Search & Read
Grateful to Osho
Marcos: …but are you not grateful to Osho?
Arlindo: Yes, my Marcos, I am still very grateful to him, and in fact I never held any feelings of resentment against him during those days in Lucknow with Papaji. I sometimes like to say that every student gets the guru that he deserves. Osho was perfect for me at the time, and I had great bhakti for him for all those years. But love very often is blind – it may not make a clear reading of life situations.
Marcos: I see your point, my friend. This is a very trick one, because as far as helping someone to realize the truth of one’s own nature, what works (what can help the person to develop better understanding) is what matters. Sometimes a little trick or a harmless lie can do the job. You don’t want to say the naked truth if that may not be digestible to the listener. But that does not mean to say the adharmic actions can be generally justifiable when coming from a self-realized jiva. No! And Osho used to justify himself many times, saying that he was doing this or that for our own good or the good of the collective. I never really bought that! When vasanas are not completely neutralized by application of self-knowledge, one may end up producing adharmic actions. Observation of behavior is the only way you can tell the purity of one’s mind and heart. Ultimately all jivas are the limitless self, but how really free is a jiva if he is still a puppet of his own likes and dislikes?
Arlindo: We jivas simultaneously experience our own existence and the existence of objects, which means that there are three factors built into our ordinary experiences of life: pure consciousness, the jiva (a pseudo-subject experiencing objects) and the creation, or the world of objects of experience). These are the three factors: paramatman, jiva, creation/Creator. In Sanskrit: Isvara, jiva and jagat, the by-product of the misapprehension of the non-dual nature of paramatman, the absolute atman). These three factors can be called different orders, or dimensions, of reality.
What can be said about one of these orders of reality does not necessarily apply to the others. Most of the confusion in the spiritual world is due to the ignorance about the overlapping of these three dimensions of the same one reality and their qualities. For example, if we say that the self has no attributes and therefore is not affected by karma, this does not mean to say that the jiva, which is the self in its secondary apparent nature, is also free from karma. No! Jivas are subject to time, space and all karmic, physical and psychological laws. Jiva is limited, and the self is limitless.
This confusion can be easily resolved by the understanding that the self pervades all other dimensions. It is what makes all others possible. Therefore we can say that the self is also the jiva and the world, as if apparent extensions of the self. But the jiva and the world can say that they are the self. The same way we can say that our physical body is also our hand, but the hand alone cannot claim to be the body.
A jivamukta is one that firmly knows that he/she is the self/consciousness/paramatman – many names are given to IT. This firm knowledge naturally and effortlessly cancels one’s tendencies to think and act against dharma. And this is so because we only break the rules of dharma when we have strong desires and fears motivating our actions, which is only possible if the mind is still under the influence of ignorance. In this case the jivamukta knows that he is the self, but he is not really free from his/her desires and fears.
I believe that all religions, with a few exceptions such as Buddhism (which does not bring Isvara into the picture), know the meaning of the three orders of reality. All spiritual and religious systems seem to have their roots on the Vedas.