Witness

Osho, it feels that to be a witness is also a kind of thought. So what is the difference between the witness and a thought of the witness?

The mystic laughed. He said, "Not underneath this tree, but within me there is a treasure and I am watching it. And the treasure is growing every day, it is becoming bigger and bigger, hence I have to be more and more alert." The mystic said to the king, "You can sleep, you have nothing to lose. I cannot, I have much to lose; and if I can remain awake I have much to gain." The king was very much impressed. He asked him to come to his palace, he invited him. The monk agreed. The king was a little puzzled: a monk agreeing so soon without even refusing once is not thought to be right. A monk should say, "No, I cannot come to the palace. I have renounced the world. It is all futile. It is all dream, illusion, maya I cannot come back to the world. I…

Beloved master, you talk so much about the witness, but what is the witness and what is the judge? How can we tell which is which -- the witness or the judge?

Out of that witnessing a response arises -- a response which is total because your whole heart is behind it, a response which is total because it is your own response, not a repetition of somebody else's teachings; a response which you will never regret, a response which will not make you feel guilty, that "I have done something wrong," which will not make you feel egoistic, that "I have done something great." A response is a simple response, it neither makes you feel inferior nor superior. It is simply the requirement of the moment. It comes out of your witnessing and it is finished. It leaves no trace behind. The witnessing soul is like the sky. The birds fly in the sky but they don't leave any footprints. That's what Buddha says, that the man who is awakened lives in such a way that he leaves no footprints. He…

Osho, the one who sees all and dwells within everyone—why does he still not come to be known? How does that Seer and Witness of all come to be known? Please explain.

Only such a light, subtle sensing will be there—a faint intimation. But you will not be able to see it. You cannot hold it in your hand. It is inexorably the Seer and cannot become the seen. So what to do? Then what to do? Only one thing can be done: bid farewell to the seen. Whatever is seen, let it be dismissed. Let no scene remain upon the screen. Have you ever noticed? You go to the cinema to watch a film. It begins—the play of light and shadow starts upon a blank white screen—and you become absorbed. When you are completely absorbed in watching, when the story grips your very life, you lose awareness of yourself—you forget that you are the watcher. The seen becomes everything; the Seer becomes null. The Seer is forgotten; the scenes become all in all. If the scene is tragic, tears stream from…

Osho, last night you said that the mind cannot do two things together -- that is, thinking and witnessing. It seems then that witnessing is a mental faculty and an act of the mind. Is it so? Please explain. Is there anything like partial witnessing and total witnessing?

WITNESSING is not a mental activity; thinking is a mental activity. Rather, it would be better to say that thinking is mind. When the mind is not, when the mind is absent, when the mind has disappeared, only then do you have witnessing. It is something behind the mind. Zen Buddhism uses mind in two ways: the ordinary mind means thinking; then Mind with a capital "M" means the Mind behind thinking. Consciousness is behind the mind; consciousness comes through the mind. If mind is in a state of thinking, it becomes opaque, non-transparent, just like a clouded sky -- you cannot see the sky. When the clouds are not, you can see the sky. When thinking is not there, then you can feel the witnessing. It is the pure sky behind. So when I said that you cannot do two things, I meant either you can think or you…