The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1 - Light Force Network

252 Pages·2005·0.91 MB·English

The Ultimate Alchemy, Vol 1
TalksontheAtmaPoojaUpanishad
Talksgivenfrom15/02/72pmto06/06/72pm
EnglishDiscourseseries
1
CHAPTER
The Tradition of the Upanishads and the Secrets of Meditation
15February1972pminBombay,India
AUMTASYANISHCHINTANAMDHYANAM
AUMMEDITATIONISTHECONSTANTCONTEMPLATIONOFTHAT.
THERE are some points to ponder over before we step into the unknown. The unknown is the
messageoftheUpanishads. Thebasic,themostfoundational,alwaysremainsunknown;thatwhich
we know is always superficial. So some points must be understood before we can go deep into the
realm of the unknown. These three words – the known, the unknown, and the unknowable – must
beunderstood first,because theUpanishadsare concernedwiththe unknownonly asa beginning.
Theyendintotheunknowable. Theknownrealmbecomesscience,theunknownisphilosophyand
theunknowablebelongstoreligion.
Philosophy is the link between the known and the unknown, between science and religion.
Philosophy is totally concerned with the unknown. The moment something becomes known, it
becomes part of science; it remains no more a part of philosophy. So the more science grows,
the more philosophy is pushed ahead. The field that becomes known becomes science, and
philosophy is the link between science and religion. So as science progresses philosophy has
to be pushed ahead, because it can only be concerned with the unknown. But the more philosophy
proceeds ahead, the more religion is pushed ahead, because religion is basically concerned with
theunknowable.
The Upanishads begin with the unknown; they end with the unknowable. That’s how
misunderstanding arises. Professor Ranade has written a very deep book on the philosophy of
2
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
the Upanishads, but it remains only a beginning. It cannot penetrate the deeper valleys of the
Upanishadic mystery because it remains philosophical. The Upanishads begin with philosophy, but
that is only a beginning. They end in religion, in the unknowable. And when I say ”unknowable”, I
meanthatwhichcannotbeknown.
Whatsoever the effort may be, howsoever we may try, the moment we know something it becomes
partofscience;themomentwefeelsomethingasunknownitispartofphilosophy–themomentwe
encounter the unknowable, only then is it religion. When I say the unknowable, I mean that which
cannot be known but which can be encountered; it can be felt, it can even be lived. You can be
face to face with it. It can be encountered, but still it remains unknowable. Only this much is felt –
that now we are deep in a mystery which cannot be solved. So before we enter this mystery, some
pointshavetobeunderstood;otherwisetherewillbenoentrance.
One is: how to listen, because there are different dimensions of listening. You can listen with your
intellect,withyourreason. Mm? –thatisonewayoflisteningtoathing: themostcommon,themost
ordinary and the most shallow – because with reason you are always either in defense or in attack.
With reason you are always fighting, so whenever someone tries to understand something through
reason he is fighting with the thing. At the most, a very rudimentary understanding is possible,
just an acquaintance is possible. The deeper meaning is bound to be missed because the deeper
meaningrequiresaverysympatheticlistening.
Reasoncanneverlistenwithsympathy. Itlistenswithaveryargumentativebackground. Itcannever
listen with love; that is impossible. So listening with reason is good if you are trying to understand
mathematics,ifyouaretryingtounderstandlogic,ifyouaretryingtounderstandanysystemwhich
istotallyrational.
If you listen to poetry with reason, then you will be blind. It is as if one is trying to see with one’s
ears or hear with one’s eyes. You cannot understand poetry through reason. So there is a deeper
understanding, the second type of understanding, which is not through reason but through love,
throughfeeling,throughemotion,throughheart.
Reason is always in conflict; reason will not allow anything to pass in easily. Reason must be
defeated; only then can something penetrate. It is an armour around the mind; it is a defense
method, a defense measure. It is alert every moment that nothing should pass without it being
aware, and that nothing should be allowed – unless reason is defeated. And even when reason is
defeatedthethingisnotgoingtoyourheart,becauseindefeatyoucannotfeelsympathetic.
The second dimension of listening is through heart, through feeling. Someone is listening to music;
then no analysis is needed. Of course, if you are a critic, then you will not be able to understand
music. You may be able to understand the mathematics, the meter, the language, everything about
music – but never music itself; because music cannot be analyzed. It is a whole. It is a totality. If
you wait for a single second to analyze it, you have missed much. It is a flowing totality. Of course,
paper music can be analyzed, but never real music when it is there, playing. So you cannot stand
aloof, you cannot be an observer. You have to be a participant. If you participate, only then do you
understand.
So with feeling, the way of understanding is through participation. You cannot be an observer, you
cannot stand outside. You cannot make music an object. You have to flow with it, you have to be
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 3 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
deeply in love with it. There will be moments when you will not be and only music will be there.
Thosewillbethepeaks;thosemomentswillbethemomentsofmusic. Thensomethingpenetrates
toyourdeeperbeing. Thisisadeeperwayoflistening,butitisstillnotthedeepest.
The first way is through reason – rational; the second is through feeling – emotional; and the third
is through being – existential. When you listen through your reason, you are listening through one
partofyourbeing. Again,whenyoulistenthroughyourfeeling,youarelisteningthroughonepartof
yourbeing. Thethird,thedeepest,themostauthenticdimensionoflistening,isthroughyourtotality
– body, mind, spirit – as a whole, as a oneness. If you understand this third way of listening, only
thenwillyoubeabletopenetratethemysteryoftheUpanishad.
The traditional term for this third listening is ”faith”. So we can divide: through reason the method
is doubt; through feeling the method is love, sympathy; through being the method is faith, trust –
because if we are going into the unknown, how can you doubt? You can doubt the known, but that
whichisnotknownatall–howcanyoudoubtit?
Doubt becomes valid if it is concerned with the known. With the unknown, doubt is just impossible.
Howcanyoulovetheunknown? Youcanlovetheknown. Youcannotlovetheunknown;youcannot
create a relationship with the unknown. Relationship is impossible. You cannot relate with it. You
can dissolve into it – that is another thing – but you cannot relate with it. You can surrender to the
unknown, but you cannot relate to it. And surrender is not a relationship. It is not a relationship at
all! Itisjustdissolvingtheduality.
So with reason the duality remains: you are in conflict with the other. With love the duality remains:
you are in sympathy with the other. But with being the duality dissolves: you are neither in conflict
nor in love; you are not related at all. This third is known traditionally as faith, trust – shraddha. As
farastheunknownisconcerned,faithisthekey.
If someone says, ”How can I believe” then he misunderstands, then he misses the very point. Faith
is not belief. Belief is, again, a rational thing. You can believe; you can disbelieve. You can believe
because you have arguments for believing; you can disbelieve because you have arguments for
disbelieving. Belief is never deeper than reason. So theists, atheists, believers, nonbelievers, they
allbelongtothemostshallowrealm. Faithisnotbelief,becausefortheunknownthereisnoreason
fororagainst. Youcanneitherbelievenordisbelieve.
So what remains to be done? You can either be open to it or you can be closed to it. It is not a
questionofbelievingornotbelieving. Itisaquestionofbeingopenorbeingclosedtoit. Ifyoutrust,
then you open. If you distrust, then you remain closed. This is just a key. If you want to open to
the unknown, then you will have to be in trust, in faith. If you do not want to be open to it, you can
remain closed – but no one is missing except you; no one is at a loss except you. You will remain
closedlikeaseed. WhenIsayitImeanit.
A seed has to break, has to die; only then is the tree born. But the seed has never known the tree.
The dying of the seed can happen only in faith. The tree is unknown, and the seed will never meet
the tree. The seed can remain closed in fear – in fear of death. Then the seed will remain a seed
and will die ultimately, without being reborn. But if the seed can die in faith that the unknown may
be born out of its death. only then does it open. In a way it dies, in a way it is reborn – reborn
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 4 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
into greater mysteries, reborn into a richer life. The same is the phenomenon with faith. So it is not
belief: nevermisunderstanditasbelief. Itisnotfeeling. Itisdeeperthanboth: itisyourtotality.
So how to listen with one’s totality? With neither reason functioning in antagonism nor feeling
functioning in sympathy, but with the totality of one’s being. How can the totality function? Because
we know only functions of the parts, we do not know how the totality functions. We know only parts
–thispartfunctioning,thatpartfunctioning,intellectworking,theheartfunctioning,thelegsmoving,
the eyes seeing. We know only parts functioning. How does the totality function? The totality
functionsonlyinadeeppassivity. Nothingisactive;everythingissilent. Youarenotdoinganything.
You are just here – just presence – and the doors open. Only then will you be able to understand
what the Upanishad’s message is. So your simple presence is needed – no doing on your part, no
functioning. Thatiswhatismeantbytotalfunctioning–justyourpresence.
I must make it more clear, what I mean by ”just presence”. If you are in love with someone, then
therearemomentswhenyouarenotdoinganything. Youarejustpresentbyyourlover’sorbeloved’s
side: just present, totally silent; you are not even loving each other – just present. A very strange
phenomenon happens. Ordinarily, our existence is linear. We exist in a line, in a sequence – ”my
past, my present, my future”: this is a line. I move on my track, you move on your track. We have
our tracks, linear tracks, I moving on mine, you moving on yours. Really, we never meet. We are
parallel lines – no meeting. Even if we are crowded there is no meeting, because you are on your
track and I am on my track; you belong to your past, I belong to my past; my present is born out of
my past, your present is born out of your past. Your future will be a causal sequence of your past
andpresent,andminewillbeofmine.
So we move on tracks – linear tracks, one-line tracks., There is no meeting. Only lovers meet
because, suddenly, when you are just present with someone, a different time comes into existence.
Youbothmeetinasinglemoment,andthismomentneitherbelongstoyounortoyourlover. Thisis
somethingnew. Thisisneitheroutofyourpastnoroutofyourlover’spast. Timemovesinadifferent
dimension – not linear, not from the past to the future, but one present with another present. And
there is a meeting between two present moments – a different dimension. This dimension is known
as the dimension of eternity, so lovers have said that one moment of love is eternity unto itself. It
neverends. Ithasnofuture,ithasnopast. Itisjustpresenthereandnow.
This is what I mean when I say that if you can listen not with your past, not with your future, but
withsuchatotalitythatinthepresentmomentonlyyourpresenceremains;ifyoucanlistensilently,
passively; if you can just be present here and now; if this very moment is enough – then a different
dimensionwillopen. AndtheUpanishadicmessagecanpenetrateonlyinthatdimension.
ThatiswhatismeantwhenitissaidthattheessenceoftheUpanishadsiseternal. Itdoesnotmean
permanent. It only means a different dimension of time in which there is no future and no past. So
youwillhavetomoveinadifferentway–inyourinnertime. Andwiththatinnerchange,wordsbegin
totakeadifferentshapeandadifferentsignificanceisbornoutofthem.
We use similar words. Everyone uses the same words, but with a different mind the words have a
different meaning. For example, a doctor asks a patient, ”How are you?” and at a casual meeting
on the street, you ask someone, ”How are you?” and a lover asks a beloved, ”How are you?” – the
words are the same, but is the meaning the same? When a doctor asks a patient, ”How are you?”
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 5 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
does it mean the same as when a lover asks a beloved, ”How are you?” A different significance
comesintobeing.
The Upanishads cannot be understood in an ordinary way. That is how scholars miss the whole
point, linguists miss the whole point, pundits miss the whole point. They work with language. with
grammar, with everything that is pertinent, but still they miss. Why do they miss? The missing
happensbecausetheirinnertimeislinear. Theyareworkingwiththeirintellect. notwiththeirbeing.
Really,theyareworkingontheUpanishad: theyarenotallowingtheUpanishadtoworkuponthem.
That is what I mean when I say to just be present: then the Upanishad can work upon you – and
thatcanbeatransformation. Thatcantransportyoutodifferentplanesofexistence.
So the first thing to remember is how to listen just by your presence. Absorb through your faith and
trust – drink! Do not fight with reason, do not feel with feeling. Just be one with your being. This is
thekey–thefirstthing.
ThesecondthingisthattheUpanishadsusewords,theyhavetousethem,buttheystandforsilence.
They talk and they talk continuously, but they talk for silence. The effort is absurd, paradoxical,
contradictory, inconsistent – but this is how it is possible, this is the only way. Even if I have to
provoke you toward silence, I have to use words. They use words, but they are completely against
words and language; they are not for them. This must be remembered continuously; otherwise it is
veryeasytobelostinwords.
Words have their own magic, they have their own magnetism., And each word creates a sequence
of its own. Novelists know, poets know. They say sometimes they only begin their novel. When it
ends, they cannot say they have ended it. Really, the words have their own sequence. They begin
tobealiveintheirownway,andthentheygoon.
Tolstoyhassaidsomewhere,”Ibegin,butIneverend,andsometimesmyowncharacterssaythings
that I never wanted to say.” They begin to have their own life and they go on their own tracks. They
become free from the author, from the novelist, from the poet. They become as free as children
becomefreefromtheirparents. Theyhavetheirownlife.
So words have their own logic. Use a word, and you are on a track. And the word will create many
things. The word itself will create many things, and one can be lost. But the Upanishads are not for
words. That is why they use as few as possible. Their message is so telegraphic that not a single
word is used unnecessarily. The Upanishads are the shortest treatises; not a single word is used
unnecessarily because words can create a hypnotic sequence. But words have to be used, so be
awarethatyouarenotlostinwords.
Meaning is something different. Even more than meaning – it would be good to use the word
”significance”. The Upanishads use words as signs, as symbols, as indications. They use words
to show something, not to say something. You can say something by your words, you can show
somethingbyyourwords. Whenyoushowsomething,thenthewordmustbetranscended,mustbe
forgotten. Otherwisewordscomeintheeyesandtheydistortthewholeperception.
Wewillbeusingwords,butwiththiscaution: goonrememberingthatnotonlyaremeaningsmeant,
but some indications. Symbolically, the words have been used – just like a finger pointing to the
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 6 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
moon. The finger is not the moon, but one can cling to the finger and one can say, ”My teacher
showedme–thisisthemoon!”Thefingerisnotthemoon,butthefingercanbeusedtoshow. The
word is never the Truth, but words can be used to show. So always remember that the finger has to
be forgotten. If the finger becomes more significant and important than the moon, then the whole
thingwillbeperverted.
Remember this second point: words are just indicators to something else which is wordless –
somethingwhichissilent,somethingwhichisbeyond,somethingwhichtranscends.
This forgetting that words are not realities has created much confusion. There are thousands and
thousands of commentaries, but they are concerned with words, not with the wordless reality. They
go on discussing. For centuries, millennia, pundits have discussed what this word means and what
that word means. and they have created a large literature. But so much search for meaning – and
totallymeaningless! Theyhavemissedthepoint. Thewordswerenevermeanttoberealities–only
pointerstowardssomethingelsetotallydifferentfromwords.
Thirdly: IamnotgoingtocommentontheUpanishad,becausecommentarycanonlybesomething
concernedwithintellect. Rather,Iamgoingtorespond,notcomment. Responseisadifferentthing
– altogether different. You whistle in a valley or you sing a song or you play on a bamboo flute, and
thevalleyechoes. reechoes,reechoes. Thevalleyisnotcommenting: thevalleyisresponding.
A response is a living thing; a commentary is bound to be dead. A response means that the
Upanishad will be read here – I will not comment on it; I will just become a valley and give an
echo. It will be difficult to understand it, because even if the echo is authentic you may not be able
to get the same sound back. You may not be able to find out the relevance, because when a valley
responds,whenitechoessomething,thatechoisnotjustapassiveecho–itiscreative. Thevalley
adds much. The nature of the valley adds much. A different valley will echo differently. That is how
things should be. So when I say something, it is not meant that everyone is bound to say this. This
ishowmyvalleyechoesit.
I am reminded of Stevens’ lines. They look like a Zen poem: ”Twenty men crossing a bridge into a
village, are, twenty men crossing twenty bridges into twenty villages.” When I read something, my
valley echoes in a certain way; it is not passive. In that echo I am also present. When your valley
reechoesit,itwillbeadifferentthing. WhenIsay”alivingresponse”,Imeanthis.
Sometimes it may look absolutely irrelevant, because the valley will give it a shape, a colour of its
own. This is natural. So I say that commentaries are criminal; only responses should be there, no
commentaries–becausethecommentatorbeginstofeelthatwhatsoeverheissayingisabsolutely
true. Acommentatorbeginstofeelthatothercommentatorsarewrong,andhebeginstofeelaself-
imposed duty to criticize other commentators, because he feels his commentary can be right only
when other’s commentaries are wrong. But that is not the case with a response. Multi-responses
are possible, and every response is right if it is authentic. If it comes from your depths, then it is
right. There is no outward criterion of what is right and what is wrong. If something comes out of
you from your depths, if you become one with it, if it vibrates through your whole being, then it is
right. Otherwise,howsoevercleverandhowsoeverlogical,itiswrong.
Thisisgoingtobearesponse. AndwhenIsay”response”,Imeanitwillbemorelikepoetryandless
like philosophy. It will not be a system. You cannot create systems through responses. Responses
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 7 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
are atomic, fragmentary. They have an inner unity, but to find that inner unity is not so easy. The
unity is just like a mainland and an island: between an island and a mainland there is a unity, but
deep down; deep down in the depths of the sea. the land is one. If that is understood, then no man
isanisland. Deepdownthingsareone;thedeeperyougo,themoreyoureachtotheoneness. Soif
a response is authentic, then any response, even the opposite response which may look absolutely
contradictorytoit,cannotbedifferent. Deepdowntherewillbeaunity.
But one has to go deep, and commentaries are superficial things. So I am not going to give you a
commentary; I will not say what this Upanishad means. I will say only what this Upanishad means
in me. I cannot claim any authority, and those who claim are really immoral. No one can say what
thisUpanishadmeans. AllthatcanbesaidiswhatthisUpanishadmeansinme–howIechoit.
Thisresponsecancreatearesponsivenessinyoualsoifyouarejustpresenthere. Thenwhatsoever
Isaywillechoinyoualso. Andifitcanecho,thenonlywillyoubeabletounderstandit. Sojustbelike
avalley,beinalet-go,sothatyoucanechofreely. Beconcernedwithyourselfbeingavalleyrather
than with the text of the Upanishad, or with what I am saying. Be concerned with yourself being a
valley,andallelsewillfollow. Notensionisneeded,nostrainedeffortisneeded,tounderstandme.
Thatcanbecomeabarrier. Justrelax,justbesilentandpassive,andletwhatsoeverhappensecho
inyou. Thosevibrationswilltransportyoutoadifferentperspective,toadifferentvision.
Lastly, I am not a Hindu, neither am I Mohammedan nor a Christian – a homeless wanderer. I do
not belong to the tradition of the Upanishads outwardly, so I have no investment in them. When
a Hindu comments, or when a Hindu thinks about the Upanishads, he has investments; when a
Mohammedan writes about the Upanishads, he has anti-investments: they cannot be true and
authentic. If one is a Hindu he cannot be true about the Upanishads; if one is a Mohammedan
hecannot betrueaboutthe Upanishads. He isboundto lie. Butthedeceptionis sosubtlethatone
maynotevenbeaware.
Man isthe onlyanimal whocan lieto himselfand canlive in deceptions. If youare aHindu andare
thinkingabouttheUpanishads,oraMohammedanandthinkingabouttheKoran,oraChristianand
thinking about the New Testament, you will never be aware that you cannot be true. Your being a
Christian is the barrier. You cannot be true! One must not belong; only then is the response true.
Belonging disturbs, perverts the mind, distracts and projects things which are not, or denies things
whichare.
So to me, that is not a problem, and for you also I would suggest that when you are reading the
Koran,listeningtotheUpanishadsortotheBible,donotbeHindus,ChristiansandMohammedans
at all – just being is enough. You will be able to penetrate deeper. With concepts, with dogmas,
you are never open. And a closed mind can create deceptions of understanding, but can never
understand.
So I belong to no one, and if I am responding to this Upanishad it is simply because I have fallen
in love with it. This, one of the shortest Upanishads, ”Atma Pooja”, is a rare phenomenon. So
somethingaboutthisrareUpanishad. whyIhavechosentotalkaboutit.
Firstly, it is the shortest; it is just seedlike – potent, pregnant, with much in it. Every word is a seed
withinfinitepossibilities. Soyoucanechoitandreechoitinfinitely. Andthemoreyouponderoverit,
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 8 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
the more you allow it to go in, the more newer significances will be revealed. These seedlike words
show that they were found in deep silence. Really, this looks strange, but this is a fact. If you have
less to say, you will say more. If you really have something to say, you can say it in a very few lines,
few words – even a single word may be enough. The less you have to say, the more words you will
havetouse. Themoreyouhavetosay,thelesswordsyoucanuse.
Nowithasbecomeaknownfacttopsychologiststhatwordsareusednottosay,buttohide. Wego
on talking because we want to hide something. If you want to hide something you cannot be silent,
because your face may say it, your silence may indicate it. The other may become suspicious that
you are hiding something. So a person who has to hide something will go on talking continuously.
Throughwordsyoucandeceive;throughsilenceyoucannotdeceive.
The Upanishads really have something to say, so they say it in seed form – in sutras, in aphorisms.
This Upanishad has only seventeen sutras. They can be written on a half page. On one postcard
this whole Upanishad can be written – on one side! But it has a very potent message, so we will
take each seed word and try to penetrate it, to be in a living response with it. Something may begin
to vibrate in you. And it can begin because these words are very potential, they have much. If their
atoms could be broken. much energy would be released. So be open, receptive, in a deep trust,
andlettheUpanishadwork.
Nowweenterintothe”AtmaPooja–WorshipoftheSelf–Upanishad”:
AUMMEDITATIONISTHECONSTANTCONTEMPLATIONOFTHAT.
”AUM”: this word ”AUM” is very significant – significant as a sign, as a symbol, as a secret key. So
firstwemustdecodeit.
AUMhasfivematras,fivesteps. ThefirststepisA,thesecondisU,thethirdisM.Thesearegross
steps. WhenweutterAUM,A-U-M–thesearethreewords. BututterAUM[long],andintheendthe
Mresounds–”mmm”. Thatisahalfstep–thefourth. Threearegrossandcanbeheard. Thefourth
ishalfgross. Ifyouareveryaware,onlythenisitheard;otherwiseitislost. Andthefifthisjustnever
heard. WhenthesoundofAUMvibratesandthevibrationsgointothecosmicemptiness,whenthe
soundhasgoneandasoundlessnessremains,thatisthefifth. YouutterthewordAUM,thenA-U-M
isheardveryclearly,thenalingeringsoundof”mmm”–halfastep–andthensoundlessness. That
isthefifth. Thesefivestepsarejustsignstowardsmanythings.
First, the Upanishads know that human consciousness has five steps. We know the three gross
ones – the waking, the dreaming and the sleep. These are three gross – A-U-M. The Upanishads
callthefourthturiya. Theyhavenotnameditbecauseitisnotgross. Thefourthisthatinwhichone
becomesawareofdeepsleepalso. Ifyouhavebeendeepinsleep,inadeepdreamlesssleep,ifin
themorningyoucansay,”Ihavebeeninadeep,deepsleep,”thensomeoneinyouhasbeenaware
and remembers somehow that there has been a very deep, dreamless sleep – but a witness was
there. That witness is known as the fourth. But the Upanishads say that even the fourth is not the
ultimate, because to be a witness is still to be separate. So when the witness also dissolves, if only
the Existence remains, without a witness, that is the fifth. So this AUM is a sign for many things –
for many things – for five bodies in man. The Upanishads divide them into anamaya, pranamaya,
manomaya,vigyanamayaandanandamaya–fivesheaths,fivebodies.
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 9 Osho
CHAPTER1. THETRADITIONOFTHEUPANISHADSANDTHESECRETSOFMEDITATION
ThisAUMisacosmicsign. Thisisjustasign,butitisalsoasymbol. WhatdoesitmeanwhenIsay
it is also a symbol? When someone goes deep into Existence, to the roots, to the very roots, then
thoughts are no more there, the thinker is no more there, objectivity is no more there, subjectivity is
no more there – but, still, everything is. In that thoughtless, thinkerless moment, a sound is heard.
That sound resembles AUM – just resembles it. It is not AUM; that is why it is a symbol. We cannot
reproduceit. Thisistheapproximateresemblance. Thatiswhyithasbeenlikenedtomanysounds,
butitisalwaysnearertoAUM.
Christians and Mohammedans have represented it as AMEN. That sound which is heard when
everything is lost, and only a sound vibrates, resembles AUM. It can resemble amen. In English,
there are many words – omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. That OMN is the sound. Really,
”omniscient” refers to one who has seen the AUM, and AUM is a symbol for all. ”Omnipotent”
means one who has become one with AUM, because that is the potentiality of the whole cosmos.
”Omnipresent” means one who is present in the sound of AUM, and that sound surrounds all; it
overflowsall.
The OMN in omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, is AUM. AMEN is AUM. Different seekers,
differentpersons,havecomewithdifferentresemblances,buttheyalwayssomehowresembleAUM.
Thisisasymbol–asymbolofauniversalsound. Modernsciencethinksintermsofelectricparticles
as the foundational units of Existence – but the Upanishads think not of electrical particles, but of
soundparticlesasthebasis.
Science says that sound is a modification of electric vibrations, that sound itself is nothing but
electricity. The Upanishads say electricity is nothing but sound modifications. One thing is certain
– that somehow sound and electricity are convertible. Which is basic? Science says electricity is
basic, the Upanishads say sound is basic. And I think this difference is simply because of their
approaches. The Upanishads reach to the Ultimate Reality through sound, through mantra. They
use sound to reach soundlessness. By and by, the sound is dropped; by and by, soundlessness is
achieved. Ultimately, when they reach to the bottom, they hear a cosmic sound. It is not a thought;
itisnotacreatedsound. ItisjustintheverynatureofExistencethatitsounds.
That sound they have called AUM. They say that when we say AUM, it is just a resemblance – a
veryfar,far-offcopy. Itisnottrue,itisnotthatwhichisknownthere,becauseitiscreatedbyus. Itis
created by us! It is just like a photograph of something: it simply resembles. My photograph simply
resemblesme: itisnotme.
I have heard about the Dutch painter, Van Gogh. A sophisticated lady met Van Gogh on the street
andsaid,”Ihaveseenaportraitofyou,anditwassolovelyandsobeautifulthatIkissedit.”
VanGoghasked,”Didtheportraitreply?”
Theladysaid,”No! Howcantheportraitreply?”
SoVanGoghsaid,”Thenitwasnotme!”
A photograph can resemble: it is not real. Mm? – nothing is wrong with it: it is enough that it
resembles, but one should not mistake it for the real. So AUM is just a symbol – a symbol of
somethingitresembles–likeaphotograph.
TheUltimateAlchemy,Vol1 10 Osho