Will the experience itself become a doctrine?

Won't the experience itself become a doctrine?

The experience can only be communicated to others negatively. I cannot say what it is, but I can say what it is not. Language can be a vehicle to express what it is not. When I say language cannot express it, I am still expressing it. When I say no doctrine about it is possible, that is my doctrine. But this is negative. I am not asserting something; I am denying something. The no can be said; the yes cannot be said. The yes must be realized. If there is a lingering belief in knowledge, it will become a hindrance in achieving the void, in achieving meditation. First one must understand the futility of the past, of the known, of the knowledge of the mind. As far as the unknown is concerned, as far as truth is concerned, such knowledge is futile. Either you can become identified with what you…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT? Milarepa, enlightenment is not an experience. Experience always divides the experiencer from itself. But enlightenment knows no duality; hence it is not an experience but simply experiencing. It may not be right language; in fact, it cannot be right language because the linguist will not understand what you mean by `experiencing'. One has to know it. But some effort can be made; some indications and hints can be given. When you are in love, is it an experience? Is it objective? Is it separate from you? Is it something that you can exhibit? Is it something for which you can give some evidence, proof, argument? No, love simply knows itself. It is self-evident. It needs no proof and no witnesses. It needs no evidence, no arguments, no philosophy. Enlightenment goes even deeper than the reaches of love.

You told us that truth can't be transmitted or transferred, it can be attained only by experience. Many years ago when I was converted to catholicism and when I took the "holy communion," I had genuine, pure feelings of love for jesus and felt I had attained the "truth." as I see it today, I simply fell victim to a vicious fallacy induced by the priests through a kind of self-hypnosis, and had adored and worshipped nothing more than a piece of bread. I had to face the fact that I had attained, by experience, the wrong truth. How to distinguish between these cases of unconscious self-delusion a

Farid, truth cannot be transferred, truth cannot be handed over to you by somebody else, because it is not a commodity. It is not a thing, it is an experience. In fact, the word experience is not exactly the right word. It will be truer to say that it is an experiencing; this is the first thing to be understood. I have to use language which is already there, created by the centuries, with all kinds of fallacies in it -- obviously. Language is created for day-to-day use, language is created for the mundane world; as far as it goes, it is good. It is perfectly adequate for the marketplace, but as you start moving into deeper waters it becomes more and more inadequate -- not only inadequate, it starts becoming utterly wrong. For example, think of these two words, experience and experiencing. When you use the word experience it…

The buddha said: my doctrine is to think the thought that is unthinkable; to practise the deed that is not doing; to speak the speech that is inexpressible; and to be trained in the discipline which is beyond discipline. Those who understand this are near; those who are confused are far. The way is beyond words and expressions, is bound by nothing earthly. Lose sight of it to an inch or miss it for a moment, and we are away from it forever more.

A doctrine is arrived at through logical thinking. A doctrine comes through the process of 'about-ism'. A siddhanta is arrived at not by closing your eyes, not by thinking too much, but by dropping thinking as such, in toto; by opening your eyes with no prejudice, with no a priori conceptions, and looking direct into reality, facing reality direct. It is already there, it needs only you to be there. And when you are absolutely without any thought, your mind is still, your memory is still, your thinking has completely ceased to be, then reality erupts, explodes. Then you become a receiver. Then siddhanta arises. <q>MY SIDDHANTA IS TO THINK THE THOUGHT THAT IS UNTHINKABLE....</q> The first thing, Buddha says, is to think the thought that is unthinkable. It is a contradiction, a paradox. Now, no logician will ever utter such nonsense. It is from the very beginning nonsensical. That's…

Osho, is the experience of the Divine different for each person?

Think of it like this: you go home from this garden, and your children say, “Tell us—what was the garden like?” A painter might tell you by making a painting: “It was like this.” A poet will write a poem—of the trees, of the winds passing through them, of the sun filtering between their leaves. Now a poem and a painting differ greatly. Or perhaps someone is a musician; he will not even write a poem—he will lift his vina. Why write? The winds passed through the trees and there was sound and resonance—he will reproduce that resonance on the vina. The colors in the trees he will translate into tones. The sun and shade he will pour into music. He will play the garden on his vina. Another will write a poem; another will render it on paper. The three expressions will differ. And if you look only at…