---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Great Nothing"
booktype: "Diaries"
bookcode: "GREATN"
dategiven: "23 September 1976 pm"
place: " in Chuang Tzu Auditorium"
chapternum: "Chapter #5"
chaptertitle: "None"
acode: "7609235"
shorttitle: "GREATN05"
audio: "No"
video: "No"
esttime: ""
displaytitle: "The Great Nothing: Chapter #5"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->


[A visitor says: The way I feel at the moment there is that there is no such thing as sannyas... Who is there to be a sannyasin?]


That's the point to be understood. If you can understand that you are also not there, then you have understood rightly. But if sannyas is not there, religion is not there, meditation is not there, and you remain there, then you have not understood at all.


... So saying is just meaningless. Then this is just a trick of the mind so that whatsoever you want to remain, you remain, and whatsoever you are afraid of, you say it is not there; there is nothing like sannyas.


But there is something like the ego. So if you have understood, drop the ego. Then there really is no sannyas, no religion. But if the ego remains then there is sannyas, there is religion, there is Buddhism and there is Buddha.


These are all devices to help the ego to disappear -- nothing else. These are all remedies for a certain illness. The remedy is not there if the illness is not there. That Prajnaparmitasutra is the assertion of the ultimate. It is not for you! It is simply the assertion of the ultimate truth -- that there is nothing. But if there is something -- if the ego is there, if you are there -- then you will need remedies:


The medicine exists only for the ill person. For the healthy person, the medicine is not. But if an ill person starts thinking that the medicine is not and throws the medicine and keeps the illness deep in the heart, he is fooling with himself.


It's perfectly true. What you say is perfectly true, but you have not understood it at all. If you have understood, there is no problem. I have nothing to say -- it is perfectly okay. But as I can see, you have read it, you have become knowledgeable -- but it is not your knowing .


Just today I was reading.... You must have heard about a great indian philosopher and saint, Vivekananda. When he came back from America, in Bengal there was a great famine. So he dropped all his religious work, went to the area to help people. A few scholars of that place came to see him, and they said to him, 'Swamiji, we are surprised that you are getting involved in maya, in illusion.' The world does not exist, so who is poor and who is hungry? This is all dream! And we have heard you teach many times that it is all a dream... nothing exists. So where is the famine and who is dying ?'


Listening to this, Vivekananda started crying... tears started. Those people could not believe it. they started laughing. They said, 'This is ridiculous! We were thinking that you were enlightened -- and you are crying!'


Vivekananda took his staff -- he was a very strong man -- and went to the leader of the group and said, 'If you really know that nobody is hungry then I am going to hit you with this staff.'


That man escaped! He started running, because Vivekananda was a really strong man; if he hit, he could even kill this man. The whole group of those great scholars all disappeared; there was nobody left.


It is true that only nothing exists, but it is true only when the ego is not. Before that it is a very dangerous trick. It is not your truth -- it is borrowed. And a borrowed truth can become poisonous.


Sannyas is just a help to drop the ego. Once the ego is dropped, then you know that the medicine is useless. In fact it never existed. It had to be created because there was another illusion deep down inside you, and an illusion can only be cut by another illusion -- there is no other way. The poison can be destroyed only by poison.


So sannyas is nothing but a no-ego trip. When the ego is false, this too is false, but that moment will come one day when the ego has dropped. But if you say that sannyas is nothing and you go on keeping your ego.... And as I see it, it is the ego that is talking and taking the support of the Prajnaparmitasutra, that says, 'What is sannyas? There is no sannyas or anything else.' It is the illness that is saying that there is no medicine.


So think over it... meditate over it. If you feel that your understanding is enough and you can drop the ego, then there is no need for any sannyas. But if you feel that it is difficult for you to drop, then the medicine has to be used. Think about it.


[The visitor replies: A few points.... It seems to be beginning with the duality in my mind -- either sannyas or non-sannyas, but for myself, I agree -- this is not a deep experience... ]


No, it is not an experience at all, remember, because there are not deep and non-deep experiences. Either it is or it is not.

[The visitor answers: Let's say it is not a final experience.]


No, no, there is nothing like final and non-final. There is only experience. Either it is there or it is not there.


These are all the tricks of the mind to divide. Either you know or you don't know -- and there is no in between, no state in between. When we don't know, we don't know, but we can collect much knowledge and we can start feeling that we know. And that's why we say it is superficial. not very deep, not final, but still it is an experience. It is not.


Experience is always final. Experience as such has a finality in it. It is utterly final. Experience is total and ultimate. There are no grades in experience -- that you know one inch, then two inches. then three inches, then one yard, and then by and by you know. There is no gradation because the truth cannot be divided; it is indivisible.


It is a sudden illumination -- just like lightning -- everything suddenly in one experience, in a single, unitary experience. That is both the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega.


These are all the tricks of the intellect to divide. The intellect can understand this much -- that this is not ultimate. But the mind is not ready to believe that not even superficial experiences have happened to it. It is a trick of the mind. The mind says, 'I know I have not arrived absolutely, but I am on the way, arriving. I have covered a few steps -- a few more have to be covered. I have a little truth. It may not be the final truth, but a little truth, a fragment.' But truth is not a fragment.


Truth is like a circle. A half circle is no circle at all. It is not right to call it a half circle. Circle means circle; there is no half to it.


[The visitor debates: I can see what you're saying -- the spontaneity of enlightenment. But the word 'satori' in Japanese doesn't exactly mean final enlightenment.]

I'm not talking about satori at all.


... I'm not talking about a satori at all, because if the satori is true, it is final. If it is just mental, a dream experience, then you can call it anything else. If a satori is true, it is samadhi.


If a satori is just psychological -- there are psychological satoris; they are not more than hypnotic states, they are self-hypnosis. You can create an illusion of satori for yourself. You can read, you can think about, imagine, and you can have a feeling that you have attained to something. But if it is true, it is final. There is no going back.


That's why in indian experience we don't have any word for satori. We don't have any word for satori; Buddha has no word for satori. If the truth is there, it is samadhi. Satori is, in the japanese terminology, a glimpse of the truth -- which is not possible because truth happens only when you are not. You cannot have a glimpse of it.


If you can have a glimpse of it, that means truth can happen when you are there; that is impossible. If the ego is there, truth cannot happen. If the truth happens, the ego cannot be there. And if the ego cannot be there, there is no way to fall back. It is a point of no return. It is ultimate.


Truth is ultimate. Satori is again a trick of the mind. Again, the mind always wants to create grades, because with grades the mind can always work it out easily. With the ultimate, the mind is completely at a loss. What to do with the ultimate? The ego finds no way to have a grip on the ultimate. Divided, then there is possibility.


It is difficult to declare that you have the ultimate truth. It will look absurd -- to you. Not only to others, to yourself it will look absurd that you have the ultimate truth. But when you say that this is just a fragment of truth, a little glimpse -- not very deep, just skin-deep -- then it doesn't look absurd to you, it does not look absurd to others. But it is absurd because the implication is that the truth can be divided, that you can have a part of it, or you can have it in installments.


That is the whole debate between the sudden enlightenment people and the people who say that enlightenment can be gradual.


[The visitor says: Well, I have thought about this and I rejected the gradual path completely, but... ]


Your rejection is intellectual -- that's what I am saying. Your rejection is intellectual -- and intellectual rejection is no rejection at all.


[The visitor: What you said seems to reject all revelations -- all people who have had a revelation and then relapsed.]


There is no possibility of relapse. If they relapse the only possibility is that the revelation was an illusion, was of the mind.


There is no way to fall back from truth. It is impossible. Once you know, you know. There is no way to unknow it. Meditate over it. You will need sannyas -- otherwise drop the ego completely. Now the choice is not between sannyas and no-sannyas. The choice is between sannyas and the ego. Think about it that way.

[The visitor: Cannot sannyas be part of the ego?]

You can make it part of the ego. You can make it part of the ego.


[The visitor: I'm not frightened of it, I don't fear, but I see around me people who are in the situation... ]

Don't be worried about others. That's not the question at all.


... don't even think about them. That's their problem. That has nothing to do with you.


... You should only think about yourself because you cannot think about others. You are not even able to think about yourself rightly. And to think about somebody else will be standing on the outside. You don't know. Somebody may be just playing the game of some ego and may not be an egoist -- for example, a Gurdjieff.


He used to play at being such a egoist, but he was not an egoist at all. He was one of the most egoless persons ever. But he would play the game and he would deceive many. So who knows? A sannyasin walks by in a very egoistic way... but how can you be certain?


You can only be certain about your own subjectivity. This is an outer impression: he looks egoistic to you -- maybe it is just your ego that is interpreting it as egoism. It may not be there at all; it may be your projection.


So at the most we can be truthful only about our own subjectivity. Watching others carries no meaning, because whatsoever you watch is your interpretation. It is not the fact. It is your interpretation; it is how you feel about it. It may not be so. It may be just the contrary. It may be absolutely something else. It looks like that to you -- but that may be your ego.


So just think about yourself. Just meditate about your own state and where you are. And don't be too much burdened by scriptures. Put them aside and look at reality and where you are. If you have an ego you will have to use devices -- what Buddhists call 'upaya' . You will have to use many devices -- meditations, Vipassana, zazen. Sannyas is just a device.


One can become an egoist by meditating. One can feel, 'l am a great meditator' -- so what to do? One can become an egoist by becoming humble -- 'I am the greatest humble man in the world' -- so what to do? One can become an egoist by loving peo-ple, saying, 'I am a great lover.' The ego is possible -- and very subtle are its ways. It is possible anywhere. Unless you are alert and watch it, it can come from anywhere.


[The visitor: But then... I cannot find -- centre is the word you use very much and is the word that is used here. I cannot find an abiding ego if you like. I cannot find an abiding personality. I find with each different person -- with you, with another person -- I become different personalities.]

That's true, because the ego cannot be an abiding thing.


... The ego is not an abiding thing. The ego is a flux. The ego means many egos, the ego means a crowd. The ego is not singular. In language it is singular -- in reality it is plural: the ego means egos. You don't have one ego -- you have many.


... To meditate on the ego, suddenly you become different from the ego -- you become a witness. And that is where the centre is -- and that centre is abiding.


When you start meditating on your ego, on your thoughts, on your mind, you are suddenly separate, because whatsoever you meditate on, you are separate from it. That has become the object and you have become the subject.


... That is what meditation is. That witnessing centre is an abiding centre -- that is your real self. When you get identified with any ego, then you are losing your centre. That's what we talk about -- losing the centre or gaining the centre.


So just meditate about the ego. Meditate about your real situation, where you are. If you feel that you will need something as a help, you can come. If you feel that there is no need for any help, then go on as you are with my blessings.


But keep in mind that you have learned a few things which are in the head and can be very destructive unless they become realities.


[The visitor: When you say to look at myself, as I say, I only see so many egos or personalities.]


Watch them. Watch them and you wi 11 see that you are identified with a few of them -- sometimes with one, sometimes with another. That identification has to be dropped so that you become a pure witness. Simply watch with unconcern, with indifference -- what Buddha calls 'upeksha'.

[Visitor: The way I feel about sannyas... ]


I'm not saying that you take it. And don't be certain that if you ask, I will be ready to give it to you. That is not the point. I may simply refuse. That is not the point. I am simply saying to see within yourself whether the reasons you are producing for not taking sannyas are not maybe reasons to protect your ego. If they are not, it is perfectly good. If they are, think about it again.


And never be certain that next time you come... I may not give you sannyas. That is not the point at all. I am not interested in giving you sannyas at all. I am simply interested in making you aware that if you are not moving into a certain thing, then why? What are the real reasons? The rationalisations are not reasons. The motives may be something totally different to the rationalisations. Just watch them.


Join the music group and T'ai Chi, and if you can manage, join the Vipassana.


[Visitor: I've read a book by N. Thera called 'The Heart of the Buddhist Meditation' and according to that, part of the Buddhist doctrine of anapansatiyoga was to look at other people, outside people.]


No, that is absolutely wrong. That is just a beginning part of it. Just learn to observe.

[Visitor: But I've been following this.]


No, you are doing something wrong then. It is not a question of witnessing others -- you have to witness your own self. Witnessing others can be just a beginner's step -- to know what witnessing is. You stand by the side of the road and you watch people passing by. It is easier to watch people who are passing outside, but this is just a training device.


Once you have learned how to watch without judgement.... If some beautiful woman passes by and if a judgement arises that she is beautiful and a certain lust arises that you would like to possess her or to have her -- then the witnessing is lost. Or an ugly person may pass by -- you don't condemn, you are not repulsed, and you don't appreciate. It is just a beginner's training.


Once you have learned this watching, then close your eyes and watch the procession of thoughts, the inner traffic -- which is the real traffic. Watch it there. There are ugly persons passing by and beautiful women and men and friends and enemies and millions of things are happening there. Watch there and be unconcerned... as if it is none of your business to interfere.


And don't have any opinion. Simply see the fact without any opinion. If you can drop all opinion and simply see what is passing, you will be surprised, because without opinion, nothing passes by. The traffic simply disappears into the blue. Once your opinionated mind is not there -- no judgements, no appreciation, no condemnation, no evaluation -- then you are simply seeing... just an on-looker, a pure clarity, a pure vision. Then suddenly the traffic stops. Everything disappears into the abyss; there is nothing to watch.


And when this happens -- that there is nothing to watch -- another revolution happens: there is no watcher either. Because when the procession of thoughts is no more there, then how can the witness exist? The witness can only exist with the witnessed.


That's why Krishnamurti goes on saying that the observer is the observed. When the observer disappears, the observed also disappears. So first the traffic disappears and then suddenly you look within -- the witness is not there; neither the object nor the subject. This is what Buddha calls samadhi -- nobody, nothingness -- the great nothing. This is what is his nirvana -- just pure innocence, with no centre, with no boundary... with no definition, no description .
Continue your witnessing.

[Visitor: May I ask.... You said I would need sannyas in the future.]

You will need it.

[Visitor: So you think sannyas or a guru is necessary?]


Almost always. There are only very rare exceptions -- but they can be counted out. Otherwise it is almost always necessary -- and for you absolutely necessary, because a person who does not need a guru never goes to a guru. And a person who does not need a guru never asks anybody whether a guru is needed or not.


You are not that type of person -- you have already come. So witness it and when the desire arises, just tell me. If I am willing at that time, we will see, mm ? (a chuckle) Good !
			

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