---
section: Library
booktitle: "Bodhidharma: The Greatest Zen Master"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "BODHI"
dategiven: "13 July 1987 pm"
place: " in Chuang Tzu Auditorium"
chapternum: "Chapter #18"
chaptertitle: "Wakefulness is awareness"
acode: "8707135"
shorttitle: "BODHI18"
audio: "Yes"
video: "Yes"
esttime: "98mins"
displaytitle: "Bodhidharma: The Greatest Zen Master: Chapter #18"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">BELOVED OSHO,</p>
<p class="sutra">YOU SHOULD REALIZE THAT THE PRACTICE YOU CULTIVATE DOESN'T EXIST APART FROM YOUR MIND. IF YOUR MIND IS PURE, ALL BUDDHA LANDS ARE PURE. THE SUTRAS SAY, "IF THEIR MINDS ARE IMPURE, BEINGS ARE IMPURE. IF THEIR MINDS ARE PURE, BEINGS ARE PURE." AND, "TO REACH A BUDDHA LAND, PURIFY YOUR MIND. AS YOUR MIND BECOMES PURE, BUDDHA LANDS BECOME PURE." THUS, BY OVERCOMING THE THREE POISONED STATES OF MIND, THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS ARE AUTOMATICALLY FULFILLED.
BUT THE SUTRAS SAY THE SIX PARAMITAS ARE CHARITY, MORALITY, PATIENCE, DEVOTION, MEDITATION AND WISDOM. NOW YOU SAY THE PARAMITAS REFER TO THE PURIFICATION OF THE SENSES. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS? AND WHY ARE THEY CALLED FERRIES?
IN CULTIVATING THE PARAMITAS, PURIFICATION OF THE SIX SENSES MEANS OVERCOMING THE SIX THIEVES. CASTING OUT THE THIEF OF THE EYE BY ABANDONING THE VISUAL WORLD IS CHARITY. KEEPING OUT THE THIEF OF THE EAR BY NOT LISTENING TO SOUNDS IS MORALITY. HUMBLING THE THIEF OF THE NOSE BY EQUATING ALL SMELLS AS NEUTRAL IS PATIENCE. CONTROLLING THE THIEF OF THE MOUTH BY CONQUERING DESIRES TO TASTE, PRAISE AND EXPLAIN IS DEVOTION. QUELLING THE THIEF OF THE BODY BY REMAINING UNMOVED BY SENSATIONS OF TOUCH IS MEDITATION. AND TAMING THE THIEF OF THE MIND BY NOT YIELDING TO DELUSIONS BUT PRACTICING WAKEFULNESS IS WISDOM. THESE SIX PARAMITAS ARE TRANSPORTS. LIKE BOATS OR RAFTS, THEY TRANSPORT BEINGS TO THE OTHER SHORE. HENCE, THEY'RE CALLED FERRIES.
BUT WHEN SHAKYAMUNI WAS A BODHISATTVA, HE CONSUMED THREE BOWLS OF MILK AND SIX LADLES OF GRUEL PRIOR TO ATTAINING ENLIGHTENMENT. IF HE HAD TO DRINK MILK BEFORE HE COULD TASTE THE FRUIT OF BUDDHAHOOD, HOW CAN MERELY BEHOLDING THE MIND RESULT IN LIBERATION?
WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE. THIS IS HOW HE ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT. HE HAD TO DRINK MILK BEFORE HE COULD BECOME A BUDDHA. BUT THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF MILK. THAT WHICH SHAKYAMUNI DRANK WASN'T ORDINARY IMPURE MILK BUT PURE DHARMAMILK. THE THREE BOWLS WERE THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS. AND THE SIX LADLES WERE THE SIX PARAMITAS. WHEN SHAKYAMUNI ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT, IT WAS BECAUSE HE DRANK THIS PURE DHARMAMILK THAT HE TASTED THE FRUIT OF BUDDHAHOOD. TO SAY THAT THE TATHAGATA DRANK THE WORLDLY CONCOCTION OF IMPURE, RANK-SMELLING COW'S MILK IS THE HEIGHT OF SLANDER. THAT WHICH IS TRULY-SO, THE INDESTRUCTIBLE, PASSIONLESS DHARMA-SELF, REMAINS FOREVER FREE OF THE WORLD'S AFFLICTIONS. WHY WOULD IT NEED IMPURE MILK TO SATISFY ITS HUNGER OR THIRST?
THE SUTRAS SAY, "THIS OX DOESN'T LIVE IN THE HIGHLANDS OR THE LOWLANDS. IT DOESN'T EAT GRAIN OR CHAFF. AND IT DOESN'T GRAZE WITH COWS. THE BODY OF THIS OX IS THE COLOR OF BURNISHED GOLD." THE OX REFERS TO VAIROCANA. DUE TO HIS GREAT COMPASSION FOR ALL BEINGS, HE PRODUCES FROM WITHIN HIS PURE DHARMABODY THE SUBLIME DHARMAMILK OF THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS AND SIX PARAMITAS TO NOURISH ALL THOSE WHO SEEK LIBERATION. THE PURE MILK OF SUCH A TRULY PURE OX NOT ONLY ENABLED THE TATHAGATA TO ACHIEVE BUDDHAHOOD, IT ENABLES ANY BEING WHO DRINKS IT TO ATTAIN UNEXCELLED, COMPLETE ENLIGHTENMENT.</p>


I feel greatly sorry for poor Bodhidharma. He has got into trouble -- and this trouble was bound to arise because he belongs not only to a tradition of Buddhism, but to a sect of Buddhism, called Mahayana, "the great vehicle." Anybody who belongs to any tradition, any sect, any doctrine, is bound to be in the same trouble as Bodhidharma. Whatever he is saying is becoming more and more stupid and nonsensical for the simple reason that he cannot say anything against the tradition.


He had been sent from India specially to make Buddhism more solidly grounded. That was the order of his own master, the enlightened woman Pragyatara, who had said, "I am sending you to China not to disturb people but to establish Mahayana in the great land of China, because if the whole country is converted to Buddhism, one-fifth of humanity is converted." One person out of five people in the world is Chinese.


That reminds me of a man who was reading a newspaper in which he read that out of five people, four people are of different countries, different races, different religions but one is certainly Chinese. He called his wife who was working in the kitchen and told her, "Have you ever realized that out of five people in the world, one is Chinese?"


She said, "My God! It is good you told us because we already have four children. Now is the time for birth control, otherwise the fifth will be Chinese."


China has been one of the largest lands up to now. But by the end of this century India will go ahead; it will become more populated than China. Otherwise, for the whole of history, China has been the most populated land in the world.


And if Buddhism was spreading like wildfire, it was time to give it a solid foundation. Bodhidharma had been specially sent as a messenger because although during the six hundred years before Bodhidharma, thousands of Buddhist scholars had gone to China at the invitation of emperors to translate all Buddhist scriptures into Chinese, not a single one had been enlightened.


So Bodhidharma was sent specially to give people a certain taste of what enlightenment is. They had heard the word, they were enchanted with the idea, a great longing had arisen in millions of people to attain to enlightenment, but they had not even seen an enlightened person. His presence, his silence, his compassion ...they were absolutely unaware; it was only theoretical.


By sending Bodhidharma Pragyatara had a certain specific purpose in her mind: to give China its first enlightened master. The trouble was that he could not say anything against Mahayana that would disturb all the new initiates into Buddhism. He could not say anything against Gautam Buddha, because nobody was going to listen to him.


They were so much impressed with Gautam Buddha and his life and his teachings that in just six hundred years, they created thirty thousand temples and monasteries. Two million people were initiated as Buddhist monks and almost the whole country became Buddhist. They may not all have been monks but they were laymen; they had started the journey hoping that one day they would also become monks. Five percent of the whole population of China had become monks.


It was a tremendous time of upheaval, change, transformation. And Bodhidharma, I think, had not realized the responsibility that he was taking upon his shoulders.


As far as superficial questions were concerned, he was perfectly right and perfectly in tune with his own experience. But when the ultimate questions started arising -- which are bound to arise sooner or later -- if he had declared, "I do not know" at the first ultimate question, when he was asked "From where does ignorance come?" ...if he had accepted his innocence, if he had announced, "I know how awareness can be created, but I don't know from where ignorance comes. Perhaps ignorance is forever there."


Ignorance never comes; it is just like darkness. Have you ever seen darkness coming or going? You always see light coming in and the darkness is not there. You always see light going out and the darkness is there. Darkness is always there -- no coming, no going. It is the light that comes and goes. Darkness is simply the absence of light.


This would have been the perfect answer to the people: that darkness has always been there. There is no source for it because it is non-existential. Only something that exists can have some source. Light has source. In the same way, awareness has a source, consciousness has a source, but unconsciousness is simply nothing but darkness.


And if he had stopped there he would have done a tremendous job of protecting himself from falling into all kinds of nonsense. But he could not say "I do not know," because people had been expecting him for three years. The whole country had been waiting, Emperor Wu included, with great longing and desire for Bodhidharma, the first enlightened person to enter China. All their thirst would be quenched; all their questions would be answered. And his answers were not scriptural; his answers were from his own experience.


So he hesitated to say, "I don't know. I'm utterly innocent. At the most I can say darkness has always been there, ignorance has been always there. There is no root to it. It is rootless, causeless, because it is non-existential." That would have been my answer.


He could have told them, "I have come here to teach you how to get out of ignorance. I don't know how you have entered into ignorance. That is your business."


But rather than doing that, he went into long, theological descriptions. And that allowed the disciples to ask more and more about things which he was perfectly capable of answering but then those answers were going to be against Mahayana, or even against Gautam Buddha.


So he is in a very difficult dilemma. He knows what is right and he also knows what is traditionally right. And he proved not as strong as I have always thought. He could not prove himself to be a true revolutionary. He could not go against the tradition. I will show you how he becomes mixed up and how he starts talking nonsense. He has to -- just to console the traditional people, just to keep in line with the orthodox theology.


This question also belongs to the same category. And he falls into such idiotic answers that it becomes almost hilarious. Once in a while he is true, but only once in a while. Most of the time what he is talking about is irrelevant and I for one absolutely disagree with his answers.


The sutra: YOU SHOULD REALIZE THAT THE PRACTICE YOU CULTIVATE DOES NOT EXIST APART FROM YOUR MIND.


This is true. Whatever you practice, you have to practice through the mind. Hence enlightenment cannot be attained through practice. Because if enlightenment could be attained through practice, that means it is a by-product of the mind, just like any dream, any hallucination, any illusion, any thought. And just as thoughts disappear, your enlightenment may disappear at any moment.


I had one German sannyasin, Gunakar, who has become enlightened so many times that now he has stopped completely, dropped the whole idea. When he became enlightened for the first time -- he has a beautiful castle in Germany, in a very beautiful, scenic place -- he declared his enlightenment to all the presidents and prime ministers and to all the ambassadors and to all the members of UNO. He wrote a letter ...he informed me also ....


I said, "Gunakar" -- he had just gone from here a week or two weeks before and I had not seen any sign that he was going to become enlightened so soon. I informed him, "Just come back; first I have to see ...."


So he came back, and as he came back, slowly, slowly as he came closer to Poona, enlightenment disappeared. He became aware that this was stupid ..."I don't know anything." But in Germany it was perfectly good, because nobody understands what enlightenment is. When he declared, "I am enlightened," people thought, "Perhaps ...nobody has ever heard what this enlightenment is. He may be." And naturally, nobody contradicted it. But he became afraid, and when he came in front of me he said, "Just forgive me. I have become absolutely unenlightened again."


I said, "Remember that whenever this desire arises in you, before acting and starting to write letters to all world governments and ambassadors and presidents that if they want any advice, you have become enlightened; first, you have to come here."


Two years he remained silent and one day I received his letter again. He said, "Osho, this time it has really happened and I am coming."
I said, "Okay, come."


And as he came to me he said, "Just forgive me. This is very strange. When I come here I become unenlightened and when I go back to Germany the desire arises, and nobody is there who can even say that I am not enlightened. Why wait? Declare! And the desire becomes so persistent ...."


It happened many times. The last time I heard he had joined a commune and he was washing dishes there. Somebody who was going to see me soon asked Gunakar, "What are you doing? Have you ever heard of any enlightened man washing dishes in a restaurant?" It was the commune restaurant.


He said, "Forget all about enlightenment. Let me just do my dishes and if you are going to Osho, just tell him that I am not going to become enlightened -- at least not in Germany! If I have to become enlightened, I will become enlightened when I am close to him. I am feeling immensely joyful just washing the dishes and that enlightenment was such a torture ..." because he started just imitating me.


He closed himself up in his castle on the mountain. He would not come out of his room. He would not meet with anybody. He had a secretary and naturally he got unnecessarily tortured. He could not come out, otherwise he would lose his enlightenment. He could not meet people, only the secretary, and the secretary informed them that he was in samadhi. "He cannot see anybody. Don't disturb him."


He said, "I have suffered enough because of this enlightenment. Now I am enjoying life more as a dishwasher in the restaurant of the commune. At least I can go out, I can go to a movie, I can go to the disco, I can sing and dance. That enlightenment was a very difficult thing, just remaining closed in one room ...."


Enlightenment cannot come from the mind. Enlightenment can come only when the mind disappears. In fact, enlightenment is the light and mind is the ignorance. Enlightenment is the wisdom; mind is the darkness.
<p class="sutra">IF YOUR MIND IS PURE, ALL BUDDHA LANDS ARE PURE.</p>


I would like to correct it. I would like to say, if your no-mind -- which means beyond purity and beyond impurity -- is the buddha land .... It is not the pure mind which is the buddha land. Even the purest mind is still mind. And purity and impurity are a duality. And buddha land has to be beyond the dual. It cannot be one part of duality. It has to be beyond both.
<p class="sutra">THE SUTRAS SAY, "IF THEIR MINDS ARE IMPURE, BEINGS ARE IMPURE. IF THEIR MINDS ARE PURE, BEINGS ARE PURE."
Up to now, this is perfectly okay.</p>
<p class="sutra">AND, "TO REACH A BUDDHA LAND, PURIFY YOUR MIND."</p>


That is wrong, because then, what is the difference between good people and a buddha? The pure mind is buddha land and people who are pure are pure beings, so what is the difference between a good man and a buddha? There seems to be no difference -- but there is a great difference.


Hence I would like to put it: To reach a buddha land go beyond the mind, go beyond both purity and impurity. As your no-mind becomes buddha land, buddha becomes available to you. These are my corrections.
<p class="sutra">THUS, BY OVERCOMING THE THREE POISONED STATES OF MIND, THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS ARE AUTOMATICALLY FULFILLED.
BUT THE SUTRAS SAY THE SIX PARAMITAS ARE CHARITY, MORALITY, PATIENCE, DEVOTION, MEDITATION AND WISDOM. NOW YOU SAY THE PARAMITAS REFER TO THE PURIFICATION OF THE SENSES. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS? AND WHY ARE THEY CALLED FERRIES?</p>


The question is simple and significant. The disciple is asking, "What are these six PARAMITAS?" The word paramitas means that which takes you to the other shore -- a small ferry boat.


Charity, morality, patience, devotion, meditation and wisdom -- these are the six ferries that can take you beyond this shore to the further shore, to your real home.


It is a simple question. Bodhidharma has just to define what charity is, what morality is, what patience is, what devotion is, what meditation is, and what wisdom is. But rather than giving a simple definition of these beautiful words, he goes into a very strange answer:
<p class="sutra">IN CULTIVATING THE PARAMITAS, PURIFICATION OF THE SIX SENSES MEANS OVERCOMING THE SIX THIEVES. CASTING OUT THE THIEF OF THE EYE BY ABANDONING THE VISUAL WORLD IS CHARITY.</p>


Now, one cannot conceive of something more nonsensical. Just listen to it again: CASTING OUT THE THIEF OF THE EYE BY ABANDONING THE VISUAL WORLD IS CHARITY. By renouncing and abandoning the world that is available to the eyes ...the only way is to be blind! Otherwise, how can you abandon it? You can go to the mountains but the visual world will be there. You can go in a dark cave but darkness is also visual. You see it. And in fact, even blindness will not help unless you are born blind because a man who is born blind cannot even see dreams. He has no idea of anything.


You may never have thought about it. Do you think a blind man can see a railway train in his dream, or a starry night in his dream, or a beautiful woman in his dream, or a roseflower in his dream? Impossible, because he has never seen these things. Dreams are only reflections. What you have seen in actual life, dreams can reflect.


The most surprising thing is that almost everybody thinks that a blind man lives in darkness. And that is wrong, because darkness is also a visual phenomenon, you have to see it. The blind man has no eyes. He cannot even see darkness; light is far away. If he can see darkness, then you cannot prevent him from seeing light. And if he can see things in dreams, he is not blind. The born blind see nothing, just as the born deaf hear nothing.


But what can you do? You have eyes. How can you abandon the visual world?


There was in India a poet, Surdas, who has been worshiped by Hindus as a great saint. Surdas saw a beautiful woman -- he had gone to beg, not aware of who was inside the house. He knocked on the door and a beautiful woman opened the door. And suddenly a desire, a fancy for her arose in his being. It was natural; it was not wrong. If you can enjoy a beautiful flower, why can't you enjoy a beautiful face? But religions are very much against all pleasures. It seems all religions have been founded by masochists. Torture yourself! The more you torture yourself, the more you become spiritual.


Surdas became very much guilty -- and he had done nothing; just the face was so beautiful that it was natural a great appreciation arose in him. But it was against the religious precepts. He destroyed both his eyes and he became blind. And because of this blindness, he has been worshiped for centuries as a great saint.


But do you think by destroying his eyes, he would have stopped dreaming? Just the opposite -- then he would dream more and more of that beautiful face. The face that was beautiful would become more beautiful, more fancy, in his dreams. And this is the meaning of charity?


Charity simply means an unconditional sharing. It has nothing to do with the eyes and nothing to do with the visual world and its abandonment. It simply means you have something; you should enjoy to share it. Don't be a miser. Don't hold on to it because this whole life is going to end one day and you will not be able to take anything with you. So while you are alive, why not share as much as you can? Things which can be taken away any moment ...it is better that you share them. And it is a great joy to share. The man who learns the art of sharing is the richest man in the world. He may be poor, but his inner being has a quality of richness that even emperors may feel jealous of.


I have always loved a small Sufi story: A poor man, very poor, a woodcutter, lived in the forest in a small hut. The hut was so small that he and his wife could sleep ...only that much space was in the hut.


In the middle of one dark night, it was raining hard and somebody knocked on the door. The wife was sleeping close to the door. The husband said to the wife, "Open the door. The rain is too much and the man must have lost his way. It is a dark night and the forest is dangerous and full of wild animals. Open the door immediately!"


She said, "But there is no space." The man laughed and said, "This is not a palace of a king, where you will always find a shortage of space. This is a poor man's hut. Two can sleep well; three can sit. We will create space. Just open the door."


And the door was opened. The man came in and he was very grateful and they all sat and started talking and gossiping and telling stories to each other. The night had to be passed somehow because they could not sleep; there was no space. And just then, another knock ....


The man, the new guest, was now sitting by the side of the door. The owner of the hut said, "Friend, open the door. Somebody else is lost." And the man said, "You seem to be a very strange fellow. There is no space."


He said, "This was my wife's argument too. If I had listened to her argument, you would have been in the forest, eaten by the wild animals. And you seem to be a strange man that you cannot understand that we are sitting just because of you. We are tired after a long day. I am a woodcutter -- the whole day I cut the wood and then sell it in the market and then we can hardly get food once a day. Open the door. This is not your hut. If three persons can sit comfortably, four persons can sit a little closer, with a little less comfort. But we will create the space."


Naturally he had to open the door, although reluctantly. And a man entered and he was very grateful. Now they were sitting very close; there was not even a single inch of space left. And then suddenly, a strange knock, which did not seem to be a man's! There was silence from all three; the wife and the two guests were afraid that he would say open the door.


And he said it. "Open the door. I know who is knocking. It is my donkey. In this wide world he is my only friend. I carry my wood on that donkey. He remains outside, but it is raining too much. Open the door."


And now it was the fourth guest to be allowed in, and everybody resisted and they said, "This is too much. Where is the donkey going to stand?"


This man said, "You don't understand. It is a poor man's hut, it is always spacious. Right now we are sitting; when the donkey comes in we will all be standing and we will keep the donkey in the middle so he feels warm and cozy and loved."


They said, "It was better to get lost in the jungle, rather than to be caught in your hut."


But nothing could be done. When the owner said to open the door, the door was opened.


And the donkey came in. The water was dripping from all over his body and the owner took him into the middle and told all the others to stand around. He said, "You don't understand. My donkey is of a very philosophical mind. You can say anything, he is never disturbed. He always listens silently."


I have loved this story which says that the emperor's palaces are always short of space -- although they are so big ....


The house of the president of India has one hundred rooms with attached bathrooms, one hundred acres of garden. This used to be the viceroy's house and still they have separate guesthouses. What are these hundred rooms doing there? One wonders ....


I have once been there because one of the presidents, Zakir Hussein, was interested in me. He was a vice-chancellor of Aligarh University and when he was the vice-chancellor, I spoke there. He was presiding, and he loved what I had said. When he became president and he came to know that I was in Delhi, he invited me to come and he took me around. I asked him, "What purpose are these one hundred rooms serving?"


He said, "They are just useless. In fact to maintain them, one hundred servants are needed. For the maintenance of this big garden of one hundred acres, one hundred rooms -- and in front you see two big buildings. They are guesthouses and each guesthouse must have at least twenty-five rooms, not less than that."


I said, "This is absolute wastage. In how many rooms do you sleep?"


He said, "In how many rooms? I sleep in my bed. I'm not a monster that I will spread myself into many rooms ...head in one room, and the body in another and the legs in another."
"But then," I said, "these hundred rooms which are simply empty, fully furnished with everything available that a man needs, should be put to some use."


But this is the situation around the world. The emperors have big palaces and still there is no space. They are always making new palaces, new guesthouses.


And the poor man in this story said, "It is a poor man's hut, there is no shortage of space. We will manage." And they managed. The night passed beautifully, although they had to stand up.


But it is beautiful to share whatever you have. Even if you don't have anything, you can find something in your nothing, also to share.


Charity is sharing. What Bodhidharma is saying is simply nonsense.
<p class="sutra">KEEPING OUT THE THIEF OF THE EAR BY NOT LISTENING TO THE SOUNDS IS MORALITY.</p>


Have you ever heard of such a definition? Not hearing the sounds, not hearing the music is morality! Then killing a man, or raping a woman is not immoral? Listening to music is immoral, listening to the birds in the trees in the early morning is immoral. My feeling is that because he got entangled with the ultimate question and lied, he has lost his grip and he is now trying to make all kinds of definitions which are absolutely meaningless and absurd.
<p class="sutra">HUMBLING THE THIEF OF THE NOSE BY EQUATING ALL SMELLS AS NEUTRAL IS PATIENCE.</p>


He is really original! I have read thousands of books on morality, on virtues like patience, but I have never come across the statement that it is a question of the nose, not of you. If you can equate all smells as neutral -- a roseflower and cow dung smell the same -- you are patient! To hell with such patience -- this is simply insanity, insensitivity.


A man of intelligence will become more sensitive. The poet sees the greens of the trees differently from how you see them. He sees them more green. He sees not just green trees, he sees different shades of green. His sensitivity for color is very acute, sharp.


The musician hears sounds even in silence, his ears are so attuned. And the same with the other senses.


But Bodhidharma is really making a laughingstock of himself: CONTROLLING THE THIEF OF THE MOUTH BY CONQUERING DESIRES TO TASTE, PRAISE AND EXPLAIN IS DEVOTION.


If you can eat the most delicious food and the holy cow dung without it making any difference, this is devotion! My whole life I have been trying to define devotion, but Bodhidharma knows better!
<p class="sutra">QUELLING THE THIEF OF THE BODY BY REMAINING UNMOVED BY SENSATIONS OF TOUCH IS MEDITATION.</p>


If somebody touches you and you don't feel it, you are in meditation? If somebody touches you and you don't feel it, you are simply dead. It is not meditation.


But he has done a great job. And the people who were listening to him, must have wondered .... "From India an enlightened man has come. We have also heard" -- those Chinese had also heard much about meditation -- "but this is really original!"


They have also their own Lao Tzu, and Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu -- contemporaries of Gautam Buddha, of the same caliber, who know what meditation is. And he is trying to make a definition, an almost unbelievable one. He has just lost his nerve.


When the ultimate question was asked, that was the point from where he started falling. And he forgot everything. Now he is trying to make up, in any way he can ...patching up this hole, patching up that hole, and new holes are coming up and he is running hither and thither and he cannot make any sense of what he is doing.
<p class="sutra">AND TAMING THE THIEF OF THE MIND BY NOT YIELDING TO DELUSIONS BUT PRACTICING WAKEFULNESS IS WISDOM.</p>


Only this one seems to be a little sensible -- just a little, not much, because wakefulness cannot be practiced. He himself has said before that it is a spontaneous phenomenon, you cannot practice it. Anything practiced will be practiced by your mind. Who is going to practice it?


You have your body; you can practice yoga. You have your mind; you can practice meditation, wakefulness. But anything that comes from the body will go with the body, and anything that comes from the mind will go with the mind. They will not be able to go with you when death takes away everything.


Something has to happen in you which is not part of the body, not part of the mind -- something which has no roots in body-mind structure. And wakefulness is awareness, witnessing from far away all the activities of the mind and the body. Then wakefulness will go with you. Even when the body and mind are taken away by death, wakefulness cannot be taken away by anyone.


So that's why I say just a little bit -- at least he is not making too much of an idiot of himself.


THESE SIX PARAMITAS, that which takes you beyond, ARE TRANSPORTS. LIKE BOATS OR RAFTS, THEY TRANSPORT BEINGS TO THE OTHER SHORE. HENCE, THEY'RE CALLED FERRIES.
BUT WHEN SHAKYAMUNI WAS A BODHISATTVA, HE CONSUMED THREE BOWLS OF MILK ... Now this is going to be the last imaginable madness. The disciple is asking:
<p class="sutra">BUT WHEN SHAKYAMUNI WAS A BODHISATTVA, HE CONSUMED THREE BOWLS OF MILK AND SIX LADLES OF GRUEL PRIOR TO ATTAINING ENLIGHTENMENT. IF HE HAD TO DRINK MILK BEFORE HE COULD TASTE THE FRUIT OF BUDDHAHOOD, HOW CAN MERELY BEHOLDING THE MIND RESULT IN LIBERATION?</p>


Because Bodhidharma is getting eccentric the disciples are also starting asking questions which ordinarily they would not have asked. But now everything is okay. It is true that Buddha consumed three bowls of milk but that does not mean that because of those three bowls of milk he became enlightened, that one has to do something before enlightenment. It does not mean that it is a condition.


But that's what the disciples are asking: IF HE HAD TO DRINK MILK BEFORE HE COULD TASTE THE FRUIT OF BUDDHAHOOD, HOW CAN MERELY BEHOLDING THE MIND RESULT IN LIBERATION? First one has to drink three bowls of milk -- and you are telling us just to watch the mind and you will become liberated. What about those three bowls of milk?


And this is not only with Bodhidharma, this is the case with all religious scriptures, commentaries. They come to points where you are simply shocked that these people .... Can't they see a simple thing, that it was just incidental? He was hungry and somebody offered the milk. But what the disciples are asking can be forgiven. They are disciples, ignorant. But the answer is really great! The disciples are nothing before the answer.


The answer is: WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE. THIS IS HOW HE ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT. HE HAD TO DRINK MILK BEFORE HE COULD BECOME A BUDDHA. BUT THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF MILK.


This is something that you cannot go beyond. I used to think there is a limit to stupidity, but there is none. He says:
<p class="sutra">BUT THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF MILK. THAT WHICH SHAKYAMUNI DRANK WASN'T ORDINARY IMPURE MILK BUT PURE DHARMAMILK.</p>


Not just ordinary milk -- religious milk! And what is religious milk? Nobody has ever heard about it. People have heard about powdered milk, and all other kinds, but dharmamilk? How can milk be religious?
<p class="sutra">THE THREE BOWLS WERE THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS. AND THE SIX LADLES WERE THE SIX PARAMITAS. WHEN SHAKYAMUNI ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT, IT WAS BECAUSE HE DRANK THIS PURE DHARMAMILK THAT HE TASTED THE FRUIT OF BUDDHAHOOD. TO SAY THAT THE TATHAGATA DRANK THE WORLDLY CONCOCTION OF IMPURE, RANK-SMELLING COW'S MILK IS THE HEIGHT OF SLANDER. THAT WHICH IS TRULY-SO, THE INDESTRUCTIBLE, PASSIONLESS DHARMA-SELF, REMAINS FOREVER FREE OF THE WORLD'S AFFLICTIONS. WHY WOULD IT NEED IMPURE MILK TO SATISFY ITS HUNGER OR THIRST?</p>


On the one hand, we have seen Bodhidharma saying again and again, in many sutras, that your intrinsic being is always pure, there is no way to make it impure. And now, to become aware of your self-nature -- that's what buddhahood is -- you need a very special kind of milk, dharmamilk. He gives the whole description for how this dharmamilk is created.
<p class="sutra">THE SUTRAS SAY, "THIS OX DOESN'T LIVE IN THE HIGHLANDS OR THE LOWLANDS."</p>


The first thing to remember is that it is not a cow because a cow is a woman, female, and you cannot expect dharmamilk from a female. Dharmamilk comes only through males. You should send this sutra to Morarji Desai; it supports his ideology. He is drinking the dharmamilk every day ...milking and drinking and milking and drinking his own milk. I think he has attained more virtue than any buddha!


This ox is not a mistake, because before this, he has used the word cow. When he is condemning the milk he is saying, TO SAY THAT THE TATHAGATA DRANK THE WORLDLY CONCOCTION OF IMPURE, RANK-SMELLING COW'S MILK ... So he knows perfectly well the difference between cows and oxen.


The sutras say, "THIS OX DOES NOT LIVE IN THE HIGHLANDS OR THE LOWLANDS. IT DOESN'T EAT GRAIN OR CHAFF. AND IT DOESN'T GRAZE WITH COWS -- because even to graze with cows, there is a possibility the dharmamilk may get impure.
<p class="sutra">THE BODY OF THIS OX IS THE COLOR OF BURNISHED GOLD." THE OX REFERS TO VAIROCANA. DUE TO HIS GREAT COMPASSION FOR ALL BEINGS, HE PRODUCES FROM WITHIN HIS PURE DHARMABODY THE SUBLIME DHARMAMILK OF THE THREE SETS OF PRECEPTS AND SIX PARAMITAS TO NOURISH ALL THOSE WHO SEEK LIBERATION. THE PURE MILK OF SUCH A TRULY PURE OX NOT ONLY ENABLED THE TATHAGATA TO ACHIEVE BUDDHAHOOD, IT ENABLES ANY BEING WHO DRINKS IT TO ATTAIN UNEXCELLED, COMPLETE ENLIGHTENMENT.</p>


This is really very discouraging. Where are you going to find this dharma-ox?


That reminds me of a Hindu monk, very famous. I was traveling with him to participate in a Hindu conference and we stayed in the same house. He used to drink only milk; that was his only great spirituality. Otherwise, I could not see -- three days I had been with him -- I could not see any intelligence. The only thing was that he used only milk -- and that milk had to be from a white cow, an absolutely white cow.


When I heard this I asked him, "I should not interfere in your great discipline, but I cannot resist the temptation because I have never seen even a black cow giving black milk. Milk is always white, so why do you worry? If a cow has a dot, just a small dot ...black or brown or anything ...is that canceled?"


In the morning, many cows were brought for the saint to see and to look all around to see whether they were absolutely white or not. And when he accepted some cow, that it was absolutely white, then a man had to take a bath with his clothes on and with those wet clothes on he had to milk the cow, in front of the saint, so no impurity or anything wrong goes into the milk.


In three days I got so tired of his idiotness. I had not heard about Bodhidharma then; otherwise I would have told him, "What you are doing is absolutely right. Only one thing is wrong; you drink the milk of the cows. You should drink the milk of the ox, a white ox." But even white ox milk will not be white. It will be yellow. But to attain enlightenment one can do any austerity -- and this is a great discipline!


Bodhidharma has simply made himself an utter fool, when in fact things were simple to explain. But it is not just with this religion -- with every religion the same problem arises again and again.


The Jaina tirthankara, Mahavira, became enlightened sitting in a certain pose which is very strange because you are rarely found in that pose. In yoga that posture is called, "cow-milking posture." In India, machines are not used; men sit on a tripod and milk the cows by hand. But what was Mahavira doing? -- because he was certainly not milking a cow so why should he sit in the milking-a-cow posture?


That can be done only for one reason ...and I will not tell you the reason. You can ask Morarji Desai; tell him, "You are doing perfectly. Just remember, sit in the right cow-milking pose. Collect the milk and drink, and enlightenment is sure."


Now, after Mahavira Jaina monks had been thinking one could not become enlightened because to sit in that posture is very difficult. You cannot sit long enough -- and it is a very strange posture. To meditate one needs to sit in such a way that one is relaxed, at ease. Mahavira's is a very tense posture.


But what is accidental, people start thinking of as if it is the cause -- as if that posture is a necessity for enlightenment. Nothing is a necessity for enlightenment because enlightenment is not caused by anything that you can do. Enlightenment happens only when you are absent, so utterly silent that it is not your doing.


You cannot brag, "This is my enlightenment. I have done it." When enlightenment happens, you can simply say, "I was not. And because I was not, I was so silent, so absent -- just a pure nothing, only a receptivity -- it happened." It came from the beyond just as sunrays come to the flowers and they open their petals. Something from the beyond comes into you and your lotus opens its petals and releases all its inexhaustible fragrance. But there is no cause.


Cause and effect are scientific terms. They don't have any significance in the mystery of your inner life. There is nothing caused, nothing effected. The buddhahood, the enlightenment, the awakening, the liberation is already there. It is not to be created, hence no cause is needed. It has only to be looked at. You have just to turn your eyes inwards and see it. It is a discovery. It has been there for millennia so you can do it at any moment -- just a small thing which is not a cause -- you just open your eyes inward. And that's what I call meditation.


Mind opens outside; meditation opens inside. Mind is a door that leads you outside in the world; meditation is the door that leads you to your interiority -- to the very innermost shrine of your being. And suddenly, you are enlightened. Enlightenment is always sudden; it is never gradual.


And Bodhidharma knew it. His own enlightenment was a sudden experience. But just so as not to contradict the tradition, not to annoy the people, not to make enemies, he compromised. I categorically condemn this compromise.


A man of his genius should not have compromised on any ground. Even if all Buddhism in China disappears, nothing is lost.


But Bodhidharma compromising has destroyed his own integrity, his own sincerity, his own authority. He has become a pygmy when actually he was a giant.

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.
			

> [!info]
> Copyright 1964-1990 Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)
>