can make the leap—there, where supreme shraddha is.
And shraddha has its own eye—but not like the eye of logic; it is like the eye of love. It does not cut and dissect; it does not pierce. Even eyes differ. When someone looks at you with love, that eye is different: it does not slice you open, it does not perform surgery. If there are wounds inside you, it joins them, it applies balm. Love’s eye does not tear, does not analyze; it integrates you, gathers your fragments. But hatred’s eye? Hatred’s eye cuts you into pieces, shreds you.
We have a word, luchcha—used for a rogue. Have you ever thought what it means? Luchcha comes from the Sanskrit lochan—eye. One whose eye goes inside and cuts and carves you—that is a luchcha. His glance works like a knife. So there is no other way to recognize a rogue except by the eye. We also have the word alochak—critic—which too comes from lochan. A critic is one who, with much scrutiny, looks to see what is where.
There are many kinds of eyes. Logic has its eye—science is born of it. Shraddha has its eye—religion is born of it. In the gaze of logic, shraddha may appear blind. In the gaze of shraddha, logic is not only blind but deranged. These are vastly different standpoints from which to view life. Yes, one who has seen only through logic will say shraddha is blind. But one who has seen from the higher peak of shraddha will say logic is deranged.
And remember: no one reaches shraddha who has not passed through logic. But one who has reached shraddha never returns to logic. Therefore the person of shraddha has the experience of both—logic and shraddha; the logician has experience of only logic. And one who knows only one—his word is not very trustworthy. The word of the one who knows both—that is the word to trust.
The more consciousness gathers, the more it becomes an eye. As consciousness collects and abides in yoga, it becomes capable of seeing, capable of darshan. That is why we have called the experience of truth darshan—seeing. When consciousness wakes up fully and becomes one, it becomes a total eye and sees the truth. So we speak of the direct encounter with truth—one actually sees it.
Shraddha can never be blind. If it is blind, know that it is belief. This is the distinction I am making. Belief is blind; disbelief is also blind. Usually people think only belief is blind—we even say “blind belief.” But we don’t usually use the phrase “blind disbelief.” Have you ever considered it? Disbelief too can be blind.
An atheist says, “I don’t accept God.” Is this a seeing, insightful disbelief? Has that atheist known God? Searched? Looked everywhere it could be—and only then says, “There is none”? No. He says, “Since you cannot prove God, we say there is no God.” Even if no one can prove, that does not prove nonexistence; it only proves that existence cannot be proven. Disbelief is blind, and belief is blind. But the one who is neither in belief nor in disbelief gets eyes for the first time.
I sense what you are hinting at—you said the word vivek is higher.
No, not higher. There is a fundamental difference between vivek and shraddha; let me bring it to your attention.
Vivek is an individual event—yours. What you arrive at by your own thinking, enquiry, investigation—that is vivek, your discernment. But shraddha is not your personal event. You investigate, you think and search, and you find that it cannot be found that way; then you surrender yourself into the Divine. In that union of you and the Divine, the experience that happens is shraddha. Vivek depends on the individual; shraddha depends on the whole. Vivek belongs to the drop; shraddha belongs to the ocean. So long as the drop lives on its own strength, there is vivek—if rightly lived, vivek; if wrongly, avivek (non-discrimination). But when the drop stops living on its own, dissolves into the ocean and says, “The ocean’s life is now my life,” then there is shraddha.
Shraddha is vast; vivek is limited. Your limit is the limit of vivek; your limit is not the limit of shraddha. Therefore shraddha is infinite and vivek is finite. In vivek, you are at the center—there can be error, because you are not omniscient. In shraddha there is no possibility of error, because you have left it to the Divine. And if error happens even from the Divine, then there is neither any need nor any point in trying to avoid error—how would you avoid it then?
Vivek can wander; shraddha never wanders. Vivek can miss; shraddha is unfailing. For in the end, vivek is yours, while shraddha is not merely yours. Shraddha means: “By myself it will not happen. My hands do not reach so far as where truth is; my jump cannot span the abyss where the Divine is. By myself it will not be.” The moment this helplessness is truly felt—“I have a limit; by me it cannot happen”—in that very moment shraddha arises. Then we say: “Now you do it. I cannot do it; I cannot walk further—now you walk me; my hands do not work—hold my hand; my feet do not lift—lift them.” The moment a person is utterly exhausted, out of that very exhaustion the shraddha appears that unites one with the vast.
Vivek is not a great word. Understand this: hidden within vivek is thought, very refined thought. Call it the essence of thinking; like perfume distilled from many flowers, the distillate of much thinking is called vivek. But shraddha is without thought. It is not the perfume of any thought, not the fragrance of any flowers. It is not even our experience; it is the recognition of the incapacity of our experience. Therefore shraddha is a much greater word.
Yet I must say this: only the discerning reach shraddha; the undiscerning do not. That is the true use of vivek—as a means. The undiscerning end up in ashraddha (non-trust). The discerning arrive at shraddha. What do I mean? I translate shraddha as trust—simple, easy. I translate ashraddha as non-trust—difficult, complicated—trusting no one; not even the Divine, not even anyone at all; ultimately, not even oneself.
I knew a man who lived opposite our house in my village. He would lock his door, walk ten steps, then return to shake the lock. Then he would go, then look back to see whether anyone had seen him return. Then he would come back again and shake it. One day I was watching from the roof. I saw him return twice; I thought, he will surely return a third time. If trust didn’t arise after two checks, how would it arise after the third? But he saw me too. At the very spot where he always turned back, his feet hesitated. I called out, “Come back.” He said, “It’s only out of fear of you that I’m not returning.” I said, “Come here to me. What is the matter?” He said, “I just don’t feel trust. It seems it may have been left open by mistake! And I’m not even sure whether I did shake it or not!”
By now he had checked so many times that suspicion had become natural. Such a man arrives at total ashraddha. He cannot trust his wife, his son, his friends. He cannot even trust his own hands; he cannot trust his own mind. All his trust is gone. Such an ashraddhavan is dead while living. How did so much non-trust arise? Through avivek—misuse of discernment.
If one man deceives you and you conclude, “Never trust any man,” that is avivek. The truth is: even the man who deceived you today may not deceive tomorrow—people change. But one person deceived you and your trust in all humanity is gone! That is great indiscretion. You stumbled in one place and concluded you will stumble everywhere!
Once, traveling by train, the train stopped long at a station. A beggar came to the window and said, “I’m in great trouble.” I said, “Don’t tell me your trouble, because that will waste both your time and mine. Just tell me what I can do.” He looked at me, suspicious—without telling the trouble, how can he trap someone? When he unloads his tale for five minutes, it becomes hard to refuse. He said, “No, my trouble is…” I said, “Don’t speak of trouble. Tell me what I can do.” He gathered courage and said, “Give me one rupee.” I said, “Take one rupee.” So simple! No need to narrate trouble. He went away very uneasy. He kept looking at the rupee, then back at me, as if to say, “This man doesn’t seem trustworthy. What’s the catch? He didn’t ask anything, didn’t hear my trouble. Usually even after telling the whole story no one gives anything. And this man…!”
Five or seven minutes later he returned. He had taken off his cap. He came to the window again: “I’m in great trouble.” I said, “Don’t start with your trouble. Tell me what I can do.” He looked at me full in the eyes—perhaps I’m mad? He took heart and thought, “It can’t be that he forgot me just because I changed my cap.” He said, with effort, “Give me two rupees.” I said, “Take two rupees.” Again he kept turning back to look at me, then at the money.
Two or three minutes later he came again. He had taken off his coat too. He came to the window. Before he could speak I said, “Don’t begin with your trouble.” He said, “What kind of man are you? I’m the same person—don’t you see?” I said, “I think you don’t see that I am the same person.” He began to hand back the three rupees. I said, “Keep the money. Don’t return it. You take it. You have earned it—you’ve done your full effort.” He set the money down at the door: “I won’t take it.” I asked, “Why?” He said, “The one who showed me such trust—I cannot deceive him like this.”
Let one man deceive us, and we conclude the whole world has deceived us—so we sit guarded against everyone, though we have nothing to protect. This is avivek leading to ashraddha. Gradually non-trust spreads in every direction. Vivek leads to shraddha, slowly trust permeates everything. Avivek brings you to a place where you see nothing but deception; vivek brings you to a place where you see nothing but trust.
So I say: vivek has value, but as a means. Its worth is to carry you to shraddha. But vivek is not greater than shraddha. Shraddha is a deep, profound realization.
There is no greater bliss in this world than to come to a total trust that all is the Divine. No greater ease than the remembrance that all around is my own Self. No greater realization than: all hands are mine, all eyes are mine, all feet are mine. The name of such a sense of oneness is shraddha. The day no “other” is seen anywhere, that very day God is seen. That is what we can call surrender.
Krishna is teaching surrender. If vivek leads you to surrender, that is enough. But vivek itself does not become surrender. It can only point out: “By your own effort you will not attain truth.” That much—negative—work it can do. If even that much is seen, vivek has done its job. Now you can make the leap—there, where supreme shraddha is.
And shraddha has its own eye—but not like the eye of logic; it is like the eye of love. It does not cut and dissect; it does not pierce. Even eyes differ. When someone looks at you with love, that eye is different: it does not slice you open, it does not perform surgery. If there are wounds inside you, it joins them, it applies balm. Love’s eye does not tear, does not analyze; it integrates you, gathers your fragments. But hatred’s eye? Hatred’s eye cuts you into pieces, shreds you.
We have a word, luchcha—used for a rogue. Have you ever thought what it means? Luchcha comes from the Sanskrit lochan—eye. One whose eye goes inside and cuts and carves you—that is a luchcha. His glance works like a knife. So there is no other way to recognize a rogue except by the eye. We also have the word alochak—critic—which too comes from lochan. A critic is one who, with much scrutiny, looks to see what is where.
There are many kinds of eyes. Logic has its eye—science is born of it. Shraddha has its eye—religion is born of it. In the gaze of logic, shraddha may appear blind. In the gaze of shraddha, logic is not only blind but deranged. These are vastly different standpoints from which to view life. Yes, one who has seen only through logic will say shraddha is blind. But one who has seen from the higher peak of shraddha will say logic is deranged.
And remember: no one reaches shraddha who has not passed through logic. But one who has reached shraddha never returns to logic. Therefore the person of shraddha has the experience of both—logic and shraddha; the logician has experience of only logic. And one who knows only one—his word is not very trustworthy. The word of the one who knows both—that is the word to trust.
Osho, before we go to the next verse, one small question. In verse thirty Krishna tells Arjuna: “With spiritual consciousness, dedicating all actions to me, fight.” Please clarify again the meaning of “adhyatma chetasa hokar”—being of spiritual consciousness.
A human being can have three kinds of consciousness—three types of consciousness: a scientific consciousness, an artistic consciousness, and a spiritual consciousness. Through these three, a person can relate to the truth of life—three ways, three approaches: one is the approach of science, one is that of spirituality or religion, and one is of art. It is essential to understand the distinctions. What is adhyatma chetas—spiritual consciousness?
Science-consciousness investigates; it inquires into “What is truth?” It seeks, investigates, discovers. It uncovers what is veiled, strips it, lays the fact bare—naked. Art-consciousness, on the other hand, adorns and embellishes what is; it does not uncover, it covers—with ornaments, garments, colors, poems, rhythms, meters. Science exposes, hunts for the naked fact—the naked truth: what is? Science grapples with fact like an enemy—conflict, struggle; it tries to conquer the truth. Art covers truth; wherever it is ugly or misshapen, art creates beauty there—turns facts into dreams, paints the plain colors of life, gives poetry, gives fiction. Poetry preserves and polishes; it does not expose the fact as it is; it covers, decorates—it is decorative. Hence science often uncovers facts that prove highly dangerous. And art often covers over crudities of life that might have been disagreeable.
Spiritual consciousness—Krishna says—be spiritual in consciousness and surrender.
Spiritual consciousness is of a third kind. It neither uncovers truth nor covers it; it dissolves itself into truth. Science exposes; art covers; religion becomes one. Spirituality does not want to know what truth is; nor does it want to make truth into what it should be; spirituality wants to become truth. Its quest is not of conflict, not of embellishment; it is the urge to be absorbed, to be immersed. Whatever truth is—beautiful or ugly—spirituality wants to sink into it. Science behaves as an enemy; art behaves as a friend; spirituality keeps no distinction of friend and enemy—it relates in non-duality.
Krishna tells Arjuna: Become endowed with spiritual consciousness—and then surrender.
Rightly so. Because only spiritual consciousness can surrender. Science never surrenders. If science were to surrender, it would be useless. If a scientist were to surrender in the laboratory, science would end. Science fights; it tries to make nature surrender; it never surrenders itself. The scientist wrestles like a warrior and says to nature: You surrender, unveil your secrets, remove your garments, reveal your facts—submit before me. Science, like a warrior, regards nature as an enemy to be conquered.
Art does not fight; it coaxes nature, persuades it. It says: Whatever is, no worry—but our heart wishes it to be like this. Omar Khayyam sang: If it were up to me, I would erase the whole world and then fashion it afresh according to my heart. That is what the poet does. If he cannot do it here, he does it in poetry. The painter does the same. If such a beauty is not found on earth, he creates a statue. Art beautifies, covers, adorns—let the world become beloved, let life become lovable, that is all.
Spirituality is neither friend nor enemy. Spirituality says: Whatever is, I want to be one with it. Art creates; science investigates; religion surrenders. Art is creative; science is inventive; religion is surrendering. Therefore Krishna says: Only if you are of spiritual consciousness can you arrive at surrender.
Let us take one last sutra:
इन्द्रियस्येन्द्रियस्थार्थे रागद्वेषौ व्यवस्थितौ।
तयोर्न वशमागच्छेत्तौ ह्यस्य परिपन्थिनौ।। 34।।
Therefore, a person should not come under the sway of the attraction and aversion that dwell in the senses toward their respective objects, for both are great obstacles on the path of welfare.
All the experiences of life are experiences of duality. The entire expanse of life is an expanse of duality—polar, two-poled. There is nothing here that does not have its opposite. Nothing whose contrary does not exist. Nothing that does not have its reverse. The whole existence of the world is polar, two-poled. Just as an architect, a mason, builds an arch: have you noticed, he takes no vertical supports for the gateway; he simply sets bricks inverted and joins them in a curve. By setting the bricks inverted and curved, an arch is formed. The whole building—its entire weight—rests upon that curve. Have you wondered why? The tension—the stress—of those inverted bricks pressing against one another bears the weight of the whole structure. If the bricks were laid all in one direction, from one end to the other, the building would collapse immediately; it could not be built at all.
The entire edifice of life stands on inverted bricks. Here there is the brick of joy and also the brick of sorrow. Here there is attachment and also detachment. Here there is love and also hatred. And mark this: in this world a building cannot be raised on the single brick of love; the brick of hate is just as necessary. The friend is as necessary as the enemy. All opposites are necessary here. Because life stands upon the tension of opposites.
This electricity is burning—its negative and positive poles are essential. If only one pole remained, darkness would descend at once. We all—men and women—sit here; for the existence of woman and man, their polarity and opposition are essential. The day that ends, everything ends.
The world depends on duality. Krishna tells Arjuna: all experiences of the senses are held in duality. Where pleasure comes, sorrow follows behind. Pleasure comes by inviting sorrow. Where sorrow comes, do not be hasty, do not lose patience—pleasure is on its way. As after a wave there is a trough, as behind a mountain there is a valley, so behind every experience its opposite is coming. When an ocean wave is rising, understand that the hollow of the wave is also coming! Without that hollow, the wave cannot be. And when you see a towering peak touching the sky, know that nearby is a chasm touching the netherworld. Without the one, the other cannot be. When a tree rises to touch the stars, its roots descend into the earth to touch the depths. If the roots do not go down, the tree cannot go up.
All life stands upon opposition. Therefore psychologists say a very strange thing happens: we do the reverse. We always try to save one of the two, which is impossible. We try to build a house on single-direction bricks; we will be crushed beneath it and die. Such a house cannot stand.
Psychologists say: a person who cannot hate cannot love either—though everyone advises us, “Love; do not hate.” But one who cannot hate cannot love. Everyone says, “Do not make anyone an enemy; consider all as friends.” But one who cannot make an enemy cannot make a friend either. Such is the harsh truth of life. One who cannot be angry cannot forgive. Though we say, “Forgive; do not be angry.” But if you will not be angry, what forgiveness will there be? Of whom? And how? In what way?
Life depends on contrariness. If this does not occur to us, we start trying to save one side. The ignorant tries to save one. What will the wise do? Either the wise leaves both—if he leaves both, he steps outside life at once; he cannot remain within life—or he accepts both together.
Krishna gives the second counsel: accept both together. Here there is pleasure, and here there is pain. There is birth, and there is death. The senses bring the pleasant and the unpleasant. The senses give rise to what is agreeable and what is disagreeable. The wise one, knowing the necessary pairing of these two, remains amidst both and yet stands outside both—becomes a witness. He understands: Fine—pleasure has come, fine; pain has come, fine. Because he knows that only these two can come. So he does not fall into the mistake of trying to save one and drop the other. He does not get entangled in that upheaval. The ignorant gets entangled in it and becomes restless. The wise abides in rest; he does not become restless.
This does not mean that sorrows do not come to the wise. Sorrows come—but the wise is not sorrowful. It does not mean pleasures do not come. Pleasures come—but the wise is not “made happy.” In what sense is he not made happy? In the sense that whatever comes, he does not identify with it. When happiness comes, he says: Fine; happiness has come—it too will pass. When sorrow comes, he says: Fine; sorrow has come—it too will pass. And I—the one upon whom sorrow and happiness come—am separate from both. He never loses, never abandons, that experience of separateness—that distinction.
He knows: morning came, evening came; light came, darkness came. He does not say, “I have become darkness,” nor does he say, “I have become light.” He does not say, “I have become sorrow,” nor, “I have become happiness.” He says: Sorrow came upon me; happiness came upon me. It came upon me; I have not become it. I stand apart. I am seeing—this happiness is arriving.
Sitting on the seashore, a wave comes, submerges you, and goes. If you become the wave, you are in trouble. You are not the wave.
But in the ocean of life, waves come—and you become the wave. You say, “I have become unhappy.” Say only this much: a wave of sorrow has come. You are drenched completely, surrounded on all sides by the wave of sorrow. Drowned completely. Yet you are distinct. Here is sorrow; here am I. Happiness comes—and you become instantly “happy.” You go mad with it. Your feet no longer touch the ground. Your eyes do not look here and there; they get stuck in the sky. The heart beats so wildly you don’t know when it will stop. You become happiness.
No— a wave of happiness has come; fine, let it come, let it drown you, and let it pass. Then you understand that life is an ocean. Happiness comes, sorrow comes; friends come, enemies come; honor and insult, abuse and praise. Sometimes someone garlands you with flowers; sometimes someone throws a stone. Both keep coming in life. The wise, seeing both, knows himself as the third.
Such a nonattached person, Krishna says, is freed from all the bondages of life, from all the prisons of life.
We will speak of the rest tomorrow.
Science-consciousness investigates; it inquires into “What is truth?” It seeks, investigates, discovers. It uncovers what is veiled, strips it, lays the fact bare—naked. Art-consciousness, on the other hand, adorns and embellishes what is; it does not uncover, it covers—with ornaments, garments, colors, poems, rhythms, meters. Science exposes, hunts for the naked fact—the naked truth: what is? Science grapples with fact like an enemy—conflict, struggle; it tries to conquer the truth. Art covers truth; wherever it is ugly or misshapen, art creates beauty there—turns facts into dreams, paints the plain colors of life, gives poetry, gives fiction. Poetry preserves and polishes; it does not expose the fact as it is; it covers, decorates—it is decorative. Hence science often uncovers facts that prove highly dangerous. And art often covers over crudities of life that might have been disagreeable.
Spiritual consciousness—Krishna says—be spiritual in consciousness and surrender.
Spiritual consciousness is of a third kind. It neither uncovers truth nor covers it; it dissolves itself into truth. Science exposes; art covers; religion becomes one. Spirituality does not want to know what truth is; nor does it want to make truth into what it should be; spirituality wants to become truth. Its quest is not of conflict, not of embellishment; it is the urge to be absorbed, to be immersed. Whatever truth is—beautiful or ugly—spirituality wants to sink into it. Science behaves as an enemy; art behaves as a friend; spirituality keeps no distinction of friend and enemy—it relates in non-duality.
Krishna tells Arjuna: Become endowed with spiritual consciousness—and then surrender.
Rightly so. Because only spiritual consciousness can surrender. Science never surrenders. If science were to surrender, it would be useless. If a scientist were to surrender in the laboratory, science would end. Science fights; it tries to make nature surrender; it never surrenders itself. The scientist wrestles like a warrior and says to nature: You surrender, unveil your secrets, remove your garments, reveal your facts—submit before me. Science, like a warrior, regards nature as an enemy to be conquered.
Art does not fight; it coaxes nature, persuades it. It says: Whatever is, no worry—but our heart wishes it to be like this. Omar Khayyam sang: If it were up to me, I would erase the whole world and then fashion it afresh according to my heart. That is what the poet does. If he cannot do it here, he does it in poetry. The painter does the same. If such a beauty is not found on earth, he creates a statue. Art beautifies, covers, adorns—let the world become beloved, let life become lovable, that is all.
Spirituality is neither friend nor enemy. Spirituality says: Whatever is, I want to be one with it. Art creates; science investigates; religion surrenders. Art is creative; science is inventive; religion is surrendering. Therefore Krishna says: Only if you are of spiritual consciousness can you arrive at surrender.
Let us take one last sutra:
इन्द्रियस्येन्द्रियस्थार्थे रागद्वेषौ व्यवस्थितौ।
तयोर्न वशमागच्छेत्तौ ह्यस्य परिपन्थिनौ।। 34।।
Therefore, a person should not come under the sway of the attraction and aversion that dwell in the senses toward their respective objects, for both are great obstacles on the path of welfare.
All the experiences of life are experiences of duality. The entire expanse of life is an expanse of duality—polar, two-poled. There is nothing here that does not have its opposite. Nothing whose contrary does not exist. Nothing that does not have its reverse. The whole existence of the world is polar, two-poled. Just as an architect, a mason, builds an arch: have you noticed, he takes no vertical supports for the gateway; he simply sets bricks inverted and joins them in a curve. By setting the bricks inverted and curved, an arch is formed. The whole building—its entire weight—rests upon that curve. Have you wondered why? The tension—the stress—of those inverted bricks pressing against one another bears the weight of the whole structure. If the bricks were laid all in one direction, from one end to the other, the building would collapse immediately; it could not be built at all.
The entire edifice of life stands on inverted bricks. Here there is the brick of joy and also the brick of sorrow. Here there is attachment and also detachment. Here there is love and also hatred. And mark this: in this world a building cannot be raised on the single brick of love; the brick of hate is just as necessary. The friend is as necessary as the enemy. All opposites are necessary here. Because life stands upon the tension of opposites.
This electricity is burning—its negative and positive poles are essential. If only one pole remained, darkness would descend at once. We all—men and women—sit here; for the existence of woman and man, their polarity and opposition are essential. The day that ends, everything ends.
The world depends on duality. Krishna tells Arjuna: all experiences of the senses are held in duality. Where pleasure comes, sorrow follows behind. Pleasure comes by inviting sorrow. Where sorrow comes, do not be hasty, do not lose patience—pleasure is on its way. As after a wave there is a trough, as behind a mountain there is a valley, so behind every experience its opposite is coming. When an ocean wave is rising, understand that the hollow of the wave is also coming! Without that hollow, the wave cannot be. And when you see a towering peak touching the sky, know that nearby is a chasm touching the netherworld. Without the one, the other cannot be. When a tree rises to touch the stars, its roots descend into the earth to touch the depths. If the roots do not go down, the tree cannot go up.
All life stands upon opposition. Therefore psychologists say a very strange thing happens: we do the reverse. We always try to save one of the two, which is impossible. We try to build a house on single-direction bricks; we will be crushed beneath it and die. Such a house cannot stand.
Psychologists say: a person who cannot hate cannot love either—though everyone advises us, “Love; do not hate.” But one who cannot hate cannot love. Everyone says, “Do not make anyone an enemy; consider all as friends.” But one who cannot make an enemy cannot make a friend either. Such is the harsh truth of life. One who cannot be angry cannot forgive. Though we say, “Forgive; do not be angry.” But if you will not be angry, what forgiveness will there be? Of whom? And how? In what way?
Life depends on contrariness. If this does not occur to us, we start trying to save one side. The ignorant tries to save one. What will the wise do? Either the wise leaves both—if he leaves both, he steps outside life at once; he cannot remain within life—or he accepts both together.
Krishna gives the second counsel: accept both together. Here there is pleasure, and here there is pain. There is birth, and there is death. The senses bring the pleasant and the unpleasant. The senses give rise to what is agreeable and what is disagreeable. The wise one, knowing the necessary pairing of these two, remains amidst both and yet stands outside both—becomes a witness. He understands: Fine—pleasure has come, fine; pain has come, fine. Because he knows that only these two can come. So he does not fall into the mistake of trying to save one and drop the other. He does not get entangled in that upheaval. The ignorant gets entangled in it and becomes restless. The wise abides in rest; he does not become restless.
This does not mean that sorrows do not come to the wise. Sorrows come—but the wise is not sorrowful. It does not mean pleasures do not come. Pleasures come—but the wise is not “made happy.” In what sense is he not made happy? In the sense that whatever comes, he does not identify with it. When happiness comes, he says: Fine; happiness has come—it too will pass. When sorrow comes, he says: Fine; sorrow has come—it too will pass. And I—the one upon whom sorrow and happiness come—am separate from both. He never loses, never abandons, that experience of separateness—that distinction.
He knows: morning came, evening came; light came, darkness came. He does not say, “I have become darkness,” nor does he say, “I have become light.” He does not say, “I have become sorrow,” nor, “I have become happiness.” He says: Sorrow came upon me; happiness came upon me. It came upon me; I have not become it. I stand apart. I am seeing—this happiness is arriving.
Sitting on the seashore, a wave comes, submerges you, and goes. If you become the wave, you are in trouble. You are not the wave.
But in the ocean of life, waves come—and you become the wave. You say, “I have become unhappy.” Say only this much: a wave of sorrow has come. You are drenched completely, surrounded on all sides by the wave of sorrow. Drowned completely. Yet you are distinct. Here is sorrow; here am I. Happiness comes—and you become instantly “happy.” You go mad with it. Your feet no longer touch the ground. Your eyes do not look here and there; they get stuck in the sky. The heart beats so wildly you don’t know when it will stop. You become happiness.
No— a wave of happiness has come; fine, let it come, let it drown you, and let it pass. Then you understand that life is an ocean. Happiness comes, sorrow comes; friends come, enemies come; honor and insult, abuse and praise. Sometimes someone garlands you with flowers; sometimes someone throws a stone. Both keep coming in life. The wise, seeing both, knows himself as the third.
Such a nonattached person, Krishna says, is freed from all the bondages of life, from all the prisons of life.
We will speak of the rest tomorrow.
Osho's Commentary
If we understand the word shraddha a little, the heart-door of this sutra will open. Around the word shraddha there are great confusions. The greatest confusion is that people take shraddha to mean belief; or some take it to mean faith—blind faith. Both meanings are wrong. Why? Whoever believes always carries disbelief within.
In truth, none but the disbeliever believes. This will sound upside down. But one needs belief only because there is disbelief inside. As the sick need medicine, so the mind of the disbeliever needs belief. There is doubt within, there is disbelief within; to suppress it we clutch at belief.
Shraddha is not belief. If disbelief remains inside and you seize upon something to press it down, that is belief. And when inner disbelief no longer remains—when it becomes empty—what remains is shraddha. If disbelief is present within—someone has no trust that God is, and yet he believes, as most people have done; there is no real belief, but they have made-believe; there is no belief, and they do not even have the courage to disbelieve—deep within lies disbelief, and on top they wear the garments of belief. Such belief is skin-deep; scratch a little hard and the inner disbelief reveals itself.
This is not the meaning of shraddha. Shraddha is a very precious word. Shraddha means the point from which disbelief has been destroyed—not that belief has arrived. Shraddha means where disbelief is no more. When there is no disbelief within, then shraddha blossoms. Say it this way: shraddha is the absence of disbelief—not the presence of belief. Therefore, however much a person believes, he never attains to shraddha. Disbelief continues to stand within and pricks like a thorn.
Now someone keeps saying, “Atman is immortal,” and yet he continues to fear death. On the one hand he says, “Atman is immortal,” and on the other hand he is terrified of dying. What kind of belief is this? Behind it is disbelief. He says “Atman is immortal,” and he fears death. If Atman is immortal, then what fear of death? The fear of death is meaningless. How astonishing!
But if you look well, it will not seem astonishing. In ninety-nine out of a hundred cases the reason is that, since there is fear of death within, one keeps on believing “Atman is immortal.” There is fear inside that one might die, so one recites daily the lesson “Atman is immortal,” repeats it again and again, explains to oneself “Atman is immortal.” And that which you are trying to suppress by saying “Atman is immortal” does not vanish. That fear simply slips deeper within. All our beliefs are like this.
Krishna could have said as well, “He who believes my word becomes free of karma.” He did not say that—although commentators on the Gita go on giving precisely that meaning. They keep telling people, “Believe.” Krishna is saying shraddha, not belief. Belief is a two-penny thing. The worth of shraddha is beyond reckoning. Let me illustrate.
Vivekananda was searching whether God is or is not. Word came—Rabindranath’s grandfather, the Maharshi, had arrived in a village—he practiced on a barge upon the river. At midnight, a friend said, “Come at twelve.” If it had been you, you would have said, “We will rise in the morning and go; we will meet him then.” But Vivekananda crossed the Ganga at midnight and climbed onto the barge. He knocked; the door opened. The Maharshi was meditating. His meditation was disturbed. Vivekananda seized his coat collar and said, “Is there God?”
Such questions are not asked! These are not polite ways. But one who is mad for God does not stop for etiquette. No madman ever does. The Maharshi said, “Sit down as well—is this any way?” A dark night, a youth dripping from the river, comes and grabs one’s neck and asks, “Is there God?” The Maharshi said, “Sit down.” But Vivekananda said, “No, I have my answer. Your hesitation has said you do not know. Otherwise, I ask, ‘Is there God?’ and you see my clothes soaked with water; I ask, ‘Is there God?’ and you see it is midnight. I have not yet seen—I am still seeking. Then one who has seen—what would he care that it is midnight!” He leapt back into the river. The Maharshi called much, “Young man, wait! Take the answer and go.” Vivekananda said to the water, “I have my answer. Your hesitation has told all: you still know nothing.”
Months later, this same Vivekananda went to Ramakrishna. Devotees were gathered; pushing through, he stood before Ramakrishna and said, “Is there God?”—just as that night he had grabbed the Maharshi and asked, “Is there God?” Ramakrishna did not say “There is” or “There isn’t.” He replied with a reply, “Do you want to know?” Vivekananda has written: those eyes, and that “Do you want to know?” of Ramakrishna—“Drop this worry about whether there is or not. Tell me, do you want to know? Then I am ready.” Vivekananda wrote, “I had put the Maharshi in difficulty; Ramakrishna put me in difficulty. I had never thought anyone would catch me so strongly and say, ‘Are you prepared—do you want to see and to know? Do not ask; I am ready to show.’”
Ramakrishna spoke out of shraddha—from where all disbeliefs have fallen. Had Maharshi Devendranath spoken, he would have spoken out of belief—from where disbeliefs still wait in some corner within. Shraddha means a heart in which no contrary voice remains; where what is, is wholly—total; where nothing opposed exists, where the other has no being. What is, is; entire, total. Shraddha means the totality of the heart.
Krishna is saying: with shraddha, with the totality of the heart, in whom there is no opposite note at all, in whom not even a line of disbelief remains—only such a person, walking this path, wears out karma and becomes free.
So first understand the difference between belief and shraddha well. And whatever you have, look at it closely. Is it belief or shraddha? And remember: the disbeliever can someday arrive at shraddha; the believer never arrives. There are reasons. The one who has nothing in his hands—not even pebbles—can search for diamonds. But the one who has taken colored bits of stone as diamonds and clutches them tight will never set out in search of real jewels.
A disbeliever can some day find shraddha. There are reasons. Because living in disbelief is impossible. Disbelief is fire: it burns, pains, pricks—there are embers in it. No one can stand in disbelief for long. Today or tomorrow he must enter either shraddha or belief.
Remember: shraddha’s opposition is not to disbelief; shraddha’s opposition is to belief. Those who make beliefs never attain to shraddha. This will seem very upside-down, for we think we will first believe, then slowly shraddha will come. It never happens. Whoever has believed falls into false shraddha. And counterfeit coins become obstacles on the way to the real. Examine well what you have: is it belief or shraddha?
And remember: belief is always received from others; shraddha always arises from oneself. A man is a Hindu—that is belief, not shraddha; for had he been raised in a Muslim household he would have been a Muslim. A man is a Muslim—that is belief, not shraddha; for had he been raised in a Christian home he would have been a Christian. And a man is a theist—that is belief, not shraddha; had he been born in Russia he would have become an atheist. What comes to us from outside is belief. What is born from within is shraddha.
A third point therefore: belief is always dead. Shraddha is always living. And the dead can drown you, they cannot ferry you across. Dead beliefs only drown; they do not carry across. Dead beliefs can become chains; they cannot become liberation. Dead beliefs can bind; they cannot unlock. Therefore, when Krishna says “with shraddha,” cut off belief altogether; Krishna has nothing to do with belief. Those who lack shraddha deceive themselves with belief—as with imitation pearls when real pearls are not at hand. No one is deceived—the pearl is not deceived; it knows. Nor are you deceived—you too know; and those you deceive gain nothing from it. Belief is superimposed; shraddha is born. That is the difference.
Second point: if shraddha is to be born, how will it come? Belief can be borrowed—everyone borrows it. One borrows from father, one from a guru, one from here, one from there—collects beliefs. Living without beliefs is difficult—for the very reason that living in disbelief is difficult.
And so a strange phenomenon happens: we call the atheist a disbeliever. We should not. The atheist is a confirmed believer in the non-existence of God. He too does not live in disbelief; he lives in a negative belief. He too has a solid belief, and he too is ready to fight and to kill. If you say “God is,” and a blow falls upon his belief that God is not, he too is ready to fight.
The atheist has his beliefs. They are opposite to the theist’s, that’s another matter; but he has his own beliefs. Without beliefs, he too does not live. The communist too does not live without beliefs—his beliefs are of another kind, that is all; it makes no difference. Living without beliefs is difficult. Disbelief causes such pain that you must undertake the journey to shraddha—but you choose belief…
We must look at this from a few dimensions. For a religious mind, understanding this is foundational.
Belief and disbelief both live on argument; their food is logic. The atheist argues that God is not. The theist argues that God is. You have heard the proofs of St. Anselm for God; the theists of the world have given proofs that God is. The atheists have refuted the proofs, saying that God is not. Belief and disbelief both move by logic. And shraddha—shraddha is the name of the realization that logic is not enough. Shraddha begins with the recognition that reason is insufficient. The person who looks deeply into life sees that reason has a limit and that life extends beyond that limit. He sees that reason goes a little way and then stops. He experiences that there is much in life that falls outside reason—that life itself is outside reason. Life itself is illogical. Had you not been, you could not ask anyone why you are not; and when you are, you cannot ask anyone why you are.
Life is utterly illogical. Life has no argument. If it is, it is; if it is not, it is not. Love is illogical; prayer is illogical. Whatever in life is deep and significant is not understood by reason, not grasped by it—reason runs out, and life remains beyond. From such an experience the first steps toward shraddha are taken. How does one come to know that life is mystery? How does one discover that the intellect tires and life does not end? A man thinks and thinks, and reaches nowhere. He gets theories in hand—mere ash—but no experience. All mathematics is defeated; something unknown always remains behind. What we know is very small; what encircles this small known—the unknown—is vast.
The scientist of the eighteenth century thought that within a hundred years the event would occur that nothing would remain to be known. He had firm belief in science. A hundred years ago the scientist had firm belief in science: we will know all; whatever is unknown will be known. Today the scientist says: what we have known is nothing—but as much as we have tried to know, a thousand times that much unknown has appeared. We know an inch; a thousand inches open that are unknown. One question is solved; a thousand questions arise. And now the scientist cannot gather the courage to say we will ever know all. He can only say this: whatever we know will be nothing compared to what remains unknown. Science lost in a hundred years. Philosophers tried for thousands of years and lost, saying, “There is something that remains outside thought.” The recognition that something remains outside thought is the first sprout of shraddha.
Do you feel life as a mystery? Then shraddha can be born in your life. And remember: the believer does not find life a mystery. For him everything is an open-and-shut case. All the mathematics is clear. He says: here is heaven, here is hell; here is moksha, here sits God. Here this is happening, there that is happening. The whole map is clear. The believer has a complete mathematics, a complete map, complete doctrines—everything is clear. The believer is never in mystery. One who is in mystery can move into shraddha. Mystery is the door to shraddha. Logic, mathematics, proof—these are the doors to beliefs. Do you feel life to be mysterious? Do you feel we know nothing? Then shraddha can arise in your life.
Krishna is telling Arjuna: one who, with shraddha—that is, who embraces life as mystery…
And one who embraces the mystery of life has no means left for doubt. Understand this too. Doubts arise in you only so long as you cling to beliefs, for all doubts arise against beliefs. One whose mind carries no belief produces no doubts within. Doubts arise against belief.
You believed that God created the world—then the question arises, Why did he create it? One belief, and the question arises: Why did he create it? Then another: Why did he create such a world in which there is so much suffering? A third: If he is the maker, why does he not remove all this suffering? The questions go on arising. You decide that God did not create the world. Then the question arises: How then did it arise? The scientist then searches—nebulae, atoms, and from them the world forms. But from where do atoms come? And then the journey of questions begins again. Every belief takes you onto a journey of questions. But the sense of mystery drops the questions and drowns you in mystery. And when someone is immersed in mystery, shraddha sprouts.
If you place a seed upon a stone, it will never sprout. Jesus used to say: I scatter a handful of seed in the dark—some fall upon stones, some upon the path, some on the field’s border, some fall within the very soil of the field. Those that fall upon stones will just lie there; they will never sprout. Those that fall upon the path will wish to sprout, and the path will even aid them; but before they sprout, someone’s feet will destroy their possibilities. Those that fall upon the field’s border will sprout, but people will pass along the border someday—they will not be spared. Those that fall in the heart of the field will sprout, grow, and come to flower.
The seed of shraddha sprouts only when it falls into the soil of mystery. In the soil of mystery, shraddha sprouts. And only the shraddhavan—and remember, by shraddhavan I never mean the one who believes—shraddhavan means one who experiences life as mystery. Such a person, Krishna says, if he comes onto my path… And such a person always comes wholly, for mystery does not make fragments; reason makes fragments.
Bear this in mind as well: reason is analytic; it breaks. Reason cannot proceed without breaking. Reason is like a prism. Let the sun’s ray pass through a glass prism—it breaks into seven colors. In the same way, whatever passes through the prism of logic is fragmented. Reason breaks; it is analytic. Shraddha unites; it is synthetic. Everything joins, becomes one—like rays returning from the prism and becoming a single ray again.
Mystery is total. Belief is always partial. You can never believe wholly. But you can never be in an incomplete mystery either. Have you noticed—you cannot say, “I am experiencing a little mystery!” Whenever mystery is experienced, it is experienced whole. Mystery is never experienced bit by bit; it is experienced entire. Either it is, or it is not. But whenever it is, it is entire.
Belief is always bit by bit, hence a portion of the mind remains cut off. The experience of mystery gathers the mind together. Therefore, the simpler a person’s consciousness, the more he can experience mystery. That is why in children—in their eyes, their movements, their play—the glimpse of the divine can sometimes be seen. For all of life is mystery. Butterflies fly—and for them, jewels are flying. Stones slide—and for them, a taste of heaven descends. The river flows—and for them, the gates of Kubera’s treasure open. All is mystery.
Jakob Boehme has said: when for the first time I came to the experience of mystery, I said, “How mad I was! This is simply to regain childhood. I have become a child again.”
Someone asked Jesus, “Who will be worthy to enter your kingdom of heaven?” He said, “Those who become again like children.”
So children are endowed with shraddha. The old, at most, can be believers; children are shraddhavan.
Have you ever seen a child holding his father’s hand? With the father’s hand in his hand—have you seen! What trust! The father himself does not have so much trust—that he will manage the hand, that he knows the way. He himself does not know anything. But the son holds his hand with such trust. If there is an exact word in English for shraddha, it is trust—not belief, not faith—trust. The son holds his hand as if the father were God, as if he knew all.
A son comes and sleeps with his head in his mother’s lap—trust! As though the mother’s lap were outside all sorrow, beyond all worries. The mother is not beyond worry; the mother is not outside sorrow; the mother may be troubled. But the little boy, tired from playing all day, returns and places his head in the mother’s lap and sleeps carefree—he has found God’s lap—trust. The mother does not have it; the son has it. Therefore, the mother’s lap can become for the son the place of God. The mother herself does not have that experience. But that trust has filled the lap with such quiet and such joy.
Krishna says: one with such shraddha—as a small boy holds his father’s hand, or places his head in the mother’s lap and sleeps, certain that now there is no danger in the world, no insecurity; nothing can harm me; the matter is finished—he sleeps carefree, with no worry—who, in this way, lives by my word, becomes free of all actions.
“But lives by my word.” Does Krishna mean that one who lives by someone else’s word will not be free? Such a meaning is indeed imposed—followers will impose it. They will say, “See, Krishna has said: he who lives by my word, with shraddha, becomes free of the net of karma. So do not follow the Bible—you will go astray; do not follow the Quran—you will go astray. Krishna has clearly said that he who lives by my word, with shraddha, becomes free of karma.” What could be clearer! “Do not accept anyone else—do not accept Mahavira, do not accept Buddha.”
But this is entirely the wrong meaning. The very one who, from within Krishna, says, “He who lives by my word arrives,” is the same who, from within Buddha, says, “He who lives by my word arrives.” The same who, from within Christ, says, “He who lives by my word arrives.” The same who, from within Mohammed, says, “He who lives by my word arrives.” The “I” in question is one. The doors are many; the voice is one. Do not fall into the delusion that only one who follows the Gita arrives. If one follows the Quran, he arrives; if one follows the Bible, he arrives.
The real question is not the Quran or the Bible; the real question is the reverent heart. I want to shift the emphasis. The real question is the reverent heart. If with just such a reverent heart someone takes Jesus’ hand, he arrives from there too. If someone takes Mohammed’s hand, he arrives from there too. The real point is this: with a reverent heart, acting without attachment, one goes beyond action. And “my word” is not Krishna’s word; “my word” is the word of Paramatma.
Krishna is only a window through which Paramatma peeped before Arjuna. Sometimes he peeps through Mohammed, sometimes through Moses. Through a thousand windows he peeps. And whenever he peeps, his voice is equally authentic: “If you heed my word, you will arrive.” And from this the greatest controversy arises in the world—for some say Mohammed said it; some say Krishna said it; some say Christ said it; then the quarrel begins—whom shall we obey? They say, “Our master said, ‘I am the way. I am the door. Whoever walks by me will arrive. I am the way. I am the truth. I am the door. Come—if you walk by me you will arrive.’” The Christian, of course, will say, “It is so clear—why do you wander? If you follow Ram, Krishna, Buddha—you will be lost, you will fall into hell.”
But a great mistake has been made—by all humanity. The one within who says “I am the way” is the same who, through Krishna, says, “Arjuna, heed my word and you will be free of karma.” It is the one stream of life peering through many windows.
Understand it like this: you go to the Ganga, and the Ganga says, “If you drink my water, you will be free of thirst.” Then you go to the Volga, and the Volga says, “If you drink my water, you will be free of thirst.” You say, “This is highly contradictory. The Ganga says the same, the Volga says the same—whom shall we obey? We are followers of the Ganga—we will not drink the Volga’s water. We will drink only Ganga’s water.” Then you are mad. The very water that said through the Ganga, “If you drink me, you will be free of thirst,” says through the Volga, “If you drink me, you will be free of thirst.” The difference between the Ganga and the Volga is not a difference of water; it is only a difference of banks, not of water.
Krishna’s banks are different; Buddha’s banks are different. But the current that flows is the one current of Paramatma. Remember this, and the point will be rightly understood.