You are a man of patterns

You are a man of mind. You are a man of reactions. You are a man of patterns. Who wants to talk to such a man?

An ordinary man in the name of learning from failures, Just tries to react differently. The second time a similar situation arises. And this he labels as learning from failure.

Zen is your essential core that reacts not, that it’s his own master. Has it’s own way of living.

Two or three years are needed so that all the pre-existing answers get clear. Not that the new answer is needed but the old answer need to go.

Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Zen: Have you any God?


Acharya Prashant on Zen: Have you any God?

Acharya Prashant: Joshu went to Hermit and asked, “What’s up? What’s up?” The Hermit lifted up his fist and Joshu said, “Water is too shallow to enter here and went away”. Joshu visited the Hermit once again, a few days later and said, “What’s up? What’s up?” The Hermit raised his fist again then Joshu said, “Well given, well taken, well killed, well saved” and he bowed to the Hermit.

A few things Right-living, Wisdom, Spirituality, Zen are all about a non-reactionary way of living. A non-reactionary way of living. So, Joshu asks the hermit, “What’s up?” He isn’t parlance as indicated. It means, “Have you any Zen?” Now, Zen is not an object. Zen is not a part of ‘duality.’ The answer to the question that asks, Have you any Zen, can neither be ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ as such. When Hermit raises his fist. It is inferior to remain in silent. It comes across as a reaction to Joshu’s question.

The situation become such that Joshu’s question becomes actually a provocations, a stimulus to which the Hermit reacts this is not really the way of Zen. The question demanded no answer. The question demanded rather the stillness of Zen or the silence of Zen. The question, “Have you any Zen?” is aching to the questions — “Are you God? Is the universe same as or different from it’s source? Are you in God or God is in you? Have you any Zen? Have you any God? Have you the Truth? Have you Love?” All these are questions in the same dimensions. To such questions ordinary answers don’t suffice.

So, upon seeing the response of the Hermit, upon seeing the raised fist of Hermit. Joshu says, “The water is to shallow to enter here.” Zen is still an intellectual thing for you, ‘shallow.’ It is not yet reached your depth. Zen has not yet reached your depth. It has still not yet penetrated your heart. No point talking to you.

You are a man of mind.

You are a man of reactions.

You are a man of patterns.

Who wants to talk to such a man?

Joshu walks away. Who wants to talk to a monk? For whom, Zen is a matter of questions and answers. Then comes another day, Joshu goes to the same Hermit and asks the same questions.

Now, see what happens. The first time the Hermit has had an experience. The experience say that when somebody asks you about Zen and you respond by raising your fist, you get an insulting answer and the questioner walks away. That is what the experience of Hermit has been, right?

In one situation, the Hermit has given one particular answer and that answer has ostensibly not sufficed. The questioner has walked away dissatisfied. Not only has he walks away dissatisfied. He has blatantly on the face of the Hermit said, “The water is to shallow here.” Now, what would an ordinary man do then when faced with the similar situation again?

Continue reading

Don’t chase, she is yours

Every method is interference.

The only real method is a method that touches life very-very gently. Has no intention of changing and that intentless observation is. Hence the only method.

Observation alone does not try to do something.

Because that which you will grasp will no more be ordinary.

When an observer is a motivated observer then the observation changes the observed.

Don’t chase, she is yours.

There you just know. Either you just know or you do not know.

Those who will want proof will never know. They may get the proofs but they will never get the way.

Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Zen: Observe your daily life – that is the only way

Acharya Prashant on Zen: Observe your daily life – that is the only way

Joshu asked Nansen, “What is the way?”

Nansen answered: ‘Ordinary mind is the way.’

‘Then should we direct ourselves towards it or not? asked Joshu.

Nansen said: ‘If you try to direct yourself toward it, you go away from it.

‘Joshu then continued: ‘If we do not try how can we know it is the way?’

Nansen replied: ‘The way does not belong to knowing or not knowing. Knowing is delusion. Not knowing is blankness. If you really attain to the way of No Doubt it is like the great void, so vast and boundless. How can there be a right and wrong in the way?’ At these words Joshu was enlightened.


(Nansen & Joshu Jushin)

(AD 778-897)

Acharya Prashant: Joshu asked Nansen, “What is the way?” Nansen answered: “Ordinary mind is the way.” Let’s come to the significance of this. When Joshu says, “What is the way?” He is asking about liberation, he is asking a way to liberation, the way to Tao, the way to Freedom, the way to Truth. Nansen says, “Your ordinary mind, that is the way.” Ordinary mind, ordinary actions of the ordinary mind, ordinary life of the ordinary mind that alone is the way, that’s the only method.

Observing the daily ordinary actions of the mind that is the only way. Observing it as an impartial observer. There is no other method that is going to work because all other methods are ‘isolations.’ The method does something to life. The method excludes life the methods works only upon apart and time of life. The method does not encompass ‘total life.’ The methods says, “block two hours of life for the method, or create a particular situation in life in which the method can be applied. The only method that is all-encompassing is ‘life itself.’

Observe life ‘totally’ as it is happening. Do not do anything to life because if you do something to life then you have changed life. Observation alone does not change life, does not interfere with life. All other methods interfere with that which you are going to observe and hence, will change that you are going to observe and hence your observation will be?

Listener: Changed.

AP: Are you getting it? If you want, for example, to observe your Heart and you tear open the body to reach the Heart in the process you kill the body. What will you observe? You will observe, but what will you observe? You would have changed the very thing that you wanted to observe, that is the problem with methods.

Every method is an interference.

Continue reading

Ego – A strange thing

The ego is a strange thing. When it gets hurt, then it gets bigger.

Whatever you do, even to diminish the ego, only nourishes the ego.

Nobody has lost and nobody has gained. Both have just been fooled.

The ego is an entity which increases, by any effort of yours. Even the effort, to get rid of the ego, nourishes the ego.

Non-resistance means getting rid of that ‘I’ that accepts or rejects.

Non-resistance is to drop the right to accept. If you are still accepting, you are still so strong. You are the authority. You are the authority, who accepts.

When you throw garbage out of your house, do you also throw out your television and your wife? You only drop things selectively. You only drop that, which you think is not valuable. But when the dropping happens by itself, then anything can get dropped.

Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant: The difference between acceptance and non-resistance


Acharya Prashant: The difference between acceptance and non-resistance

Question: Its quite difficult to discuss about spirituality, because there are two worlds, the one we know, the spiritual one. When you say for example, in a spiritual way, when I do something to you, I do it to me because we are one. There is something, everyone experiences, When I give, for example, money to you, I am losing the money and you are gaining the money. And then we can…

AP: No… No… No…

We will proceed with this example, itself. Did we get what was said? What was said was that I had said, previously, that in the spiritual world, what one does to the other is what one does to the self, to himself.  Here, a counterexample is coming, he is saying, suppose he gives me, a coin, then I gain a coin and he loses a coin. Two different things are happening. What is happening to me is not the same as what is happening to him.  What is happening to me, is the opposite of what is happening to him. So he is saying that the spiritual world and the real world are different. They are not. This example is misplaced. We will see how.

Why do you remember, giving somebody a coin?

L: Because we are expecting something in return.

AP: When do you remember, giving something to somebody? When do you keep account and record of what you have given to somebody? Only then you remember it, right?

You are eating and your little child comes to you and you give half your bread to him, do you remember it? Do you remember it? But you are talking of this event, giving a coin, so surely you can talk of it only because you can remember it.  So when will you remember it? We are talking of the psychological happening, not the material happening. When will you remember giving a coin to somebody?

L: When it’s important.

AP: When it means something to you. So it is an act of ego, you are attaching value to the coin. The other fellow, if he too remembers receiving a coin, then what is happening there?

L: It has value for him too.

AP: It has value for him too. Now the same thing is happening, these are two ends of the duality. He is giving importance because he thought he, has lost something and he is giving importance because he thinks he has gained something. It’s the same psychological event that is unfolding itself. There, the insecure ego is feeling that it has lost something and hence puffing up. When you feel you have lost something, what happens to your sense of ‘I’?

You are sitting silently, by the river and suddenly you feel, that you have lost something, your wallet is missing. Now, what happens to your sense of ‘I’? Go into the event. What happens to it?

Continue reading

His suffering will be your suffering

What is right for one, cannot be right for the other. The method that suits one, cannot suit the other.

And when you see better, then you know on your own, the step to take, the direction to move.

The moment you cause suffering, it is to yourself that the suffering has been caused.

If you do not know what is not right for him, surely, firstly you do not know what is right for you. His suffering will be your suffering.

Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Jesus Christ: Give to each what they deserve – that alone is suitable for them