Book Of Secrets - Osho

Has anyone else read the Book of Secrets by Osho? What are your thoughts on it? I will quote some text from it soon that I find fascinating.



Book of Secrets by Osho.
www.amazon.com...=1110789262/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-0974146-8979263

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Lord Altmis]

Let me give a brief introduction to the book before I start quoting it. The book is around 1140 pages with around 80 chapters. The writings are believed to be old hindu/buddhist techniques or tantras spanning back over 5000 years ago, although he specifically claims, information cannot be tied to a race and it's not hindu and states buddhism is one variation. I will point them out because individuals who aren't quite familiar with the book will have something to correlate it with.

The author walks through the book like a teacher speaking to his student. I have read numerous religious texts and would like to share some quotes from this book since it is unlike most of the stuff you will find.

If you research Osho, you will discover he had a cult following. But it wasn't that he created the work, he merely translated it or passed it on. How you interpret it may be different of course from how he does. Some people hate him because he was given riches, given women, indulged. But I think the ideas stand on their own for evaluation.

============


"For tantra, doing is knowing, and there is no other knowing."

"A Zen monk, Rinzai, attained enlightenment, and the first thing he asked was, 'Where is my body? Where has my body gone?' He began to search. He called his disciples and said, 'Go and find out where my body is. I have lost my body.' He had entered the formless. You are also a formless existence, but you know yourself not directly, but from others' eyes. You know through the mirror. Sometime, while looking in the mirror, close your eyes and then think, meditate: if there was no mirror, how could you have known your face? If there was no mirror, there would have been no face. You do not have a face; mirrors give you faces."

"For tantra everything is holy. Remember this, for tantra everything is holy; nothing is unholy. Look at it this way: for an irreligious person everything is unholy; for so-called religious persons something is holy, something is unholy. For tantra, everything is holy. One Christian missionary was with me a few days ago and he said, 'God created the world.' So I asked him, 'Who created sin?' He said, 'The devil.' Then I asked him, 'Who created the devil?' Then he was at a loss. He said, 'Of course, God created the devil.' The devil creates sin and God creates the devil. Then who is the real sinner -- the devil or God? But the dualist conception always leads to such absurdities. For tantra God and the devil are not two. Really, for tantra there is nothing that can be called 'devil', everything is devine, everything is holy. And this seems to be the right standpoint, the deepest. If anything is unholy in this world, from where does it come and how can it be?

So only two alternatives are there. First, the alternative of the atheist who says everything is unholy. This attitude is okay. He is also a nondualist; he sees no holiness in the world. Then there is the tantric's alternative -- he says everything is holy. He is also a nondualist. But between these two are the so-called religous persons, who are not really religious. They are neither religious nor irreligious because they are always in conflict. Their whole theology is just to make ends meet, and those ends cannot meet.

If a single cell, a single atom in this world is unholy, then the whole world becomes unholy, because how can that single atom exist in a holy world? How can it be? It is supported by everything; to be, it has to be supported by everything. And if the unholy element is supported by all the holy elements, then what is the difference between them? So either the world is holy totally, unconditionally, or it is unholy; there is no middle path."

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Lord Altmis]

Very lovely literature... I haven't read it but it relates directly to everything I read and I will consume it now that you've pointed me in the direction of it..

If thats interesting to you, perhaps you should take a peek-a-boo at my post, along the same lines ... although explaining something a little different.. yet the same.. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by dnero6911
Very lovely literature... I haven't read it but it relates directly to everything I read and I will consume it now that you've pointed me in the direction of it..

If thats interesting to you, perhaps you should take a peek-a-boo at my post, along the same lines ... although explaining something a little different.. yet the same.. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on your posts, I know you will enjoy it. Let me post some more quotes that I also find interesting from the same book. The book reviews tantras or techniques percieved to reach enlightenment and points out that you have to find the techniqe that works for you. Let me continue with some interesting quotations.

----------------------------------------------------
"If a technique fits, it will make you aware of everything that you are. Your anarchy, your mind, your madness, everything will come to light. You are just a dark mess. When a technique fits, it is as if suddenly there is light and the whole mess becomes apparent. For the first time you will encounter yourself as you are. You would like to put the light off and go to sleep again -- it is fearful. This is the point where the master becomes helpful. He says, 'Do not be afraid. This is just the beginning. And do not escape from it.' At first this light shows you what you are, and if you can go on and on, it transforms you toward what you can be."

"Truth is always here. It is already the case. It is not something to be achieved in the future. You are the truth just here and now, so it is not something which is to be created or something which is to be devised or something which is to be sought."

"Mind is a mechanism of desiring. Mind is always in desire, always seeking something, asking for something. Always the object is in the future; mind is not concerned with the present at all. In this very moment the mind cannot move -- there is no space. The mind needs the future in order to move. It can move either in the past or in the future. It cannot move in the present; there is no space. The truth is in the present, and mind is always in the future or in the past, so there is no meeting between mind and truth."

"So understand the first thing: you cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. The moment you start seeking you have moved away from the present, away from yourself, because you are always in the present."

"The future will come as the present."

-----------------------------------------------------

This is one of the tantras known as a Buddhist technique because Buddha used it to reach enlightenment and is also known as Anapanasati yoga and is said to originate from a book called Vigyan Bhairav Tantra. Since there is often a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism, this perceived Buddhist technique isn't as widely accepted by Hindus.

---------------

Shiva replies: Radiant one, this experience may dawn between two breaths. After breath comes in (down) and just before turning up (out) - the beneficence. That is the technique: Radiant one, this experience may dawn between two breaths.

"After the breath comes in - that is, down - and just before turning out - that is, going up - the beneficence. Be aware between these two points...and the happening. When your breath comes in, observe. For a single moment, or a thousandth part of a moment, there is no breathing - before it turns up, before it turns outward. One breath comes in; then there is a certain point and breathing stops. Then the breathing goes out. When the breath goes out, then again for a single moment, or a part of a moment, breathing stops. Then breathing comes in.

Before the breath is turning in or turning out, there is a moment when you are not breathing. In that moment the happening is possible, because when you are not breathing you are not in the world. Understand this: when you are not breathing you are dead; you are still, but dead. But the moment is of such a short duration that you never observe it."

"When the breath touches your nostrils, feel it there. Then let the breath move in. Move with the breath fully consciously. When you are going down, down, down with the breath, do not miss the breath. Do not go ahead and do not follow behind, just go with it. Remember this: do not go ahead, do not follow it like a shadow; be simultaneous with it."

"Buddha said, 'Be aware of your breath as it is coming in, going out - coming in, going out.' He never mentions the gap because there is no need. Buddha thought and felt that if you become concerned with the gap, the gap between two breaths, that concern may disturb your awareness.

This one technique is enough for millions. The whole of Asia tried and lived with this technique for centuries. Tibet, China, Japan, Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka - the whole of Asia except India has tried this technique and thousands and thousands have attained enlightenment through it. And this is only the first technique."

The text goes on to state each breath contains prana or life, and that in reality, it is you.

I will post more quotes later, there are over 1100 pages, I will post roughly 2 to 3 pages of quotes to serve as sort of a reference to readers on such topics.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Lord Altmis]

Yes, thanks... it's a real shame not everyone is "on to this" ... I believe what Jesus was REALLY preaching was toned down A LOT and used to serve certain ideals... although Jesus could have been one person, he could have been a lot of people as well... all I know is he said some very intelligent things... outside of the bible that is... most buddhists don't deny the idea of Jesus, or that he existed... but I've seen them say "I love your Christ, But I do not love your Christians, because they are nothing like their Christ." lol actually I think that was Mohandas Gandhi... ? .. but anyhow .. I find it pleasant that other people are indulging in the same ideals..

"You are not created for any purpose. And it is good that you are not created for any purpose; otherwise you would be a machine."

"A Mohammedan asks, 'Mohammedans and Christians say that there is only one life. Hindus, Buddhist and Jains say there are many lives - a long sequence of lives, so that unless one is liberated or goes on and on being reborn again and again. So what do you say? If Jesus was an enlightened man, he must have known. Or Mohammed, or Moses, they must have known too, if they were enlightened men, that there are many lives and not just one. And if you say that they are right, then what about Mahavira, Krishna, Buddha and Shankara? One thing is certain, that they cannot all be enlightened.

But I said, 'This need not be; your approach is absolutely wrong. Both are devices. Neither is right, neither is wrong - both are devices.' It became impossible for him to understand what I meant by a device. Mohammed, Jesus and Moses, they were talking to one type of mind, and Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna, they were talking to a very different type of mind. There are really two source religions - the Hindu and the Jewish. So all the religions born out of India, all the religions born out of Hinduism, believe in rebirth, in many births; and all the religions born out of Jewish thinking - Mohammedanism, Christianity - believe in one life. These are two devices.

Try to understand it. Because our minds are fixed, we take things as theories...I am not concerned at all with which is right and which is wrong. I am only concerned with which device works."

"In India they use this device of many lives. Why? There are many points. All the religions born in the West, particularly out of Jewish thinking, were religions of poor people. Their prophets were uneducated. Jesus was not educated, Mohammed was not educated, Moses was not. They were all uneducated, unsophisticated, simple, and they were talking with masses who were not sophisticated at all, who were poor, they were not rich.

For a poor man, one life is more than enough, more than enough! He is starving, dying. If you say to him that there are so many lives, that he will go on being reborn and reborn, that he will move in a wheel of a thousand and one lives, the poor man will just feel frustrated about the whole thing. 'What are you saying?' a poor man will ask. 'One life is too much, so do not talk of a thousand and one lives, of a million lives. Do not speak of this. Give us heaven immediately after this life.' God becomes a reality only if he can be achieved after this life - immediately.

Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna were talking to a very rich society. Today it has become difficult to understand because the whole wheel has turned. Now the West is rich and the East is poor. Then the West was poor and the East was rich. All the Hindu avataras, all the tirthankaras - world teachers - of the Jains, all the buddhas - awakened ones - they were all princes. They belonged to royal families. They were cultured, educated, sophisticated, refined in every way. You cannot refine Buddha more. He was absolutely refined, cultured, educated; nothing can be added. Even Buddha comes today, nothing can be added. So they were talking to a society which was rich. Remember, for a rich society there are different problems.

For a rich society, pleasure is meaningless, heaven is meaningless. For a poor society, heaven is very meaningful. If the society is living in heaven, heaven becomes meaningless, so you cannot propose this. You cannot create an urge to do something for heaven; they are already in it -- and bored.

So Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna do not talk about heaven, they talk about freedom."

"For a rich man, suffering is not the problem; for a rich man, boredom is the problem. He is bored of all pleasures."

"If we take religious statements as devices then there is no contradiction. Then Jesus and Krishna, Mohammed and Mahavira, mean the same thing. They create different routes for different people, different techniques for different minds, different appeals for different attitudes. But those are not principles to be fought and argued about. They are devices to be used, transcended, and thrown."

----------------------------

This alludes to how the wealthy accepted a reincarnation based religion because it meant a variety of new lives, a frontier of possibilities that also incorporate out of body experiences and a higher spritual awareness.

---

"Mahavira and Buddha say, 'There is nothing new. This world is old. Nothing is new under the heavens, everything is just old. You have tasted all these things before and you will go on tasting them. You are in a wheel, moving. Go beyond it, take a jump out of the wheel."

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Lord Altmis]

"Mind is a mechanism of desiring. Mind is always in desire, always seeking something, asking for something. Always the object is in the future; mind is not concerned with the present at all. In this very moment the mind cannot move -- there is no space. The mind needs the future in order to move. It can move either in the past or in the future. It cannot move in the present; there is no space. The truth is in the present, and mind is always in the future or in the past, so there is no meeting between mind and truth." ..."So understand the first thing: you cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. The moment you start seeking you have moved away from the present, away from yourself, because you are always in the present."

Ive found this alot lately, wondering why it seems that im always thinking about the next logical step in a progression, but never sitting back, breathing, living, and enjoying the now. The part i quoted really gives me alot of food for thought, thanks for that.

Id like to pose a question for this thread too, the above quote says that the truth is in the present, and seeking truth is the very hinderance to finding it. This seems almost like a paradox to me. If you arent seeking it, how then could you find it?

aero

Originally posted by Aero

"Mind is a mechanism of desiring. Mind is always in desire, always seeking something, asking for something. Always the object is in the future; mind is not concerned with the present at all. In this very moment the mind cannot move -- there is no space. The mind needs the future in order to move. It can move either in the past or in the future. It cannot move in the present; there is no space. The truth is in the present, and mind is always in the future or in the past, so there is no meeting between mind and truth." ..."So understand the first thing: you cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. The moment you start seeking you have moved away from the present, away from yourself, because you are always in the present."

Ive found this alot lately, wondering why it seems that im always thinking about the next logical step in a progression, but never sitting back, breathing, living, and enjoying the now. The part i quoted really gives me alot of food for thought, thanks for that.

Id like to pose a question for this thread too, the above quote says that the truth is in the present, and seeking truth is the very hinderance to finding it. This seems almost like a paradox to me. If you arent seeking it, how then could you find it?

aero

This is one of the anomalies that the book proposes. My understanding is you cannot seek truth, to find it, you must simply be in the present.

This proposes a similarly interesting argument, how do you ask questions or seek answers? Can you ask a question that you don't have a modest framework or potential answer already for?

In other words, would I know to ask what the date and time is right now if I didn't know every variation of date and time. How did I learn about date and time, It was learned in the present. Then I looked in the present to find the answer. So it introduces a lot of interesting thoughts.

1. You can't find what it is you are looking for, because you don't understand it or it hasn't been introduced in the present.

2. If you live in the present, you may find its framework or structure, and then can understand it. So it's almost as if the answers come first.

3. Most of our time spent living is in our minds.

4. Most of what is understood is taught in the present but how is it acquired? With no framework, it must be created and everything that is created, is created in the present.

These are just my interpretations, and random ideas.

Since this particularly interests you, there are around 1100 pages in the book, but one page particularly gives probably the best explanation in relation to this topic, and the mind.

----------

"Man has a center, but he lives off of it - off the center. That creates an inner tension, a constant turmoil, anguish. You are not where you should be; you are not at your right balance. You are off balance, and this being off balance, off center, is the base of all mental tensions. If it becomes too much, you go mad. A madman is one who has gone out of himself completely. The enlightened man is just the reverse of the madman. He is centered in himself.

You are in between. You have not gone completely out of yourself, and you are not at your center either. You just move in the gap. Sometimes you move very, very far away, so you have moments when you are temporarily mad. Then there is no difference between you and the madman. The difference is only that he is permanently there and you are temporarily there. You will come back.

When you are in anger it is madness, but it is not permanent. Qualitatively there is no difference; quantitatively there is a difference. The quality is the same, so sometimes you touch madness and sometimes, when you are relaxed, totally at ease, you touch your center also. Those are the blissful moments. They happen. Then you are just like a Buddha or like a Krishna, but only temporarily, momentarily. You will not stay there. Really, the moment you realize that you are blissful you have moved. It is so momentary that by the time you have recognized the bliss it is finished.

We go on moving between these two, but this movement is dangerous. This movement is dangerous because you cannot create a self-image, a fixed self-image. You do not know who you are...you will have a liquid image."

"That is why all those who are exceptional - great artists, painteres, poets - they are not normal. They are very liquid. Sometimes they touch the center, sometimes they go mad. They move fast between these two. Of course, their anguish is great, their tension is much. They have to live between two worlds, constantly changing themselves. That is why they feel they have no identity."

"Remember this. You go on eating in the tomorrow, you go on eating in the future; you go on eating in the past, in the yesterday. It rarely happens that you eat today. While you are eating today, your mind will be moving somewhere else.

A buddha eats today. This very moment he lives. He does not project his life into the future; there is no future for him. Whenever future comes, it comes as the present. It is always today, it is always now."


"There is no becoming. If there is no becoming there is no tension...You are 'A' and you want to be 'B'; you are poor and you want to be a rich man; you are ugly and you want to be beautiful; or you are stupid and you want to be a wise man. Whatsoever the wanting, whatsoever the desire, the form is always this: A wants to become B. Whatsoever you are, you are not content with it."

"When you get it, again the mind will say that 'This is not enough, something else is needed.' The mind always moves on and on. Whatsoever you get becomes useless. The moment you get it, it is useless...It can continue ad infinitum. There is no end to it, there is no end to desire, desiring....whatsoever you are, if you accept it in its totality, then the tension cannot exist. Then there is no anguish. You are at ease, you are not worried. This nonbecoming mind is a mind that is centered in the self.

On quite the opposite pole is the mandman. He has no being, he is only a becoming. He has forgotten what he is. The 'A' is forgotten completely and he is trying to be 'B'. He no longer knows who he is; he only knows his desired goals. He doesn't live here and now, he lives somewhere else."

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Lord Altmis]

I don't mean this as an attack or in an offending way..

have you read any of the infancy gospels of Jesus? .. they provide some insight to his teachings as a child and his opinions towards teachers..

I believe the there is no such thing as right or wrong..
most people think that Jesus came to make Christianity THEE religeon... on the contrary... he went against EVERYTHING they taught and believed...


have you ever heard the biblical Jesus say

Jesus says to them: "When you fast, you will beget sin for yourselves; when you pray, you will be condemned; when you give alms, you will do evil to your souls! when you enter any land and travel over the country, when you are welcomed eat what is put before you; those who are ill in those places, heal them. For what enters into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, it is that which will defile you!"

or

Jesus says: "I have cast a fire onto the world, and see, I watch over it until it blazes up!"

some quotes from the infancy gospel of Thomas

5 Now that master said unto Joseph: Bring him unto me and I will teach him letters. And Joseph took the child Jesus and brought him to the house [of a certain master] where other children also were taught. But the master began to teach him the letters with sweet speech, and wrote for him the first line which goeth from A unto T, and began to flatter him and to teach him (and commanded him to say the letters but the child held his peace. 6 Then that teacher smote the child on the head and when the child received the blow, he said unto him: I ought to teach thee and not thou to teach me. I know the letters which thou wouldest teach me, and I know that ye are unto me as vessels out of which cometh nought but sound, and neither wisdom nor salvation of the soul. And beginning the line he spake all the letters from A even unto T fully with much quickness: and he looked upon the master and said: But thou knowest not how to interpret A and B: how wouldest thou teach others? Thou hypocrite, if thou knowest and canst tell me concerning A, then will I tell thee concerning B. But when the teacher began to expound concerning the first letter, he was not able to give any answer.

Now, the problem I have with this translation is, when I did my own, I found that it should be written as Alpha and Omega... which I do believe was the lettering system? .. was it not? not only the symbolism of Alpha as the beginning and Omega being the end? .. is it not? ..
Not only that I find it funny the young Jesus killed the teacher before this one.. lol not physically, but the dude just fell dead, apparently..
All the texts I've read, when it comes to something that would shed light upon a certain subject... the text seems to be missing.. or the scrolls damaged at particularly the most important parts.. the "punch-lines"
so-to-speak....

For me personally they are all true... they are all enlightened.. they all end up at the same place... whether they describe it differently or not..


EDIT: ... I'm in the same mind-frame as you, they shouldn't be weapons pointed at one another.. although that is what they are... Jesus wrote somewhere the key to success in that field is to take yourself away from it.. Jesus said: Become passers-by!... Its lovely to see how much similarity there is in all of truth .. lol

[edit on 14/3/05 by dnero6911]

Its also an interesting thought that perhaps it's the journey towards enlightenment in the first place that takes us away from it.. lol

Originally posted by dnero6911
I don't mean this as an attack or in an offending way..

have you read any of the infancy gospels of Jesus? .. they provide some insight to his teachings as a child and his opinions towards teachers..

I believe the there is no such thing as right or wrong..
most people think that Jesus came to make Christianity THEE religeon... on the contrary... he went against EVERYTHING they taught and believed...


have you ever heard the biblical Jesus say

Jesus says to them: "When you fast, you will beget sin for yourselves; when you pray, you will be condemned; when you give alms, you will do evil to your souls! when you enter any land and travel over the country, when you are welcomed eat what is put before you; those who are ill in those places, heal them. For what enters into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, it is that which will defile you!"

or

Jesus says: "I have cast a fire onto the world, and see, I watch over it until it blazes up!"

some quotes from the infancy gospel of Thomas

5 Now that master said unto Joseph: Bring him unto me and I will teach him letters. And Joseph took the child Jesus and brought him to the house [of a certain master] where other children also were taught. But the master began to teach him the letters with sweet speech, and wrote for him the first line which goeth from A unto T, and began to flatter him and to teach him (and commanded him to say the letters

but the child held his peace. 6 Then that teacher smote the child on the head and when the child received the blow, he said unto him: I ought to teach thee and not thou to teach me. I know the letters which thou wouldest teach me, and I know that ye are unto me as vessels out of which cometh nought but sound, and neither wisdom nor salvation of the soul. And beginning the line he spake all the letters from A even unto T fully with much quickness: and he looked upon the master and said: But thou knowest not how to interpret A and B: how wouldest thou teach others? Thou hypocrite, if thou knowest and canst tell me concerning A, then will I tell thee concerning B. But when the teacher began to expound concerning the first letter, he was not able to give any answer.

Now, the problem I have with this translation is, when I did my own, I found that it should be written as Alpha and Omega... which I do believe was the lettering system? .. was it not? not only the symbolism of Alpha as the beginning and Omega being the end? .. is it not? ..
Not only that I find it funny the young Jesus killed the teacher before this one.. lol

not physically, but the dude just fell dead, apparently..
All the texts I've read, when it comes to something that would shed light upon a certain subject... the text seems to be missing.. or the scrolls damaged at particularly the most important parts.. the "punch-lines"
so-to-speak....

For me personally they are all true... they are all enlightened.. they all end up at the same place... whether they describe it differently or not..


EDIT: ... I'm in the same mind-frame as you, they shouldn't be weapons pointed at one another.. although that is what they are... Jesus wrote somewhere the key to success in that field is to take yourself away from it.. Jesus said: Become passers-by!... Its lovely to see how much similarity there is in all of truth .. lol

[edit on 14/3/05 by dnero6911]

I personally admire the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately I haven't had the privilege to read some of his early texts, given they are harder to find and I haven't made any effort to really expand my spiritual education until recently. I would say it's hard for anyone to really dislike his teachings. They are good and good for you.

Originally posted by dnero6911
Its also an interesting thought that perhaps it's the journey towards enlightenment in the first place that takes us away from it.. lol

Not if enlightment is acquired in the present. In the self. In the centering.

Originally posted by Lord Altmis

Originally posted by dnero6911
Its also an interesting thought that perhaps it's the journey towards enlightenment in the first place that takes us away from it.. lol

Not if enlightment is acquired in the present. In the self. In the centering.

Ahhhh but time is not something that exists... sure it does in our mind.. but its ALWAYS NOW.... NOW never changes.. lol

and the reason why you cannot SEEK Enlightenment is simple..

First a small parable/story...

Buddha decided that he was going to fast in this particular cave and not come out until he found enlightenment.. Well after several days and nights Buddha became frustrated and that night decided to give up... in the morning he found enlightenment..

Enlightenment isn't something you try to obtain ...
Like searching for something .. you will never find it by searching because you are caught up in the searching and not the actual finding..

Buddha once said (about Meditating and the endless chatter)...
You cannot think about not thinking.. .and you cannot try to not think.. you just simply have to do it.. not try .. just do.. Like Nike... (using Eastern Philosophy to sell us westerners zen in a bottle..) Nike uses the slogan .. Just Do It... that alone is a very deeply rooted philosophical statement..

EDIT: roots to rooted..

[edit on 14/3/05 by dnero6911]

Good point. The book also talks alot about a third eye and how to open it.

It talks about going into other demensions. And it also mentions levitation.


It's a really unique book. Even if you don't believe in this type of stuff, it's worth checking out.

I "believe" in that type of stuff; it's just that I'd rather awaken Positively(though I'm not anywhere near to Being considered an Awakened-Being), as opposed to negatively as a demon/black-magician.


www.gnosiscentral.com...


(A thread on Osho's harmful ways)




PEACE

i've never been a spiritual person.... but man, those qoutes are DEEP...and actually make alot of sense....
i've never owned (or wanted to own for that matter) a spiritual book (not even a bible), but if i ever see this book in a store, i will seriously concider buying it...

thanks for turning me onto it...


P.S. more quotes please

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Urn]

Peace Urn


Is it the Left-Hand Path you seek then?(see my last post).


Many deceivers(such as Osho) use nice words and are well versed in Eastern philosophy and Esoterism; however they can only serve to lead naive disciples into the abyss.


If you're interested in works of actual Masters, about Buddhism and Yoga practice; hit me up and I'll at least point you in a safer direction:

(Off the top: Sivananda, Muata Ashby, Samael Aun Weor, M:.(Moria), Ra Un Nefer Amen, The Dalai Lama, Shantideva, Paramahansa Yogananda, Gurdjieff, etc.)


However, if awakening as a demon is what you prefer, then study the likes of Aleister Crowley and Osho.




[edit on 3-4-2005 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Tamahu
Peace Urn


Is it the Left-Hand Path you seek then?(see my last post).


Many deceivers(such as Osho) use nice words and are well versed in Eastern philosophy and Esoterism; however they can only serve to lead naive disciples into the abyss.


If you're interested in works of actual Masters, about Buddhism and Yoga practice; hit me up and I'll at least point you in a safer direction:

(Off the top: Sivananda, Muata Ashby, Samael Aun Weor, M:.(Moria), Ra Un Nefer Amen, The Dalai Lama, Shantideva, Paramahansa Yogananda, Gurdjieff, etc.)


However, if awakening as a demon is what you prefer, then study the likes of Aleister Crowley and Osho.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Tamahu]

Well, I don't know if you can compare it to Crowley. I'm personally not a fan of Crowley and wouldn't be quoting him. I don't see the connection.

Personally if you are basing that on what you proposed of having 70 royles royces and having an abundance of sex, I don't see how that attributes to the words said. I'm not going to say he didn't indulge or have the capacity to indulge a lot, I'm sure he did. But I don't think that discredits the words he allowed to resurface based on what he knows and has read years ago. A lot of what he sais are common beliefs by monks, buddhists, etc.

Like he said, they are techniques. Even the master can run with them in another direction. So could you. If you are studying things that can't also be used for evil, then you aren't getting a balanced read. If I wanted to, I could use the Bible for evil. I could say here is what God wants, here is the plan, here is the technique, lets go with it in this direction. And suddenly you have a christian cult. There are tons of christian denominations but only one bible.

Personally I see nothing wrong with someone having that many cars. Obviously he didn't steal them, he earned them in some way. And regarding the sex or orgies or whatever people have said, he does comment on sex because it's a very real subject in life. Sex is a very powerful part of your life, regardless if you accept it or not, it in many ways can control you.

Just think about how much people do based on sex. How they dress, eat, what they buy, where they go, who they are friends with, what their interests have become, and what they know. He said some people live there. Some people live in their mind. And he states you should live in the present and be centered.

I personally think that's well said. Everything is a technique, even the holy can falter because they aren't God. But take the words and run with them however you can, applying what you can to be a better person.

Also if you want to compare the wealth concept to say the bible, the bible says it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Yet at the same time states in heaven you will have abundance. You will have gold paved roads, decorations of certain gems, and you will basically have everything you want, so don't worry about them now. Well, to me that seems kind of contradictory. How are they wrong on earth, yet ok in heaven? Does it suddenly get God's blessing. Or like the Koran and the abundance of virgins. I think there's nothing wrong with an abundance on earth if that's what you care for.

As mentioned in the book, you will just keep wanting more anyways, so eventually it will lead to an abundance if you don't get centered at some point.

Also, you have to realize that combining sex and spirituality just happens to be a big part of historical Hindu practices. It's not like he's the first to mention it. You have to acknowledge it if you are studying a Hindu faith as something that's often linked. The most interesting thing is that he actually speaks about it and it's effects on you.

I think as a whole, the book is meant to do good. Not because it's his words, a lot of it is from other texts or what he's learned. I can quote a number of Biblical verses that I can't manage to uphold. I don't think that discredits the words. If you percieve he isn't upholding anything.

I think the social tendency to think wealth and sex are evil is wrong. Wealth can do a lot of good and it can do a lot of evil. And the same with sex. Either way both can be beautiful things and I think people should quit demonizing them.

I personally dislike how television makes sex to look bad and embraces murder and violence. I think it's wrong that women are forced to cover their breasts on tv yet someone can shoot somebody in the face. That's absurd. What kind of society does that breed. That it's ok to see one but not another. I'm not saying you should go out and have an orgy, I just think that to a point you are conditioned to look at things that way.

I think most people who read these type of books want the capacity for abundance. To be able to transcend and attain whatever they want. It's a book for the rich whereas the bible is a book for the poor. I personally wouldn't buy 70 cars but I would live abundantly and give abundance around me if I could.

I'll post some more quotes for interpretation.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

"Jean-Paul Sartre wrote an autobiography. he has called it Words. The name is very meaningful. It is the autobiogrpahy of every man -- words and words and words. You are filled with words, and this process of words continues the whole day, even in the mind. when you are sleeping, you are still filled with words, thoughts.

The mind is just an accumulation of words, and everyone is too much obesessed with the mind. That is why self-knowledge becomes more and more impossible. The self is beyond the words, or behind the words, or below the words, or above the words, but never in the words. You exist not in the mind, but just below the mind, behind the mind, above the mind -- never in the mind. You are focused in the mind, but you are not there.

Standing out, you are focused in the mind. Because of this constant focusing, you have become indentified with the mind. You think you are the mind, this is the only problem, the basic problem, and unless you are aware that you are not the mind, nothing meaningful can happen to you. You will live in misery."

The concept as I interpret it, is that you fill your mind with words, things you've learned, and over time, you think that is you. That you are the sum total of your knowledge, just a vessel of information or perspectives. A program.

=================

"This always remains a basic question: how to change something, how to change negative sounds into positive ones. You cannot! If you are positive, then nothing is negative for you. If you are negative, then everything will be negative for you. You are the source of all that exists around you; you are the creator of your own world. and we are not living in one world, remember. There are as many worlds as there are minds. Each mind is living in its own world; it creates the world.

So if everything looks negative and everything looks destructive and everything looks inimical, against you, it is because you do not have the positive center in you. So do not think about how to change negative noises. If you feel negativity all around you, it simply shows you are negative within. The world is just a mirror, and you are reflected in it."

This concept is my favorite. I was walking around barefoot in my house one day and I hit my toe on a chair. The first thing I usually think is son of a...! And then, that's just my luck I guess.

But I started looking at it differently after that. Well, I put that chair there. My mind did. I must condition my mind not to put obstacles in my way and I must simplify my life. Just my rationalization on this concept. It's introduced many times I just happened to find it again here with that text.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

This is a pretty funny story.

"I was staying in a village rest house. It was a very poor village, but it was filled with many dogs. They all gathered in the night around the rest house; it must have been their usual habit. The rest house was a good place -- big trees, shadows, and they must have been resting there every night. So I was staying there, and one minister became very disturbed because the dogs were barking, creating much nuisance. Half the night passed and the minister couldn't sleep, so he came to me.

He said, 'Are you asleep?' I was fast asleep, so he came near to me, made me wake up and asked me, 'Please tell me how you could fall into sleep amid such noises all around. At least twenty to thirty dogs are there, and they are fighting and barking and doing everything that dogs ordinarily do. So what to do? I cannot sleep, and I am so tired after the whole day's journey. If I cannot sleep, it will be difficult for me. Tomorrow I have to go again on a tour, and I will leave early in the morning. Sleep doesn't seem to come, and I have tried all the methods I have learned and heard about -- chanting a mantra, praying to God, etcetera. I have done everything, but nothing happens, so what to do now?'

So I told him, 'Those dogs are not gathered here for you or to disturb you. They are not even aware that a minister is staying here; they do not read newspapers. They are completely ignorant. They are not here purposefully, they are not concerned with you. They are doing their work. Why are you getting disturbed?'

So he said, 'Why should I not? How not to? With so much barking, how can I go into sleep?'

You are fighting -- that is the problem, not the noise. The noise is not disturbing you, you are disturbing yourself because of the noise. You are against the noise, so you have a condition. You are saying, 'If the dogs stop barking, then I will sleep.' The dogs won't listen to you. You have a condition. You feel that if the condition is fulfilled, then you can sleep. This condition is disturbing you. Accept dogs! Do not make a condition that 'If they stop barking, then I willl sleep.' Just accept.

Dogs are there and they are barking; do not resist, do not fight, do not try to forget those noises. Accept them and listen to them, they are barking so vitally -- just listen. This will be the mantra, the right mantra: just listen to them.'

SO he said, 'Okay! I do not believe that this will help, but as there is nothing else to do, I will try.'

He fell asleep, and the dogs, were still barking. In the morning he said, 'This is miraculous. I accepted them; I withdrew my condition. I listened. Those dogs became very musical, and their barking, their noise, was not disturbing. Rather, it became a sort of lullaby, and I fell into deep sleep because of it.'

It depends on your mind. If you are positive, then everything becomes positive. If you are negative, then everything turns sour. So please remember this -- not only about noises, but about everything in life. If you feel that something negative exists around you, go and find the cause within. It is you. You must be expecting something, you must be desiring something, you must be making some conditions. Existence cannot be forced to go according to you, it flows in its own way. If you can flow with it, you will be positive. If you fight with it, you will become negative and the whole cosmos around will turn negative."

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]