---
section: Library
booktitle: "Sat Chit Anand"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "CHIT"
dategiven: "22 November 1987 am"
place: " in Chuang Tzu Auditorium"
chapternum: "Chapter #1"
chaptertitle: "Everybody can be a mystic"
acode: "8711220"
shorttitle: "CHIT01"
audio: "Yes"
video: "Yes"
esttime: "93mins"
displaytitle: "Sat Chit Anand: Chapter #1"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">BELOVED OSHO,
IS THERE ANY DEFINITION OF THE ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE OTHER THAN SATYAM-SHIVAM-SUNDRAM -- "TRUTH, GODLINESS AND BEAUTY"?</p>


The experience of the ultimate, Maneesha, is always the same. But the expression can be different. The expression depends on the mystic; the experience does not depend on him.


The first definition I gave you is the definition by the poetic, aesthetic, sensitive individual, for whom satya can come -- the truth can come -- only as beauty. And truth and beauty create the ultimate peak of godliness. The poet cannot imagine that beauty will not be a part of the ultimate unity. His eyes are receptive to beauty. Truth comes to him and is transformed, in his expression, as beauty. Beauty is the god of the poet, of the painter, of all creative artists.


So the first definition was the definition  from the artistic soul. Most of the mystics have  been poets -- not ordinary poets, concerned with the mundane, but poets of the sacred. This sensitivity of the poet is essential to arrive at the definition of the ultimate experience as "Truth, Godliness and Beauty."


But there are other mystics also, who are not poetic ... because to be a poet takes a certain talent. Everybody can be a mystic, because the mystic is our very being, the unfolding of the mystic rose within us. But not everybody can be a poet. Poetry is a talent, though it comes very close to mysticism. So either the poet becomes the mystic -- then comes the definition satyam-shivam-sundram -- or the mystic suddenly finds himself filled with tremendous beauty and starts singing and dancing out of his spontaneity. He may not be linguistically right; that is not his concern ....


Meera, Kabir, Farid -- they were not poets from the very beginning. They became poets when the experience happened. Perhaps a talent that was dormant in them became suddenly active as they opened their hearts to the universe. Everything opened. An immense poetry -- which no poet can write, because the poems are not compositions; they are their heartbeats, they are their very life -- started flowing through them.


But there are other people who have attained to the ultimate: for example, Gautam Buddha or Socrates or Pythagoras or Lao Tzu. They are not poets. They don't have that talent of being a poet, either in the beginning or at the end of their experience. Their definition is bound to be different.


The experience, remember, is always the same. But the expression will depend on the individual.


The second most important definition, which is in the same category as satyam-shivam-sundram, is sat-chit-anand. Sat means truth; chit means consciousness; anand means bliss. Certainly, in any definition, truth is going to be the essential part that cannot be dropped. It is the experience of ultimate truth -- just as in the first definition, in the second definition sat remains the most prominent. But two new things come in: consciousness and blissfulness.


The first definition, although beautiful -- tremendously beautiful -- will not become the experience of many, because the talent to be a poet is rare. The second definition is going to be the experience of many more.


Meditation brings you to the final peak of consciousness -- that is chit, exactly in the middle. On one side is truth; on another side is bliss. As meditation flowers, you find that on one hand truth has revealed to you all its mysteries and on the other blissfulness is showering all its treasures on you.


It is as significant a definition as the first, but you can see the difference: there is no place for sundram, beauty; the person has no sensitivity towards beauty. But the person is absolutely alert and conscious of great blissfulness overflowing in him and a feeling, an indubitable feeling, that he has arrived home. That is his truth.


In Sanskrit, unlike English, words can be joined together. Sanskrit has an approach ... and perhaps the approach has come from the enlightened ones. So many people have become enlightened in this land. They have left their impact on Sanskrit, the language. They will not say Sat-Chit-Anand the way I have explained it to you. I have cut one word into three, just to explain it to you, because in English there cannot be one word for all three. You cannot join truth, consciousness, blissfulness into a single word. The Sanskrit word is sachchidanand. All three words are joined. Sat is there, chit is there, anand is there -- but they are not separate, and there is no gap: sachchidanand.


It is significant to remember that the experience is one orgasmic, organic, unitary experience. It does not come in parts as sat, as chit, as anand. It comes into existence in a totality, and that totality is sachchidanand. To denote, to emphasize the unity -- that neither can sat exist without chit, nor can chit exist without anand -- they have used a joined word: sachchidanand.


It is not only a question of language. Deep down it is an experience that they all come together. In fact there is no way to create demarcations, that this is truth and this is consciousness and this is bliss. Suddenly they are all within you. In other words, truth is consciousness and bliss; or vice versa, bliss is consciousness and truth.


The division I made was just to make you understand. Now I want you to be aware that in experience itself there is no division. It has the fragrance of blissfulness, it has the light of consciousness, it has the revelation of truth -- all simultaneously and together. They are not steps to each other. It is not possible to drop one of them and experience the other two. They are an intrinsic unity, an organic unity.


This is also a very beautiful definition, and it is applicable to more mystics than the first definition.


Gautam Buddha would never have defined the ultimate experience in terms of beauty. Beauty somehow carries a sense of our ordinary life. You may say it is a much higher beauty, but still something remains in it. The moment you say "beauty," you come down to the body, you come down to the flowers, you come down to the sunset. But the beauty the mystics are talking about is not the beauty of these tiny experiences. It is the beauty of the whole, of which we have no idea ... of which we have not even dreamed.


But the second definition that I am giving to you today is absolutely a unity. Nothing of it at all connects with our unconsciousness and its world -- neither truth, nor consciousness, nor bliss. In a way it is purer. In a way it simply makes it clear that you have gone beyond the mundane and entered into the sacred. The whole vision has changed. Not even a trace from the mundane is left. It can be said to be a more authentic definition than the first, and more mystics have defined their experience with the second definition.


Naturally -- most probably -- you will come to the second definition if you ever come to experience the ultimate. Very few of you may experience beauty -- that is a minority definition. But I respect minorities, so I have taken it first.


This is the majority definition: more logical, more perfect, but less sensitive, less human. The first was more human; at least there was a connecting link between our ordinary world and the extraordinary experience. In this definition all bridges are broken. You are no more part of the ordinary. You have simply transported your consciousness to the extraordinary which is not visible to the eyes, which is not tangible: you cannot hear it, you cannot see it, you cannot taste it.


But in the first definition the word sundram, beauty, gives a sense that your eyes are capable of seeing it; perhaps your hands can feel it, perhaps your ears can hear the beautiful music in it. The word 'beauty' functions almost as a bridge. In the second definition there is no bridge, but a quantum leap. You simply jump from the mind to no-mind.


Only no-mind can be aware of truth; only  no-mind can be filled with consciousness; only no-mind can be showered with thousands of flowers of bliss. Nothing relates to your ordinary world. In this way it is purer.


Both have their own pros and cons, and I want you to be aware of them. But remember: don't choose the definition. First choose the experience, then the definition will come on its own accord. If you choose the definition first, it may not fit your individuality and the definition itself may become a hindrance.


Go deeper into meditation. Experience is the thing that matters. Then how you express it is dependent on you. Most probably you will define it as sachchidanand: truth, consciousness, bliss. It is more universal, because very few people are poets.


I am reminded of Rabindranath Tagore. He absolutely insisted that there is only one definition of the ultimate experience, and that is satyam-shivam-sundram. He could not conceive of the ultimate experience not having beauty in it. He could drop anything but beauty. His poetic soul was even ready to say that you can drop truth, you can drop godliness, but please save beauty.


It happened that Mahatma Gandhi wanted the temples of Khajuraho ... which are some of the most beautiful creations of man -- there is nothing comparable on the whole earth. The temples of Puri and Konarak, which are similar, have not achieved the perfection of Khajuraho. There must have been at least one hundred temples, very big temples, and you cannot find even a single inch which has not been carved, which has not been made beautiful. Naked men and women in different postures of love ... naturally Gandhi was very much annoyed, and he wanted at first to demolish these temples.


Seventy temples had already been demolished by the Mohammedans, because Mohammedans have a fanatical attitude that God cannot be represented in any statue, picture or anything.


It is perfectly okay if it is your idea, but to interfere with somebody else's idea becomes idiotic. Somebody wants his god to be expressed in a statue -- who are you? But every religion thinks it is responsible for the whole of humanity and it intends to impose its idea on every human being. So when the Mohammedans came, they could not believe it; they destroyed seventy temples of tremendous value.


But thirty of these temples were hidden in thick forest, so they were saved. Now what Mohammedans had done, Gandhi wanted to do -- for a different reason, but what he wanted to do was the same, to demolish them. He was afraid that, "These temples will show the whole world that we are not very moral people, that we are not puritans."


What kind of temples are these, in which each temple has thousands of couples carved in stone? Full-sized men and women, so beautiful that once you have seen a Khajuraho temple woman, a statue, no woman will look beautiful to you! Every woman will look just a faded memory of something real. Those stones are so real ...


I used to go to Khajuraho -- it was very close to my university, just a hundred miles, so whenever I had time I would drive there. The guide finally became a sannyasin -- because he was himself ashamed to show them to people; but I told him, "You don't understand. You need not be ashamed. These pictures, these statues, this sculpture is not obscene. There is not a single hint of obscenity, although they are absolutely naked in loving embrace, making love. But there is not a single hint of obscenity unless your mind is full of obscenity."


One European prime minister was going to come to see Khajuraho, and one of my friends was the education minister of the state in which Khajuraho is. And the prime minister of India informed the education minister, "I am busy and I cannot come; otherwise I would have come with the guest to show him Khajuraho. So it is your responsibility, because you are the most educated minister in your state, to take him to Khajuraho."


He was my friend; he phoned me and he said, "I am very much ashamed that Khajuraho is such an embarrassing place. And when outsiders come who have seen only churches in the name of religion, they cannot believe that this is a temple, a holy place. And I, myself, feel guilty, so I cannot explain and I don't know what to explain."


I said, "I will come." I went there with the guest and the education minister -- and he was just shrinking in himself, because you cannot conceive of any possible loving posture that is not carved ... in such beauty, such tremendous beauty that it is almost as if the stones have become alive. It seems the woman is just going to come out of the wall in which the statue is carved. So alive ...


The education minister remained outside and I took the guest in. He was amazed with the beauty, that bodies can be made so beautifully in stone, can give such life to the stone, such warmth. He had never thought that such a thing exists anywhere in the world. And I explained to him, "These are on the outer side of the temple, and you should note one point -- that inside the temple there is no sculpture, no statues; just absolute silence."


He said, "This is a revelation! This is strange; statues should be inside the temple. Why are they outside and inside there is nothing, just silence?"


I said to him, "These temples were made by the greatest psychologists that have appeared on the earth, some three thousand years ago." They were called tantrikas; their whole approach was called tantra. The very word 'tantra' means expanding consciousness. They had made these beautiful temples all around the country.


Mohammedans have destroyed them; it was just fortunate that these were in a thick forest, hidden. And only meditators used to go there; there was no village surrounding the temples. By fortunate coincidence they were saved.


I told him, "The secret is, tantra believes unless you have gone through all sexual experiences to the point when sex does not matter to you at all ... that is transcendence of your energy. And that is the point when you are capable of entering into the inner sanctum of the temple. You are ready for the nothingness of Gautam Buddha; you are ready for pure silence."


So meditators used to meditate for months on those statues. And it is a great strategy, because looking at all those statues, a moment comes ... something in your unconscious disappears. Not just looking -- once it was months of training, sometimes years of training. But they were not allowed inside the temple until they became uninterested in these sexual scriptures. When their master saw that somebody had become completely uninterested -- even sitting before the most beautiful woman he was sitting with closed eyes -- then he was allowed to enter into the temple.


Now, those sexual thoughts are the major thoughts in your mind. Every three minutes the ordinary man thinks at least once of sex, and every five minutes every woman thinks at least one time about sex. These are the very subtle mistakes which God made when he created the world; that's why I say there is no God, to relieve him of all this responsibility. This is a disparity which is dangerous!


When we came out, the prime minister was very much impressed. But the education minister had waited outside. Although he had not gone in, he was still feeling embarrassed. And just to hide his embarrassment he told the guest, "Don't take much note of it. It was a small current of thinkers who created these temples, and we are ashamed -- they are so obscene."


The guest said, "Obscene? Then I will have to go again and see, because I did not find anything obscene." Those naked statues look so innocent, so childlike ... and they are not there to provoke your sexuality.


Obscenity is a very subtle phenomenon, very difficult to make a distinction whether something is obscene or not. But this should be the criterion -- I think this is the only criterion: obscenity is when it provokes sexuality in you. And if it does not provoke sexuality but just a sense of tremendous splendor and beauty, it is not obscene. But it will depend on individuals. The same statue may look to someone obscene, and to someone else a beautiful piece of art.


I told the education minister, "Your mind is full of obscenity. This guest from the outside is far more clear. He did not raise a single question about the obscenity of the temple."


But Mahatma Gandhi's mind was full of sex his whole life. When India became free, he thought that now was the chance: either dismantle them, destroy them, or at least do what he had been insisting from the 1930's: if you don't want to destroy them, cover them up with huge mud hills -- the temples are very high. So they will remain there, and once in a while if you want to show them to some special guest from the outside you can remove the mud, clean the place, and then put the mud back again.


It was Rabindranath who opposed Mahatma Gandhi's proposal, saying, "It is sheer stupidity. I have seen those temples; they have inspired me to great heights. Under their inspiration I have written such beautiful poems. And they are the greatest heritage of one of the most significant schools of psychologists, who have penetrated so deeply into human psychology and life energy that they found a way, a device to transform it to make men free of sexuality." Because Rabindranath resisted, Gandhi could not cover them with mud.


It was Rabindranath who insisted that the only definition that is exactly right is "truth, godliness, beauty." If something has to be dropped from the definition, you can drop truth, you can drop godliness, but beauty you cannot drop.


Beauty is the sky for the poet, for the painter, for the musician -- and how is it possible that the ultimate truth should be ugly? It has to be the most beautiful experience. But the definition will be applicable to only a very few people. The second definition will be applicable to a vast majority of people.


There is one difference more that has to be remembered. The first definition is outgoing -- truth is at the center of being, then godliness surrounds it, and then another circle of beauty. But that beauty is not beyond the beauty of the trees and the flowers and human faces. Everything that is beautiful in the world is a joining link with the ultimate.


Rabindranath was the first man in history who said beauty is truth. Nobody has ever said that. There have been people who have said truth is beauty, but nobody who dared to say that beauty is truth, putting beauty on the highest peak. That will be possible only to those who can feel the sensitivity of the beautiful. It is not for all.


But the second definition is not so outgoing. It does not go out at all. Truth, consciousness, bliss -- all are inside you. None of these three experiences takes you out.


In psychological terminology, the first definition can be said to be of the outgoing consciousness, expanding consciousness -- just as when you throw a pebble into a silent lake, and waves start moving towards the farther shores. The first definition is expanding, outgoing. Psychologists have a special word for it; they call it 'extrovert'. And certainly the poet is an extrovert, because he sees the beauty of the trees and the beauty of the stars and the beauty of the birds singing. He is an extrovert.


The second definition is 'introvert'. It concentrates on your very being -- because it is enough, there is no need to go out.
Truth, consciousness, blissfulness.


In still other words, it can be said that the first definition is that of the bodhisattvas and the second definition is of those who are the arhatas, and I have explained to you these two kinds of enlightened people. The arhatas simply become pillars of silence, joy, truth, but they never share it. They never bother to initiate anyone, they never guide anyone. And the bodhisattvas, the moment they have attained, start spreading like ripples all around to the farther shores of humanity. They want to reach to everyone.


But nothing can be done about it: you cannot change it; your individuality already contains an inbuilt program for whether you will turn into a bodhisattva or into an arhata -- you cannot decide it. You will have to pass beyond the mind, and then only will you realize who you are, a bodhisattva or an arhata.


Sachchidanand is absolutely inner, introvert  -- your interior subjectivity. It has nothing to do with anyone else. It is another thing that somebody may get attracted to you, it is another thing that many may get magnetically pulled towards you, but the arhata himself does not make a single move to transform anybody or to give him a hand to pull him out of his ditch. If somebody is interested, he can come. But the arhata does not take the responsibility of being anybody's master. If you insist, he will say something to you, but as telegraphically as possible.


The bodhisattva functions totally differently: sharing is his joy and he wants this very world to become more beautiful. He wants to contribute to the world in some way, so when he leaves the world, he leaves it a little more beautiful compared to the world he had come to seventy or eighty years before.


But the arhata is simply unconcerned with anyone. He is just a pillar of consciousness. If somebody can learn something from his lifestyle, that's another thing. But he is not a master. He is only a mystic.


This second definition has to sink deep in you, because most of you will find this definition finally. Remember this beautiful word sachchidanand.
<p class="question">BELOVED OSHO,
IS IT TRUE THAT YOU MAKE THINGS HAPPEN TO US ACCORDING TO OUR NEEDS IN THIS VERY MOMENT, OR DOES YOUR AURA CAUSE US TO CHOOSE THE HAPPENINGS OURSELVES?
MY MOTHER IS SUFFERING FROM CANCER AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, AND HAS BEEN FEELING STRONG HEALING ENERGY IN THE LAST WEEKS. SHE THOUGHT YOU HAD BEEN SENDING IT. HOW DO YOU MANAGE TO ARRANGE ALL THESE LEARNING SITUATIONS AND SEND ALL THE NECESSARY ENERGY TO YOUR SANNYASINS ALL OVER THE WORLD?</p>


Prem Tarani, there are a few things which I would like to put on record. First, I never do anything. Second, if you want, all my energies are available to you, but that is your doing. Third, it is possible if you are in deep trust and love with me to become unconsciously a transmitter to your mother of a healing energy.


But please don't make me responsible for anything. The responsibility is very dangerous -- it is walking on a razor's edge. Today you find your mother is healing, and you praise me and love me and trust me. But no mother can live forever. The day she dies, your whole love, your trust in me, will simply disappear because I allowed your mother to die, because I did not give her the healing energy. That's why I want my hands from the very beginning to be completely clean.


I don't accept praise because I know behind every praise there is the possibility of condemnation. I am condemned already too much all over the world. At least leave a few people who don't condemn me! But you may not be aware that this is how things go wrong. People start expecting and if their expectations by some coincidence are fulfilled, they are immensely grateful. But it is only a coincidence. If they are not fulfilled, then I am "the god who has failed." First they make me a god, just to declare finally that I am the god who has failed.


I am simply enjoying my energy. It is overflowing and enough for anybody who wants to share it. But the whole doing is theirs.


So, remember: it is your trust, it is your love, it is your devotion that may become a transmitting medium to your mother. Because you love me and trust me, because you love your mother and want her to be healed, it is possible for a subtle energy to reach her. But you are the doer -- that is my emphasis. I am not the doer.


What you are saying is beautiful, and it will be difficult for anyone other than me to reject it. Just go to any so-called guru -- India is so full of them -- and if you say such a thing, he will say, "That's perfectly right. I am taking care of the whole world."


But as far as I am concerned, I cannot even take care of myself! I am certainly a lazy guy. I will not take such trouble to reach your mother. Otherwise it will become difficult for my sannyasins to die. And just as a symbol I have made samadhis for the sannyasins who have died -- so you remember that I am not going to protect you!


When death comes, it is perfectly good. Let it come. I may even help death rather than you. Because death will relieve you of all pain and all stupidities and all diseases ... and particularly the fear of death! Once you are dead, you are no more afraid -- even of death -- and you will rest in your grave for eternity. So why should I prevent you?


But if you go and say these things to somebody else, he will be immensely happy. These are the people who go on creating wrong concepts in people's minds.


My thing is very clear: I am available; if you trust me you can draw as much energy as you want. If you don't trust me, you have closed the doors yourself. But it is always your doing, it is never my doing. I cannot take the credit for it. The credit goes to you, Tarani. You must be in deep love with your mother and because you are in deep trust with me, you can become a medium for a healing energy to reach to your mother.


As far as I am concerned, my whole teaching is doing without doing, action in inaction. But this kind of misunderstanding happens.


Two cannibals, a father and son, are walking through the jungle checking their mantraps when they find a beautiful white girl who is in distress. The son, an impulsive boy, exclaims, "Look, Dad! A white girl. Let us eat her right now."


His father, who has had more experience in the world and has been to the mission school, pauses thoughtfully and says, "No, son, let us take her home and eat your mother."

Different people take different approaches ...


When an Englishman does not get on with his wife, he goes to the pub; a Frenchman goes to his mistress, a Greek goes to sea, a German goes to war, an Australian goes to a cricket match, an Indian goes to the Himalayas, an American goes to his lawyer and a Japanese goes to commit hara-kiri.


Just different people, different understandings. But here with me ... and this one is for you all.


Rubin Moskowitz went to one of the best restaurants in New York and treated himself to a huge meal with all the trimmings, finishing up with a Havana cigar.


Finally, the waiter brought the bill on a silver tray. It came to ninety-nine dollars and ninety-nine cents, so Rubin paid with a hundred dollar bill.


About five minutes later, he called the waiter back and asked for his change. Without altering his expression, the waiter left but returned a moment later with his silver tray. On it sat a penny and a packet of condoms.


Rubin was shocked and demanded an explanation. The waiter lifted his nose in the air and said, "Sir, it is the policy of our restaurant to encourage customers like you not to reproduce."

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.
			

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