Main Index
 
 
Book Name: The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol 4Previous     Next
 

morality, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and the eighth, the ultimate, right SAMADHI. The word 'right' has to be understood first because the Sanskrit word SAMYAK IS SO meaningful, is so pregnant with meaning that it cannot be translated. 'Right' is a very poor translation for it for many reasons.

First, the word 'right' immediately gives the idea as if it is against the wrong. SAMYAK never gives that idea; SAMYAK IS not against the wrong. Buddha's right is not against the wrong, because Buddha says, 'Wrongs are many, right is one -- so how can the right be against the wrong?" Health is one, diseases are many. There are not as many healths as there are diseases, so health cannot be against the diseases -- otherwise there would be sc many healths. Somebody is suffering from TB and then he becomes healthy, somebody is suffering from cancer and he becomes healthy, and somebody is suffering from flu and he becomes healthy. These three healths are not three healths. The diseases were different, but health is one, and one cannot be against the many.

Exactly the same is true about right and wrong. Right is one. Wrongs are millions; you can go on inventing wrongs. Right cannot be invented; it does not depend on you. Right is a state of affairs where you are in tune with the whole. That is the meaning of health too: when you are in tune with the whole you are healthy. The music flows between you and the whole, there is no obstruction. You feel a well-being. There is no noise, everything is in harmony. When the individual is in tune with the universal, right exists, health exists. When you fall out of tune then so many wrongs arise -- there is no limit to them, they are endless. And you can invent new wrongs.

Humanity has invented many new diseases which were not prevalent before. In the old scriptures, ayurvedic scriptures, many diseases are not mentioned. People think they are not mentioned because ayurveda was not yet enough of a science, so they could not diagnose those diseases. That is not true; ayurveda became a perfect science. But those diseases were not in existence, so how can you diagnose a disease which doesn't exist?

Previous Page (2/271) Next Page
 
Go to page: