/lit/ - Literature

Have safe sex, don't catch aids.

>>16892986
lies

Down the ages, Christians have been trying to paint Christ as more and more sad. Why? – because all over the world religion has been dominated by a neurotic kind of people. It has been dominated by the people who are masochists, sadists. In the East too, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism have all been dominated by the masochistic people, the people who enjoy torturing themselves, the people who are incapable of living life in its totality. The people who are too cowardly to live, escapists, have dominated religion up to now. These escapists have depicted Buddha as not laughing, Mahavira as not laughing.

And Christians actually say that Jesus never laughed in his life. Can you believe that? Jesus never laughed in life? – and he enjoyed drinking and eating, he enjoyed gamblers and prostitutes, and he enjoyed all kinds of people, and he never laughed? Can you imagine that a man like Jesus, who would feast for hours with his friends, never laughed? It is inconceivable! How can you go on wining and dining for hours without laughing? He must have joked, he must have told funny stories. They have been edited out. He was a very true man, and very courageous. He accepted Mary Magdalene, a famous prostitute of those days as his disciple. It needs courage, it needs guts. I cannot believe that he never laughed.

I can rather believe a very fictitious story about Zarathustra – that the first thing he did when he was born was to laugh loudly. That I can believe, but I can’t believe this story about Jesus, that he never laughed. It looks impossible. A child… Just the first thing he did was a belly laugh. But I can believe it. It has a certain beauty about it, a certain significance. It simply says that Zarathustra was born wise, he was born enlightened, that’s all. Whether he laughed or not, that is not the question.

And it doesn’t seem too difficult: if children can cry, why can’t they laugh? Doctors say that children cry just to clear their throats, so that they can breathe easily. But that can be done in a far better way by a belly laugh. And now there are doctors who say that if we take enough care children don’t cry; on the contrary, they smile. That’s a good beginning. Soon Zarathustras will be coming.

>>16705647
With the help of the Psychedelic Toad 5x stronger than DMT.
>It's cool that he mellowed out.

Christianity is a religion—and my sannyasins are a sect, a cult! That is the beginning of prejudice. Now, how do you define a cult or a sect?

When Jesus was alive, whatsoever he was teaching, and the people who were following him, were they a religion or a cult, a sect? Of course, in the eyes of the Jews—the established religion—it was a cult, a sect; it was not a religion. If it was religion, then Jesus could not have been crucified. A cult is something that takes you away from religion, that distracts you from the true religion, from the main path.

Jesus was a cult when he was alive. Now, how can Christianity be a religion? If in the source it is a cult, if the seed is the cult, how can the tree be religion? And when Jesus was alive, then it was a cult, and now he has been dead for two thousand years and around his corpse a religion has grown. When Buddha was alive it was a cult, a sect; now Buddhism is a religion. So what is the definition?

When the Master is alive, when he is living, when the truth is breathing, then it is a cult—it has to be condemned. And when the Master is dead…and with the Master's death the truth disappears, because truth needs an embodiment. It is an experience; it has to exist in the person who has realized it. When the person is no more, the truth is no more.

If Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zarathustra, Mohammed, while they are alive are only creating cults and sects, then the definition of religion is: the corpse of truth—rotten, stinking….

So, Niketana, tell those fools there that "You are cults and we are a religion!" And make a commission of inquiry, because only my sannyasins can be impartial. Here are Christians and Hindus and Mohammedans and Parsis and Buddhists and Jainas; in my sannyasins all the rivers are meeting and merging. It is an ocean! Only my sannyasins can be impartial—how can these Christians be impartial? They have already shown their faces that they are Christians. They are already prejudiced that Christ is right, that the Christian dogma is right, that anything that goes against it is wrong. How can they inquire? Inquiry needs no a priori assumptions, no conclusions.

So you can make, Niketana, a commission of inquiry to look into what Christianity has done in two thousand years. All kinds of crimes have been committed—murder, rape, arson—all kinds of crimes have been committed by these so-called religious people. In fact, they have proved the greatest calamity to humanity.

One of the most significant philosophers of this age, Ludwig Wittgenstein, says, "Do not say that which cannot be said." He is right, because saying that which cannot be said is dangerous. It is bound to be wrong, it is falsifying. It is exactly what Lao Tzu says, "Truth cannot be said. The moment you say it you falsify it." But Lao Tzu said it, and Wittgenstein could not control either.

The Upanishads say, "Those who know, they are silent, and those who do not know, they speak." But the Upanishads are saying it, so where to put the Upanishads? Socrates says, "I know only one thing, that I know nothing." But that one thing he knows, and that one thing contains all.

It is true that if it can be said without words that is the best, but who will understand it?

There is a beautiful story about Mahavira. When he became enlightened, for seven days he spoke without words - but who will understand without words? Only a few gods who had come to see this miracle that had happened on the earth, only they could understand. But it was almost useless because they knew it already anyway. What he was saying they could only nod their heads to. They could say, "Yes, it is right."

Then Mahavira had to speak in a language that could be understood by mortal human beings. But his message was so condensed - he was a lover of maxims. He wouldn't elaborate, he wouldn't explain; he would simply assert without any explanation. So only very few very evolved human beings could understand him and they became his interpreters, his ganadharas. He would speak to those eleven persons and then those eleven persons would go and speak to others.

Finally he decided that that too was not right because the moment he said something it was falsified immediately - it was no longer as beautiful as it was in silence. Then those ganadharas, those eleven interpreters, would hear; something more was lost because what they heard, they heard according to themselves. And when those ganadharas said it to the ordinary masses, something again was lost because they used their language; they could not use Mahavira's language. And when the masses heard it, it was almost something totally different than what was said by Mahavira. So finally he had to speak directly.

All enlightened masters would have liked to speak through silence, but where are the people who will understand it? Then they have to speak the language of the people, and they have to prepare people slowly so that one day they can understand the silence too.

That's what I am trying to do here - I am talking to you continuously only in order to help you one day to sit in silence with me. Nothing will be said, nothing will be heard: all will be said, all will be heard.

J. Krishnamurti, a man who struggled for ninety years - his last words have some great meaning. One of my friends was present there. Krishnamurti lamented, he lamented his whole life. He lamented that "people have taken me as an entertainment. They come to listen to me_." There are people who have listened to him for fifty years continually, and still they are the same people as had come for the first time to listen to him.

Naturally it is annoying and irritating that the same people_Most of them I know, because J. Krishnamurti used to come only once a year for two or three weeks to Bombay, and slowly, slowly all his followers in Bombay became acquainted with me. They all were sad about this point: What should be done? How can we make Krishnamurti happy?

The reason was that Krishnamurti only talked, but never gave any devices in which whatever he was talking about became an experience. It was totally his fault. Whatever he was saying was absolutely right, but he was not creating the right climate, the right milieu in which it could become a seed. Of course he was very much disappointed with humanity, and that there was not a single person who had become enlightened through his teachings. His teachings have all the seeds, but he never prepared the ground.

Zen does not deny entertainment the way J. Krishnamurti condemned it in his last testament to the world. He said, "Religion is not entertainment." That's true, but enlightenment can be vast enough to include entertainment in it.

Enlightenment can be multidimensional. It can include laughter, it can include love, it can include beauty, it can include creativity. There is nothing to keep it from the world and from transforming the world into a more poetic place, a more beautiful garden. Everything can be brought to a better state of grace.

https://www.osho.com/read/osho/osho-on-topics/j-krishnamurti

Sigmund Freud, Jung, Adler - all these people have been working on dreams. They should have looked at least into one person's life where dreams have disappeared, and that would have given them the clue. But these people are just as stupid as you are. Freud was so much afraid of ghosts that you cannot believe it. You are not that afraid of ghosts.

Jung was thrown out of the psychoanalytic movement for the simple reason that he believed in ghosts. And one day, when Sigmund Freud and Jung were sitting in Freud's sitting room, Jung started talking about ghosts. He was very interested in ghosts. Just as he started talking about ghosts there was a great explosion in the cupboard. Freud fell from his seat, and he said, "I have told you again and again: talk of the Devil and he is there - but you don't listen." Even Jung was shaken. They opened the cupboard; there was nothing. How come so much noise, as if a bomb had exploded? He closed the cupboard and they sat again. Again they started talking about the ghost, because how can you stop so suddenly after such an experience? And again there was an explosion! And that was the end. After that, Freud never saw Jung.

Freud was so afraid of death that you could not talk about death. His disciples were made aware, particularly the new ones, never to mention the word death. Twice it had happened, people had mentioned something about death and he fell on the ground in a fit, he became unconscious. He was so much afraid of death, even the word death was enough to make him unconscious. And these people are giving you psychoanalysis, these are your great scientists of the mind!

Jung was afraid of dead bodies. And this is the natural law: whatsoever you are afraid of you are fascinated by too. So he wanted to go to Egypt to see the ancient mummies, those dead bodies which have been preserved in the pyramids and now are in the museums of Egypt. He wanted to go many times. The tickets were booked, sometimes he even reached the airport, but became nervous, so nervous, so feverish, that he came back again - canceled the trip. He never managed to reach Egypt. But he tried a dozen times, and always he became nervous. Just the idea of seeing a three, four, five thousand year-old dead body and something inside him just freaked out.

These people have not known a single person whose dreams have disappeared. For example, I cannot dream even if I want to; there is no way. I have tried and failed. I have tried many ways, invented them because there is no book which says how to create dreams, so I invented my own ways. I will go into sleep thinking of something, visualizing something, so that, as I am going into sleep, whatsoever I am visualizing may remain in the sleep and it will become a dream. But as sleep comes, what I was visualizing disappears. Sleep is there, but what I was visualizing is not there.

The Bible is very simple. Don't be deceived by its simplicity. In its simplicity it has the wisdom of the ages. It is very poetic; I have never come across anything more poetic than the Bible. One can simply go on relishing it, one can go on repeating the words of Jesus. They come from the heart and they go to the heart. But don't go through a mediator. Those mediators are mediocres, they destroy the whole thing. I have looked through many commentaries on the Bible, but I have never come across a single intelligent commentary. They all destroy. I have never seen any single commentary from any theologian who has added anything to the Bible, who has in any way made its glory more manifest. They dim it. And that is bound to be so. Only a man of the quality of Jesus can reveal the truth of it, only a man of the quality of Jesus can enhance its beauty. People who live in the dark valleys and people who live on the sunny peaks of the Himalayas don't understand each other's language. When the man from the peak speaks and the man from the valley interprets, everything goes wrong.

Yes, it is right; your twenty years may have been wasted. But it will be a total misunderstanding if you think that Jesus is not for you. Jesus is for all, that is not the question. Go direct: become more meditative, become more prayerful, and go direct. And forget all that has been told to you about the Bible; the Bible is enough.

In a sense if you want to understand the Upanishads, it may be difficult to understand them directly because they are very refined. The people who were talking in the Upanishads were great philosophers; they need commentaries. But Jesus is plain, his truth is plain. He is a very ordinary villager; no commentary is needed. He is his own light. And if you cannot understand Jesus, who will you be able to understand? Throw all the foolish commentaries away. Go direct. Jesus is so simple you can have a direct contact.