The Heart of Yoga. Osho

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Tzu says, “Easy is right,” but these people say, “No! How can it be so easy? It must be difficult – very, very difficult, arduous.”

      You want to do difficult things because when you are fighting against some difficulty, against the current, you feel you are someone – a conqueror. If something is simple, if something is so easy that even a child can do it, where will your ego stand? You ask for hurdles, you ask for difficulties. And if there are no difficulties you create them so that you can fight, so that you can fly against a strong wind and can feel: “I am someone – a conqueror!” But don’t be so smart.

      You know the phrase “smart aleck”? You may not know where it comes from – it comes from Alexander. The word aleck comes from a short form of Alexander. “Don’t be a smart Alexander.” Be simple, and don’t try to be a conqueror because that is foolish. Don’t try to be a somebody.

      But Patanjali appealed; Patanjali appealed to the Indian ego very much, so India has created the most subtle egoists in the world. You cannot find anywhere in the world more subtle egoists than you can find in India. It is almost impossible to find a simple yogi. A yogi cannot be simple because he is doing so many asanas, so many mudras, and he is working so hard, how can he be simple? He thinks himself to be at the top – a conqueror. The whole world has to bow down to him; he is the cream – the very salt of life.

      Go and watch yogis; you will find that they all have very, very refined egos. Their inner shrine is still empty, the divine has not entered. That shrine is still a throne for their own egos. They may have become very subtle; they may have become so subtle that they may appear to be very humble, but if you watch, you will also find the ego in their humbleness.

      They are aware that they are humble, that’s the difficulty. A really humble person is not aware that he is humble. A really humble person is simply humble, not aware. And a really humble person never claims that he is humble because all claims are of the ego. Humility cannot be claimed; humbleness is not a claim, it is a state of being. All claims fulfill the ego. Why has this happened? Why has India become a very subtle egoist country? When there is ego, you become blind.

      Now when you talk to Indian yogis, they condemn the whole world. They say that the West is materialist; only India is spiritual. The whole world is materialist… As if there is a monopoly. They are so blind that they cannot see that the exact opposite is the case. The more I have been watching the Indian and Western minds, the more I feel the Western mind is less materialist than the Indian. The Indian mind is more materialist, clings to things more, cannot share; it is miserly. The Western mind can share, is less miserly. And because the West has created so much materialist affluence that does not mean it is materialist, and because India is poor that does not mean it is spiritual.

      If poverty were spirituality, then impotence would be brahmacharya. No, poverty is not spirituality; neither is affluence materialism. Materialism does not belong to things, it belongs to the attitude. Neither does spirituality belong to poverty, it belongs to the inner – a nonattached sharing.

      In India you cannot find anybody sharing anything. Nobody can share; everybody hoards, and because they are such hoarders, they are poor. And because a few people hoard too much, many people become poor.

      The West has been sharing. That’s why the whole society rises from poverty to affluence. In India a few people have become so rich, you cannot find such rich people anywhere else – they are but a few – and the whole society drags itself in poverty. The gap is vast, you cannot find such a gap anywhere. The gap between a wealthy man like Birla and a beggar is vast. Such a gap cannot exist anywhere else, does not exist anywhere else. There are rich and poor people in the West, but the gap is not so vast. Here the gap is simply infinite. You cannot imagine such a gap. How can it be filled? – it cannot be filled because the people are materialist. Otherwise how and why would this gap exist? Can’t you share? – impossible! But the ego says that the whole world is materialistic. This has come about because people were attracted to Patanjali and to all the people who were giving difficult methods. There is nothing wrong with Patanjali, but the Indian ego found a beautiful, subtle outlet to be egoistic.

      The same is happening to you. Patanjali appeals to you because he is difficult. Heraclitus is “kindergarten” because he is so simple. Simplicity never appeals to the ego. But remember, if simplicity can become an appeal, the path is not long. If difficulty becomes the appeal, the path is going to be very long because from the very beginning, rather than dropping the ego you have started accumulating it.

      I am not speaking on Patanjali to make you more egoistic. Look and watch. I am always afraid of talking about Patanjali; I am never afraid of talking on Heraclitus, Basho, Buddha. I am afraid because of you. Patanjali is beautiful, but you can be attracted for the wrong reasons. This will be a wrong reason, if you think he is difficult – the difficulty of it becomes the attraction.

      Edmund Hillary, who conquered Everest – the highest peak, the only peak which was unconquered, was asked, “What is the need to reach the peak? Why do you take so much trouble? And even if you reach it, what will you do then? You will have to come back down again.”

      Hillary replied, “It is a challenge to the human ego. An unconquered peak has to be conquered!” It had no other utility. What will you do? What has he done? He went there, placed a flag and came back. What nonsense! And many people died in the effort. For almost a hundred years many groups had been trying. Many died, were lost, fell into the abyss – never came back. The more difficult it became to reach, the more it appealed.

      Why go to the moon? What will you do there? Isn’t the earth enough? But no, the human ego cannot tolerate that the moon remains unconquered. Man must reach there, and because it is so difficult, it has to be conquered. So you can be attracted for the wrong reasons. Now going to the moon is not a poetic effort; it is not like small children who raise their hands and try to catch the moon. And since humanity came into existence every child has longed to reach to the moon. Every child has tried, but the difference must be deeply understood. The effort of a child is beautiful. The moon is so beautiful. It is a poetic effort to touch it, to reach it. There is no ego; it is a simple attraction, a love affair. Every child falls into that love affair. If you can find a child who is not attracted by the moon, what type of child is that?

      The moon creates a subtle poetry, a subtle attraction. One would like to touch it and feel it; one would like to go to the moon. But for the scientist that is not the reason. To the scientist, the moon is there as a challenge. How does the moon dare to be continuously there, and to be a challenge? And man is here and he cannot reach it. He has to reach it!

      You can be attracted to it for the wrong reasons. The fault is not with the moon; neither is the fault with Patanjali. But you should not be attracted for the wrong reasons. Patanjali is difficult – the most difficult – because he analyzes the whole path, and each fragment seems to be very difficult. But difficulty should not be the appeal: remember that. You can walk through Patanjali’s door, but you should not fall in love with the difficulty, but with the insight – the light that Patanjali throws on the path. You should fall in love with the light, not with the difficulty of the path. That will be a wrong reason.

      “What you have been saying about Heraclitus, Christ and Zen seems like kindergarten teachings compared to Patanjali.” Please don’t compare. Comparison is also from the ego. In the real existence, things exist without any comparison. A tree which reaches four hundred feet into the sky and a very, very small grass flower are both the same as far as existence is concerned. But you look and say, “This is a great tree, and what is this? – just ordinary grass.” You bring comparison in, and wherever there is comparison, ugliness follows. You have destroyed a beautiful phenomenon.

      The tree was great in its “tree-ness” and the grass was great in its “grassiness.” The tree may have risen four hundred feet and its flowers may open СКАЧАТЬ