葛吉夫,佛陀,與奧修在意識上的不同途徑

譯自奧修書“This Very Body the Buddha”第4章第4個問題
1977年12月14日午前於佛堂


奧修:第四道,就葛吉夫的教導而言,被人稱為良心的道路。在你的教導裡良心的位置為何?


這問題來自塞西爾‧路易士。

完全沒有位置。我不相信良心,我只相信意識。我不相信道德,我只相信宗教。我是非道德的。

良心是社會在你身上所玩弄的一種技倆。這個社會創造出道德良心好讓你可能永遠都不需要意識。你被蒙騙了。譬如,當耶穌說“愛就是神”時,那並不是出自他的良心,那是出自他的意識。他知道它。那不是一個信念,那是他的體驗。而當一位基督徒說“愛就是神”,那是他的道德良心,而不是他的意識。他並不知道它,他並沒有活過它。他只是一再一再反覆地聽到它──他已經被它催眠了。

每個孩子都在受著父母,牧師,政客,以及社會的催眠。某件事情經過持續不斷的重複之後就變成所謂的良心。你一直在教孩子們,“這是對的,這是對的,這是對的”。一再一再地聽到它,於是他的頭腦就受到了制約。許多年之後他也會說“這是對的”──那是自動化的。那不會是來自他自己的本質,那是從這社會放入他本質中的錄音唱片裡所播放出來的。這就像德爾加多(Delgado)的電極刺激一樣。許多世紀以來,這就是社會一直在每個人身上所玩的危險把戲。

那就是為什麼世界上有那麼多種良心──印度教徒有某種良心,回教徒有另一種良心。良心怎麼可能會有那麼多種呢?真理是一。而良心卻是如此之多?


從我的孩童時期起我就被教導成一種非常非常嚴格的素食主義。我出生在一個耆那教的家庭,對於素食是徹底地固執。在我家連番茄都是不允許的,因為番茄看起來有點像紅色的肉。可憐又天真的番茄,它們就這樣不被接納。而且從來沒有人聽過有任何人會在晚上進食;日落是最後極限。整整18年的時間我沒有在晚上吃過任何東西,那可是很嚴重的罪行。

後來我第一次與一些朋友到山裡郊遊野餐。他們全是印度教徒,只有我是耆那教徒。白天的時候他們都不操心是否該煮東西來吃。不是嗎?山這麼地美,而且還有那麼多可去探索的──所以他們一點都不關心煮飯這件事,到了晚上他們才開伙。現在這對我是個很大的問題──吃或不吃呢?我是真的餓壞了。整天都在山裡面活動,那是很費力氣的。於是我真的覺得好餓──生平第一次餓成這個樣子。

然後他們開始煮了。那個熱氣以及食物的味道。而我,一個耆那教徒,就坐在那裏。此刻對我而言實在太困難了──怎麼辦呢?在晚上吃東西這樣的念頭是不可能的──18年來整個的制約。然而要在那種飢餓下去睡覺也是不可能的。於是他們所有人都開始說服我。他們說,“在這地方沒有別人知道你吃了東西,我們也絕對不會告訴你的家人。不用擔心。”由於我已準備好要接受誘惑,所以他們誘惑了我,我吃下去了。但之後來我無法入睡──整個晚上我必須起來嘔吐2,3次,那整個夜晚變成惡夢一般。如果我沒有吃的話反而會比較好。

18年來的制約是晚上吃東西是有罪的。但別人都沒有吐,所有人都在呼呼大睡。他們全都犯了罪,卻全都睡得好好的。而且這個罪他們犯了18年,我才犯第一次,遭受處罰的卻是我。這不公平吧!

良心是創造出來的;它是一種制約。所有你認為的好或壞都只不過是一種制約。但這制約能持續操縱著你全部的人生。從那裏,從裡面,社會進入了你並控制著你。它已變成你的內在聲音。而且因為它已變成你的內在聲音,你就無法聽見你真正的內在的聲音。所以我的建議是:卸下你身上的良心重負。拋掉所有的制約,清洩它,擺脫它。當我說不要成為一個基督徒,一個印度教徒,一個耆那教徒,一個佛教徒,我的意思就是如此。

只要存在。並且隨時警醒。在那樣的警醒中你總是會知道什麼是對的和什麼是錯的。對錯並不是固定的事情──某件事情在黃昏時可能是對的,到了晚上也許就是錯的,而另一件事情在黃昏時也許是錯的,到了晚上可能就是對的。情況變動著。一個警醒之人,一個有意識之人,並沒有固定的想法。他會有自發性的回應,但不會有固定的想法。就是因為那些固定不動的觀念和想法,你從不曾自發性地行動。你的行動始終是種反應而已──並不是真正的行動。

當你的舉止作為是出於自發性,沒有念頭,沒有偏見,那麼就會有真正的行動。行動有著熱情在裡面,有著強度在裡面。它是原創的,它是第一手的。行動使你的生命是創造性的,行動使你的生命持續是個慶祝。因為每個動作都變成了你自身存在的一個表現。良心則是一個虛假的存在。

我認為法語是唯一只用一個單字同時表示意識與良心的語言──僅一個單字,同時代表兩者。那是很美的。真正的良心應該就只是意識,而不是別的。你應該是要變得更有意識才對。

但關於意識,我與喬治‧葛吉夫也有所不同。當他說,“要有意識”,他在說的是“意識到你存在”。他堅持的是記得自己。現在,這是必須瞭解清楚的。你的意識具有相對的兩端。一端是內容物。舉例來說,憤怒的烏雲在你裡面──那就是內容物。而你在覺知著那憤怒的烏雲──那就是意識,覺察,觀照,觀察者。所以你的意識可以被分為兩邊──觀察者以及觀察到的。

葛吉夫說:要一直記住那觀察者──記得自己。佛陀說:忘掉觀察者,只要去看那觀察到的。如果你必須在佛陀和葛吉夫之間作出選擇,我會建議選擇佛陀。因為跟著葛吉夫會有個危險,你可能會變得太自我意識──不是開始覺知到自己,你可能會變成在意識著自我。你可能變成一位自我主義者。我在許多葛吉夫的弟子身上都感覺到這點──他們已經變成非常非常強烈的自我主義者。

並不是說葛吉夫是個自我主義者──他是這個時代最稀有的成道者之一。但在這方法裡面是有個危險:要區別自我意識和記得自己是非常困難的。幾乎不可能區別出來,那太細微了。而對無知的大眾而言幾乎總是自我意識佔據了他們,而不會是記得自己。“自己”這個字是危險的──你變得越來越安頓在自己這個觀念之中。而自己這個觀念會使你孤立於存在之外。

佛陀說:忘掉自己,因為並沒有自己。自己只出現在文法裡,在語言裡;它不是任何存在性的事物。你只要觀察那內容物。藉由觀察內容物,那內容物就會開始消失。一旦內容物消失了,看看你的憤怒──觀照著它,你將看見它正在消失。一旦憤怒消失了就會有寧靜。沒有自己,沒有觀察者,也沒有東西要去觀察。就只有寧靜。這寧靜是由味帕沙那,佛陀的覺知方法所帶來的。

一般人會兩者都做。他一直在轉換軌道──有時他觀察自己,有時他觀察內容物。他一直從這裡移去那裏,他不斷在搖擺。葛吉夫說了一件事情:安頓在觀察者之中。佛陀則是說:看著那觀察到的事物。

我自己的途徑與兩者都不同。就我的途徑來看,葛吉夫的方法比起佛陀的方法較為危險,但即使是佛陀的方法也必定會有某種緊張在裡面──努力在觀照上面。正是那在觀照上的努力會使你緊繃起來。

有位錫蘭的僧侶被帶來我這裡。他無法入睡──足足有三年的時間他沒有睡著過。所有不同的醫藥都在他身上試了,但沒有一種是有幫助的,沒有一種鎮定劑能有任何效果。然而他一直在做味帕沙那,佛陀的內觀方法,卻都沒有人在意──不曾有人想過這點。

當他來找我時,我問他的第一件事情是,“你在做味帕沙那嗎?”──他是一名佛教僧侶,所以他一定有在做。他說,“是的──三年了。”我說,“那麼這就是你失眠的原因。”

如果你一直在用力地觀照,那麼到了夜晚你將無法放鬆和入睡──那個觀照會變得停不下來。如果即使到了夜晚你都還在觀照,你怎麼會睡得著呢?你無法放鬆,那個緊張已經固定住了。

大家都知道佛教的和尚最多只睡3,4個小時。這不是一項成就。他們自己認為,其他人也都認為這是一項成就──他們達成了某件事情,他們只需睡3,4小時。其實不然。他們是在失去某件十分珍貴的事情──放鬆。於是他們看起來很緊繃,從他們臉上就看得出他們是緊繃的。乍看很平靜,其實卻是緊繃的。看上去是很寧靜──但他們的寧靜並不是放鬆之下的寧靜,而是努力出來的。你能從某個角落看見那個努力,以此界定著他們自己。

我自己的方法是:你放鬆下來。既不是觀照那觀照者,也不是觀照那被觀照到的事物。只是放鬆,成為被動的。如果有什麼東西浮上來,你無法不去看它,那就去看它。但不要花任何力氣刻意去看它。如果你可以如同鏡子般地放鬆,那麼要是某片雲朵經過,它就會被映照出來。

如鏡子一般──清澈的,被動的。將兩者都放掉──葛吉夫記得自己的方法,以及佛教徒觀照的方法。

但如果你必須在葛吉夫和佛陀之間作出選擇,那麼選擇佛陀。如果你必須在佛陀和我之間作出選擇,那就選擇我。

放鬆。就只是看著事物。而且沒什麼大不了的──如果你錯過了某個東西,那也不要緊。你可以錯過,你被允許錯過。將生命看作是簡單的,輕鬆地看待它。

所以那些已經是在某種努力之中的人──葛吉夫的工作就是極度努力的──他們來到這裡會感到困惑。這就是為什麼路易士會覺得困惑,覺得有些不解。而且遲早,他不是必須瞭解我就是必須譴責我──兩者都可能發生。譴責會較容易。因為整整三十年的時間辛苦工作──現在突然間他為一個完全不相信努力的人所吸引。那個人不相信所謂的改善,不相信所謂的成長,不相信有必要去任何地方,不相信任何的道。

他說,第四道,以葛吉夫的教導而言。

我在這裡所教導的是:沒有道。真的並沒有道路,因為真理並不是一個目標。所有的道路都是離開我們所在的地方。所有的道路,所有的方向,所有的路徑,都是將你從真理上面引開。而且本來就沒有可去之處。也沒有可去之人。除了處在此時此地之外並沒有其他處在此時此地的方法。當我說“處在此時此地”時,不要問該怎麼做──那個“怎麼”將會把你帶走。

當我說“處在此時此地”時,不要問“什麼是處在此時此地的方法?”除了此時此地之外沒有別的方法可以在此時此地。沒有方法能成為靜止的,也不需要任何方法。看見,徹底地看見,任何方法都不存在,立刻就會是靜止的。看見這個,就是靜止。所有的道路都在通往並非此地的每個地方。

將你的生命活得如它之所來與它之所去,那就是覺知。被動的,清澈的,如鏡子一般,不帶有緊張。所以我不教你們注意力,因為注意(attension)是有“緊張”(tension)這個字在裡面。注意力此等現象就是有種緊張感在裡面──因此會有“注意”這個字。享受,放鬆。只要瞭解這點,並沒有任何地方是需要去的,那就是解脫。解脫並不像是一個在另外某處等待著你的目標。解脫是瞭解到你已經解脫了。

在那已然存在的面前,我們如此斷然地聲稱什麼才應該存在,這是很不敬的。那是的,就是真理。如實(YATHA BHUTAM)──那所是的,即為真理。去聲稱什麼應該什麼不應該,就是不敬的,褻瀆的,那是有罪的。“應該”就是種罪。那所是的──隨著它放鬆,隨著它漂浮。我甚至不教你們游泳,我只是說與它一起漂浮。這是我們的責任,知道如何透過那所是的去接受與生活

所以我不教導任何的道──第四或第五或第六。而且我也不教導良心,我所教導的是一種清澈放鬆的意識。出自於它,許多花朵將會綻放。出自於它,許多歌曲將會誕生。然而它們是自行誕生的。你不會是它們的做者,也不會因為“我做到了”而覺得自己變得很了不起。你不會感覺到你的自我透過它們得到了滿足。那些花朵出現得更多,你就消失得更多。有一天花朵綻放著,你卻不在了。那就是解脫的日子,那就是解脫的時刻。





Excerpt from OSHO’s book “This Very Body the Buddha”
Chapter4, Question4
14 December 1977 am in Buddha Hall


OSHO: THE FOURTH WAY, AS TAUGHT BY GURDJIEFF, HAS BEEN CALLED THE WAY OF CONSCIENCE. WHAT PLACE HAS CONSCIENCE IN YOUR TEACHING?

The question is from Cecil Lewis.

No place at all. I don’t believe in conscience, I believe only in consciousness. I don’t believe in morality, I believe only in religion. I am amoral.

Conscience is a trick of the society played upon you. The society creates conscience so that you may never need consciousness. You have been deceived. For example, when Jesus says “Love is God” it is not out of his conscience, it is out of his consciousness. He knows it. It is not a belief, it is his experience. When a Christian says “Love is God”it is his conscience, not his consciousness. He has not known it, he has not lived it. He has only heard it repeated again and again—he has become hypnotized by it.

Each child is being hypnotized by the parents, the priests, the politicians, the society. Constant repetition of a certain thing becomes conscience. You go on teaching to the child, “This is right. This is right. This is right.” Hearing it again and again, his mind is being conditioned. After many years he will also say “This is right”—it will be automatic. It will not be from his own being, it will come from the gramophone record that the society has placed in his being. It is like an electrode of Delgado. It is the dangerous trick that the society has been playing on everybody, down the centuries.

That’s why there are so many consciences in the world—the Hindu has one type of conscience, the Mohammedan has another type of conscience. How can consciences be so many? Truth is one. And consciences are so many?

From my childhood I was taught a very very strict vegetarianism. I was born in a Jaina family, absolutely dogmatic about vegetarianism. Not even tomatoes were allowed in my house, because tomatoes look a little like red meat. Poor innocent tomatoes, they were not allowed. Nobody has ever heard of anybody eating in the night; the sunset was the last limit. For eighteen years I had not eaten anything in the night, it was a great sin.

Then for the first time I went on a picnic with a few friends to the mountains. And they were all Hindus and I was the only Jaina. And they were not worried to cook in the day. Mm? The mountains were so beautiful and there was so much to explore—so they didn’t bother about cooking at all, they cooked in the night. Now it was a great problem for me—to eat or not to eat? And I was feeling really hungry. The whole day moving in the mountains, it had been arduous. And I was really feeling hungry—for the first time so hungry in my life.

And then they started cooking. And the aroma and the food smell. And I was just sitting there, a Jaina. Now it was too difficult for me—what to do? The idea of eating in the night was impossible—the whole conditioning of eighteen years. And to sleep in that kind of hunger was impossible. And then they all started persuading me. And they said, ‘There is nobody here to know that you have eaten, and we will not tell your family at all. Don’t be worried.’ And I was ready to be seduced, so they seduced me and I ate. But then I could not sleep—I had to vomit two or three times in the night, the whole night became nightmarish. It would have been better if I had not eaten.

Conditioning for eighteen years that to eat in the night is sin. Now nobody else was vomiting, they were all fast asleep and snoring. They have all committed sin and they are all sleeping perfectly well. And they have been committing the sin for eighteen years, and I have committed it for the first time and I am being punished. This seems unjust!

Conscience is created; it is a conditioning. All that you think is good or bad is nothing but a conditioning. But this conditioning can go on managing your whole life. The society has entered in you and controls you from there, from within. It has become your inner voice. And because it has become your inner voice, you cannot hear your REAL inner voice. So my suggestion is: Unburden yourself of conscience. Throw all the conditioning out, cathart it, be free from it. That’s what I mean when I say don’t be a Christian, a Hindu, a Jaina, a Buddhist.

Just be. And be alert. In that alertness you will always know what is right and what is wrong. And the right and the wrong is not a fixed thing—something may be right in the morning and may be wrong in the evening, and something may be wrong in the evening and may be right in the night. Circumstances change. An alert man, a conscious man, has no fixed ideas. He has spontaneous responses but no fixed ideas. Because of fixed ideas you never act spontaneously. Your action is always a kind of reaction—not action really.

When you act out of spontaneity, with no idea, with no prejudice, then there is real action. And action has passion in it, intensity in it. And it is original and it is first-hand. And action makes your life creative and action makes your life continuously a celebration. Because each act becomes an expression of your being. Conscience is a false being.

I think the French language is the only language which has only one word for consciousness and conscience—a single word, meaning both. That is beautiful. Real conscience should be only consciousness, nothing else. You should become more conscious.

But about consciousness also, I have differences with George Gurdjieff. When he says,“Be conscious”,he says“Be conscious that you ARE.” He insists for self-remembering. Now, this has to be understood. Your consciousness has two polarities. One polarity is the content. For example, a cloud of anger is inside you—that is the content. And you are aware of the cloud of anger—that is consciousness, the witness, watchfulness, the observer. So your consciousness can be divided in two—the observer and the observed.

Gurdjieff says: Go on remembering the observer—self-remembering. Buddha says: Forget the observer, just watch the observed. And if you have to choose between Buddha and Gurdjieff, I will suggest choose Buddha. Because there is a danger with Gurdjieff you may become too self-conscious—rather than becoming self-aware, you may become self-conscious. You may become an egoist. And that I have felt in many Gurdjieff disciples—they have become very very great egoists.

Not that Gurdjieff was an egoist—he was one of the rarest enlightened men of this age. But the method has a danger in it: it is very difficult to make a distinction between self-consciousness and self-remembering. It is almost impossible to make the distinction, it is so subtle. And for the ignorant masses it is almost always self-consciousness that will take possession of them; it will not be self-remembering. The very word “self” is dangerous—you become more and more settled in the idea of the self. And the idea of the self isolates you from existence.

Buddha says: Forget the self, because there is no self. The self is just in the grammar, in the language; it is not anything existential. You just observe the content. By observing the content, the content starts disappearing. Once the content disappears, watch your anger—and watching it, you will see it is disappearing. Once the anger has disappeared there is silence. There is no self, no observer, and nothing to be observed. There is silence. This silence is brought by VIPASSANA, Buddha’s method of awareness.

Ordinary man does both. He goes on changing his gear—sometimes he observes the self, sometimes he observes the content. He goes on moving from this to that, he is a constant wavering. Gurdjieff says the one thing is: Be settled in the observer. Buddha says: Look at the observed.

My own approach is different from both. My approach is that Gurdjieff’s method is more dangerous than Buddha’s method, but even in Buddha’s method there is bound to be some tension—the effort to watch. The very effort to watch will make you tense.

A Buddhist monk was brought to me from Ceylon. He was unable to sleep—for three years he had not slept. And all kinds of medications had been tried upon him but nothing was helping, no tranquillizer was of any help. And nobody had bothered that he goes on doing VIPASSANA, the Buddha’s method of insight—nobody had thought about it.

When he came to me, the first thing I asked him was, “Are you doing vipassana?”—because he is a Buddhist monk, he must be doing it. He said, “Yes—for three years.” I said, “Then that is the cause of your sleeplessness.”

If you are continuously making effort to watch, then in the night you will not be able to relax and fall into sleep—the watching will become continuous. And if you are watching even in the night, how can you fall asleep? You cannot relax, the tension has become fixed.

It is a known fact that Buddhist monks sleep only three, four hours at the most. It is not a gain. They think, and others also think, that this is a gain—they have attained something, they sleep only three, four hours. It is not. They are losing something very valuable—relaxation. And they will look tense, on their faces they will look tense. They will look very quiet, but tense. They will look very silent—but their silence is not the silence of relaxation, but of effort. You can see the effort in the corner, defining them.

My own method is: You relax. Neither watch the watcher nor watch the watched. Just relax, be passive. If something floats and you cannot help seeing it, see it. But don’t make any effort to see it deliberately. If you are relaxed like a mirror, if some cloud passes by, it will be reflected.

Be like a mirror—lucid, passive. Drop both—the Gurdjieffian method of self-remembering, and the Buddhist method of watching.

But if you have to choose between Gurdjieff and Buddha, choose Buddha. If you have to choose between Buddha and me, choose me.

Relax. And just see things. And there is nothing much—if you miss something, it is not of worth. You can miss, you are allowed to miss. Take life easy, take it easy.

So people who have been in some kind of effort—and Gurdjieff’s work is of great effort—will be puzzled here. That’s why Lewis is puzzled, a little bit confused. And sooner or later, either he has to understand me or he has to condemn me—both are open. And condemnation will be easier. Because for thirty yeas working hard—and now suddenly he has become attracted to a man who does not believe in effort at all. Who does not believe in improvement, who does not believe in growth, who does not believe in going anywhere, who does not believe in any WAY.

He says, THE FOURTH WAY, AS TAUGHT BY GURDJIEFF.

What I am teaching here is: No Way. There is really no way, because truth is not a goal. All ways lead away from where we are. All roads, all ways, all paths, distract you from truth. And there is nowhere to go, either. And nobody to go. There is no way of being here and now but to be here and now. When I say “Be here and now” don’t ask how—the “how” will take you away.

When I say “Be here and now” don’t ask “What is the way to be here and now?” There is no way of being here and now but to BE here and now. There is no way to be still, and no need of any way. To see, wholly to see, that there is no way, is at once to be still. Seeing that, is stillness. All ways lead everywhere but here.

To live one’s life as it comes and goes, is awareness. Passive, lucid, mirror-like, with no tension. So I don’t teach you attention, because attention has the word “tension” in it. And the phenomenon of attention has the feeling of tension in it—hence the word “attention”. Enjoy, relax. Just understanding this, that there is nowhere to go, is liberation. Liberation is not like a goal somewhere else waiting for you. Liberation is understanding that you are already liberated.

It is impious for us to assert so flatly what should be, in the face of what is. What is, is the truth. YATHA BHUTAM—that which is is the truth. To assert what should be, is impious, sacrilegious, it is a sin. “Should” is a sin. That which is—relax with it, float with it. I don’t teach even swimming, I simply say float with it. It is our responsibility to know how to accept and live through that which is.

So I don’t teach any way—fourth or fifth or sixth. And I don’t teach conscience, I teach a lucid relaxed consciousness. Out of that, many flowerings happen. Out of that, many songs are born. But they are born on their own. You cannot be the doer of them and you cannot feel enhanced that “I have done”. You cannot feel your ego fulfilled through them. The more those flowers will come, the more you will disappear. And one day there is flowering, but you are not. That is the day, the moment, of liberation.





迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s