Christianity, Vol. 2 Come Follow Yourself Chapter 2: Question 5

Question 5

WOULD YOU DEFINE AND DISCUSS THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS? HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS RELATE TO EGO? IS CONSCIOUSNESS THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE? (THAT IS, COULD YOU SAY EQUALLY, "IN THE BEGINNING WAS CONSCIOUSNESS" INSTEAD OF "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD OR THE LOGOS"?) HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS RELATE TO GOD?

In the BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, or the logos. The same cannot be said about consciousness, because in the beginning unconsciousness was also there. Consciousness is just a part of your reality, the reality of the within. Unconsciousness is also there. So just consciousness was not there in the beginning. Unconsciousness was also there, as much as consciousness. Or you can say that something was there in the beginning in which both consciousness and unconsciousness were involved.

That is the meaning of'God'. God is not only consciousness: God is consciousness PLUS unconsciousness. God is both the dark night and the bright day, both summer and winter, both life and death. God is the beginning and the end, both. God is beyond duality and the duality is intrinsic in him. He is both matter and mind; the manifest and the unmanifest.

Consciousness is just a part of the great oceanic unconsciousness. Consciousness is just on the surface; deeply hidden are layers and layers of unconsciousness. One has to transcend both to know that which was in the beginning -- which is God.

"Would you define and discuss the nature of consciousness? How does consciousness relate to ego? " One part of you is conscious, one-tenth. Nine-tenths of you is unconscious. If the conscious part thinks itself to be the whole, it becomes the ego. Then it forgets about the unconscious; then the part imagines itself to be the whole. Then it is the ego.

If the conscious becomes aware of the unconscious also.... That is the whole effort of religion, that is the whole effort of meditation. If the conscious turns back, looks back, and becomes aware of the unconscious also -- the dark night within -- then the conscious knows that "I am conscious, I am unconscious also. My consciousness is just a wave on the ocean. The unconscious is vast." Then the ego disappears. Ego is the part, thinking itself to be the whole. Non-ego is the part, becoming aware of the whole. Then the ego disappears.

How to define the nature of consciousness? It has never been defined, it never will be defined. Who will define it? To define it you have to be away from it. To define anything you have to stand out of it, you need a distance. Perspective will not be possible if the distance is not there.

You are consciousness, you ARE unconsciousness. There is nobody who can stand outside and define it. You can know it, but you cannot define it. That's why all religion is mysterious, mystical, vague, cloudy -- because no term which is very basic to religion can be defined.

The subject cannot be made an object. I cannot put myself in front of me, so I cannot define. Neither has Buddha defined, nor Jesus. Definition as such is debarred by the very nature of the phenomenon.

Everything else can be defined because consciousness is the definer. Everything else is before consciousness. The consciousness can know -- it can go around, watch, observe, experiment, define, dissect -- but who will define consciousness? You cannot go away from it: you ARE it. You can know it, but you cannot define it. Knowledge is not possible, only knowing.

I can help you to create a meditative state where you can know what it is, I can give you the method, but I cannot give you the definition. That's why religion always looks a little suspicious. "Why don't you define your terms? Just do as science does. Define! If you cannot define your terms that simply shows you don't know what you are talking about."

A great linguist and positivist philosopher, A.J. Aiyer, says that if we take two terms -- 'God' and'dog' -- the second is true and the first is false. Nobody can define'God', the word is meaningless.'God' cannot be defined.'Dog' can be defined -- 'dog' is more meaningful than'God'.

If you insist on definitions, then only things can be defined; persons cannot be defined. Laws can be defined, love cannot be defined. Gravitation can be defined, but grace -- grace cannot be defined. That which is without is definable; that which is within is elusive. One has to understand it... and move into meditation.

Buddha says, "Buddhas can only show you the way. YOU have to move. One day you come upon the goal. Nobody can give you the goal beforehand."

Not even a definition is possible. And it is good that a definition is not possible. Otherwise you will settle for the definition, you will settle for the information, and you will never travel, you will never journey to the goal. And sometimes it happens that the very map you were thinking to use for the journey becomes the barrier. You become satisfied with the map itself.

I was reading a very rare autobiography by a man who belonged to a very primitive race in the Amazon. He was the son of the chief. His father was a great lover of the Amazon River, and he had moved to the very source of the river.

The boy, the son of the chief, went to America -- some missionaries helped him to go there to study. He studied there, graduated, and was on his way back home. Thinking that "My father loves the Amazon so much. He would be very happy if I brought him a map, a detailed map, of the Amazon," he purchased the best map available and brought it to his father.

He thought that his father would be very happy, but the father looked at the map and was very sad. He threw the map away. The son was very hurt. "I have brought a gift, a present, and my father has thrown it away. Why?"

He asked his father. The father said, "This is absolutely bogus because I don't see the Amazon anywhere. How can the Amazon exist on paper? You are a fool, and you are deceiving me. I have moved on the Amazon, I know what it is. "Don't be deceived by this map. Only lines are there."

Definitions of God are maps: lines on paper. Definitions of consciousness are maps. And sometimes people get too obsessed with maps.

The best way to be lost is to have a map. You cannot fail: if you have a really detailed map, you will get lost in it. And the mind will think, "Now I know everything." The living Amazon is beautiful, dangerous, terrible. At any moment life may be at stake. With a map -- conveniently sitting in your easy chair -- you can study it, and you can think that you know all about the Amazon.

In the world outside you, maps have a little relevance, but in the inside world they are absolutely irrelevant. If you have any maps, throw them away. All the religions have given you maps. Throw them away! Enough of the maps. Now let there be a real journey!

When you will attain to consciousness, you will laugh at the stupidity of the mapmakers. Then you will know that they have never been to the innermost source of life. They have been copying other mapmakers. For centuries they have been copying, and they go on adding their own fantasy and their own ideas. They go on changing and decorating. All maps are false, because the innermost remains indefinable.

But there is no need to define. Consciousness is there within you. Return, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Why be bothered by the definition? When the real thing is so close, why not taste it?

When the river is flowing, you ask me about the definition of water. I know you are thirsty, and I know that a definition cannot quench the thirst. But you say, "Unless water is defined, how can I drink the water? I can't see the point."

If people had waited for the definition -- only then would they quench their thirst -- humanity would have disappeared long ago, because water is still indefinable. Don't be befooled by what scientists say. They may say that water is H20 -- -two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen -- but when a scientist is thirsty, if you give him oxygen and hydrogen to drink, he will say, "What are you doing? Have you gone mad? Water quenches thirst, not two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen."

Mulla Nasruddin's son came back from the university. He was studying logic there and he had become a great philosopher -- as everybody is prone to become in youth. Youth is foolish, and to become a philosopher is easy.

The son was very interested in showing off his knowledge. Fresh from the university, everybody is. They were sitting at the dining table and the mother brought in two apples. Seeing an opportunity, Mulla Nasruddin's son said, "Mummy, I will show you something which I have learned. What do you see on this plate?"

The mother said, "Two apples."

He said, "No, logic says something else. There are three apples, not two."

The poor mother looked again, but there were two apples. She said, "What do you mean?"

He said, "Look. Watch. This apple is one, this apple is two. How many are one plus two?"

The mother said, "Of course, one plus two is three." The son was very happy.

Mulla Nasruddin was watching. He said, "Good, very good. I will eat the first and your mother will eat the second. You eat the third!"

You cannot eat logic, you cannot eat science, you cannot eat philosophy. Religion is concerned with how to quench your thirst, religion is concerned with your hunger -- not definitions, maps.

Christianity

VOL. 2, COME FOLLOW YOURSELF

Chapter-2

Fifth Question