| |
watching it doing nothing and one slips out, because the watcher automatically becomes separate from the watched.
You are already out -- the moment you watch your mind, you are watching the anger in your mind, you are no more angry. You will be surprised: the anger is there but it is only on the screen of the mind, just like a TV screen. It is something there but you are the watcher, you are not it. A certain desire is there, a certain thought is moving, but you are the watcher -- you cannot be it.
The moment this is realised bliss arises. It is only out of meditation that one feels blessed. Then life is a festival, a continuous celebration.
(Just because they can't be proved, that doesn't mean there aren't such things as inner experiences, Osho said in his last address. And he illustrated the point with a hilarious anecdote from his schooldays.)
God cannot be proved by any argumentation.
Philosophers have tried but they have all failed. Theologians have been working on it, on how to find proofs for god, but all their proofs are simply stupid; they don't prove anything at all. There is always a flaw underneath and any person of a little intelligence can see it.
For example they say, their most important argument -- Christians, Hindus, Mohammedans, all -- is that the world needs a creator because there cannot be anything uncreated.
On the superficial level it seems logical. If you go into a desert and suddenly you find a wristwatch, you cannot believe that this can happen just by chance. Out of millions of years, just through a coincidence, a beautiful wristwatch, a Rolex (laughter) ... and even Swiss-made.... And if even a small thing like a wrist-watch cannot happen then how can this whole universe, this vast universe and this immense harmony, happen just through coincidence?
So the logic that there must be a creator seems to be appealing. But it is very superficial because then the question arises: who created the creator? The theologian has only one answer, that the creator is not created; he has always been here, he is uncreated. But then his whole argument falls down flat, because in the beginning he said
|
|
|