And Now, And Here-第63章

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！



once　a　question　is　formulated；　someone　or　other　is　bound　to　e　up　with　an　answer　for　it。

this　is　how　philosophy　has　e　about。

philosophy　is　made　of　foolish　answers　to　foolish　questions。

and　the　questions　remain；　right　where　they　always　were。

there　can　be　different　answers　to　each　question；　because　each　answer　reflects　an　individuals　perception。

in　answer　to　the　question；　〃who　created　man？〃　someone　can　say；　〃god　created　man。

〃　but　so　what？　we　can　ask；　〃why　did　god　create　man？　why　did　he　create　him　the　way　he　did？　why　did　god　create　man　in　the　first　place？〃　this　would　leave　the　matter　right　where　it　is。

finally　one　might　say；　〃well；　this　is　the　way　he　does　it！〃　

if　this　is　the　answer　we　are　going　to　get　ultimately

someone　might　say；　〃it　is　all　maya；　it　is　beyond　prehension。

〃　on　the　one　hand　this　man　is　saying　that　everything　is　beyond　prehension；　that　it　is　all　an　illusion；　maya；　however；　when　he　is　talking　about　everything　being　an　illusion；　he　is　saying　something　which　is　actually　ing　out　of　his　understanding。

he　appears　to　have　fully　understood　that　everything　is　maya；　that　everything　is　beyond　prehension。

if　everything　is　indeed　beyond　prehension；　then　he　needs　to　shut　up；　then　he　need　not　say　all　is　maya。

how　can　there　be　an　answer　if　it　is　really　beyond　prehension？　so　one　must　keep　quiet；　there　is　no　need　to　answer。

some　people　say　god　created　man　so　man　can　attain　god。

what　foolishness！　if　this　were　really　true　then　why　didnt　he　create　man　as　a　god　in　the　first　place？　where　was　the　need　to　go　through　all　this　trouble？　someone　else　declares；　〃this　whole　thing　goes　on　to　fulfill　the　unfinished　karmas　of　previous　lives。

〃　but　then　it　can　be　asked；　〃there　must　have　been　a　first　life　without　any　other　life　preceding　it。

then　what　fruits　were　we　reaping　in　that　initial　birth？〃　obviously　it　was　without　cause。

in　my　view；　no　philosophy　has　ever　provided　any　answer　to　the　ultimate　questions。

all　philosophies　are　fundamentally　dishonest。

but　the　dishonesty　is　hidden　very　deep。

and　once　this　basic　dishonesty　escapes　your　notice；　the　remaining　structure　will　look　very　convincing；　you　wont　find　any　difficulty。

once　you　have　accepted　a　lie　……　the　first　lie　……　all　the　following　lies　will　appear　as　truths。

once　a　person　believes　that　god　is　the　creator；　the　matter　ends　right　there。

but　how　do　we　know　god　is　the　creator？　if　this　question　arises　even　once；　it　means　the　matter　has　remained　right　where　it　is　……　it　has　neither　begun　nor　ended。

in　my　view；　religion　should　also　be　perceived　as　a　science。

some　time　before　his　death　einstein　was　asked；　〃how　do　you　differentiate　between　a　scientist　and　a　philosopher？〃　einstein　replied；　〃i　call　that　man　a　scientist　who；　when　asked　one　hundred　questions；　answers　one　and　shows　his　ignorance　about　the　remaining　ninety…nine。

and　about　the　one　he　answers；　he　will　make　clear　that　it　is　all　that　is　known　at　this　point。

it　may　change　with　a　new　discovery　in　the　future。

it　is　not　the　final　statement。

〃　

science　never　makes　any　final　statement。

thats　why　theres　a　kind　of　honesty　in　science。

so　einstein　said；　〃if　you　ask　a　philosopher　a　hundred　questions；　he　will　give　one　hundred　and　fifty　answers。

he　will　consider　each　answer　absolute；　as　if　no　change　can　ever　occur。

〃　whatsoever　a　philosopher　says　is　to　be　taken　as　conclusive；　anyone　doubting　it　can　suffer　the　fires　of　hell。

for　a　philosopher；　his　theory　is　irrefutable。

the　way　i　look　at　it；　we　should　be　able　to　create　minds　that　are　both　scientific　and　religious　at　the　same　time。

this　is　my　approach。

although　i　talk　all　along　on　religion；　my　outlook　is　always　scientific。

therefore；　i　have　no　answers　to　the　ultimate　questions；　there　cannot　be　any。

if　an　answer　does　e；　then　know　well　the　question　is　no　longer　the　ultimate　question　……　it　must　be　a　question　somewhere　in　between；　a　question　for　which　the　answer　has　been　found。

the　matter　will　be　argued；　carried　further。

the　ultimate　question　is　one　which　remains　in　spite　of　all　answers。

the　ultimate　question　means　that　no　matter　how　many　questions　are　raised；　after　you　are　through　answering　them；　you　will　find　the　same　question　awaiting　you；　the　question　mark　still　staring　you　in　the　face。

you　may　just　succeed　in　pushing　the　question　a　little　further　back　……　thats　all。

you　may　have　seen　a　japanese　doll。

no　matter　how　you　toss　it；　it　always　stands　upright。

the　doll　is　called　daruma。

it　is　named　after　an　indian　mystic；　bodhidharma。

from　india；　bodhidharma　went　to　china；　and　in　japanese　the　name　bodhidharma　became　daruma；　and　thats　how　the　doll　came　to　be　known　as　the　daruma　doll。

no　matter　what　anyone　did　to　bodhidharma；　he　remained　as　he　was。

this　doll　is　modeled　after　him。

regardless　of　how　you　throw　it；　toss　it；　it　stands　erect；　in　place。

the　ultimate　questions　are　like　the　daruma　doll。

like　bodhidharma。

do　what　you　will；　they　stay　right　where　they　are。

at　the　most；　depending　on　how　and　where　you　throw　them；　their　positions　may　change。

you　may　keep　tossing　the　doll　for　the　rest　of　your　life：　you　will　be　tired；　not　the　doll。

it　will　keep　standing　upright；　in　place。

these　are　ultimate　questions。

when　we　ask　what　existed　before　the　absolute；　the　whole；　and　what　exists　beyond；　the　question　bees　meaningless。

i　can　tell　you　only　this　much：　darkness；　unconsciousness　extends　to　the　rear；　while　there　is　an　expanse　of　light；　of　consciousness　ahead　of　us。

i　can　tell　you　this　also：　as　darkness　decreases；　bliss　increases。

and　i　can　mention　this　as　well：　with　the　increase　in　darkness；　misery　grows。

these　are　facts。

if　you　wish　to　choose　misery　you　can　go　back　towards　darkness　and　unconsciousness。

if　you　wish　to　choose　bliss；　you　can　move　ahead　towards　light；　towards　the　ultimate　light。

and　if　you　wish　for　neither；　you　can　stand　in　between　and　indulge　in　thinking　about　what　was　before　and　what　is　ahead。

question　3　

at　the　dwarka　meditation　camp　you　said　meditation　and　samadhi　constitute　a　voluntary；　conscious　entering　into　death；　and　in　doing　so　the　delusion　of　death　disappears。

now　the　question　is；　who　is　deluded？　is　it　the　body　or　is　it　the　consciousness？　since　the　body　is　merely　a　mechanical　device；　it　cannot　experience　such　delusion。

and　there　is　no　question　of　consciousness　being　deluded。

then　what　is　the　cause；　the　basis　of　this　delusion？　

the　awareness　of　death

if　a　man　can　die　in　the　state　of　consciousness；　for　him　death　exists　no　more。

in　other　words；　if　a　man　can　manage　to　remain　conscious　at　the　time　of　death；　he　finds　he　never　died　at　all：　death　appears　just　a　delusion　to　him。

death　proving　to　be　a　delusion　does　not　mean；　however；　that　death　remains　in　some　form　as　a　delusion。

rather；　when　a　person　dies　fully　conscious；　he　finds　there　is　no　death　at　all。

then　death　bees　a　falsehood。

but　it　is　natural　for　you　to　ask；　〃who　is　deluded？〃　you　are　right　in　saying　it　cannot　be　the　body；　because　how　can　the　body　feel　delusion？　it　cannot　be　the　soul　either；　because　the　soul　never　dies。

then　who　goes　through　the　delusion？　it　is　of　course；　neither　the　soul　nor　the　body。

as　a　matter　of　fact；　the　individual　never　feels　the　delusion　of　death；　the　illusion　of　death　is　a　social　phenomenon。

this　needs　to　be　understood　in　a　little　detail。

you　see　a　man　dying；　and　then　you　think　he　is　dead。

since　you　are　not　dead　you　have　no　right　to　think　this　way。

it　is　very　foolish　on　your　part　to　conclude　that　the　man　is　dead。

all　you　ought　to　say　is；　〃i　am　not　able　to　determine　whether　he　is　the　same　person　in　the　way　i　knew　him　before。

〃　to　say　anything　more　than　this　is　dangerous；　is　crossing　the　limits　of　propriety。

all　one　ought　to　say　is；　〃up　to　yesterday　the　man　was　talking；　now　he　no　longer　talks。

before　he　used　to　walk；　now　he　walks　no　more。

up　to　yesterday；　what　i　had　understood　as　his　life　exists　no　more。

the　life　he　lived　up　to　yesterday　is　no　more。

if　there　is　any　life　beyond　that；　then　so　be　it；　if　there　isnt；　then　be　that　as　it　may。

〃　but　to　say　〃the　man　is　dead〃　is　going　a　little　too　far；　it　is　going　beyond　limits。

one　ought　to　simply　say；　〃the　man　is　no　longer　alive。

〃　as　one　knew　someone　to　have　life；　he　no　longer　has　it。

this　much　of　a　negative　statement　is　fine；　that　what　we　knew　as　his　life　……　his　fighting；　his　loving；　his　eating；　his　drinking　……　is　no　more；　but　to　say　the　man　is　dead　is　making　a　very　positive　assertion。

we　are　not　just　saying　whatsoever　was　present　in　the　man　exists　no　more；　we　are　saying　something　has　happened　over　and　above　this　……　the　man　is　dead。

we　are　saying　the　phenomenon　of　death　has　also　occurred。

it　might　be　fine　if　we　said　that　the　things　that　were　happening　around　this　man　before　are　no　longer　happening。

we　are　not　only　saying　that；　but　also　that　a　new　phenomenon　has　been　added：　the　man　is　dead　too。

we　who　are　not　dead；　we　who　have　no　knowledge　of　death；　crowd　around　the　person　and　pronounce　him　dead。

the　crowd　determines　the　mans　death　without　even　asking　him；　without　even　letting　him　vouch　for　it！　it　is　like　a　one…party　decision　in　court；　the　other　side　is　absent。

the　poor　fellow　has　not　even　had