Anyway, I opened up the book to a random page, and it turns out I had already read it as several parts were already underlined in pencil (an old habit of mine that I apparently inherited from my mom). The book's format is very much 'guru-like' as many spiritual books are, i.e. visitors or disciples ask questions and Osho answers and a scribe writes all of this down for posterity.
While the chapter is officially about tantric sex, the themes that run through it are actually about surrendering, denial, extremes, the middle path, acceptance, choosing, goals and (behind it all) the how of living your life. Quite a lineup.
To simplify the message, Osho basically says that choosing one path is equivalent to denial of at least one other. Choosing nonviolence is equivalent to denial of violence, and "the moment you deny, you have accepted the extreme path." He adds, "two extremes, howsoever opposite, are parts of one whole - two aspects of one thing. If you choose one you have chosen the other also." (This reminds me, for some reason, of all those politicians who go on moral crusades and always seem to get caught later in some form of moral breakdown.)
For Osho, acceptance of the universe we live in, or "accepting the total life" is the middle path. "Acceptance of totality is to be automatically in the middle." You are neither for or against something, "you are just floating in the stream."
The idea, which is a Tantric principle, is called the 'deep let-go'. When you are choosing, you are not letting go, and that means that ego is operating. Osho states the principle as "when you choose, you are moving against the whole universe". Instead of going with the universal flow you are allowing your own wants, desires, fears to resist the flow.
Osho uses a nice image, which John Donne may or may not be in agreement with:
When you choose, you are not choosing the universal flow: you are standing aloof, isolated; you are like an island. You are trying to be yourself against the whole flux of life.If choosing is not the way, then it will not be too surprising to you to hear (read) that nonchoosing is the way. Basically, still using the river metaphor that Buddhists and many spiritual others use quite often, nonchoosing is about not deciding where life is going but allowing life to move, allowing life to take you with it, and this without a fixed goal.
While I understand about choosing, and that choosing implies denial of something or moving against something, and that all movement against implies a movement towards etc etc, I have a hard time swallowing the living without a goal idea. Actually more than having a hard time swallowing it, I think the idea scares the heck out of me. Having goals is such a part of our society and such a big part of how I think that living without a goal sounds like jumping out of a plane without a parachute! Short-term, medium-term, long-term goals, academic goals, professional goals, personal goals, relationship goals, family goals, savings goals, spending goals, sport goals, reading goals, language goals, travel goals, lofty goals, material goals, spiritual goals - they are everywhere in my life. Who would I be without my precious goals and to-do lists? While many people seem to define themselves in part by their achievements, maybe I define myself (at least in part) by my goals... Something for me to think about.
In any case, Osho is not very ambiguous about who is at fault here, and unfortunately he is probably right (and don't worry, he was talking to me when he said this ; )):
Your ego point is the problem, because of it you create problems. There are no problems in life itself; existence is problemless. You are the problem and you are the creator of the problem, and you create problems out of everything. [...] This nonsurrendering of ego is the source of all problems.But, the solution is also as clear: "once you accept life in its totality things start happening, because this total acceptance frees you from the ego point."
Let's put that on our to-do lists : )
No comments:
Post a Comment