问：今天这个故事里的学者（子夏）——他也是一个美丽的道家人吗？可能还没有抵达海洋，但已经在路上了吧？
OSHBuddha：
他可以被称为一个道家人，但不是一个道中之人。道家人的意思是他相信道是真理，但不是一个道中之人因为他的信仰是没有基础的。那不是他自己的体悟，不是他自己存在性的了解，那仍然是知识，不是知道。要成为一个道家人很容易，那是非常廉价的：你可以一直借知识。要成为一个道中之人是非常难的，那需要勇气。
有时候你可能受道家人的影响比道中之人更大，因为道家人是你用智力可以理解的。他和你非常接近，他以同样的逻辑和同样的语言说话，那是你可以理解的。要了解一个道中人可能很难，因为在你和他之间没有桥梁。他存在于一个超越的世界，活在一个完全不同的实相里，一个完全分开的实相。如果他是对的，你就是完全错的。道家人可能是对的，他不会让你觉得你是完全错的。道家人是和你一个频率，而不是和道一个频率。那就是故事结尾的意思：文候大悦....而不是觉醒。
那个答复的确很美，很可口，但没有任何营养。你可以享受它，但不能靠它活。那毫无意义，一个没有内容的东西，只是一个空洞的姿势——尽管很美，但仍然是一个空洞的姿势。那是苍白无力的，没有创造力。是的，它能够娱乐你——但仅此而已。
所以，我可以承认那个专家、那个学者是一个道家人。他相信道的哲学，但那是一个用来相信的哲学、教条。他并没有活出它，没有品尝过，那还不是他的心，还没有发生在他身上。就像一个盲人听说过很多关于光的事，颜色、彩虹、花朵，太阳、月亮、星星，然后变得非常聪明去谈论那些事。也许他说的都是对的，但他怎么能是对的？一个盲人能够了解所有写在纸上的光，能够完美地回答你关于光的问题。也许他用的和有眼能看的人是同样的语言——就语言而言，他们是一样的，但就经历和体悟而言，一个人经历过，另一个没有。这一点必须要记得。故事里他说：“奇迹者，吾师亦可为亦可不为。”多么美妙的说辞，多么伟大的论断，但它来自于一个盲人。
如果它来自于列子，那就有着无与伦比的意义。如果它来自于佛佗，那就无比重要。但它来自于一个学者——那就毫无意义，永远记住。谁说这句话比这句话本身要重要得多。你可以原原本本去重复椰酥的话，但你只是在重复。你可以被教成鹦鹉学舌一模一样地去重复椰酥的话、穆罕默德的话......但那有什么意义？鹦鹉是在重复——那只是空洞的姿势，它的内在空空如也，只是机械性地重复。但当椰酥说那些话，它们来自于他的心，他不是重复，不是模仿——那是真实的真正的真理。
真理意味着它来自于你自己的体验，从你的经验中产生，是你生命的一部分，是你血液、骨骼、骨髓的一部分，累积成你的存在，你在它的里里外外呼吸着。然后，永远记住，语句本身并不意味着什么，那取决于它来自哪里。听我说话有时候你会很惊讶：如果是老子说的东西我就会支持，如果孔子也说我就会批判。
同样的事！同样的语言！如果苏格拉底说我就会支持，如果亚里士多德说我就会谴责。
你会感到惊讶，你会认为这不合适，但试着理解我。我看的是人，不是语句。我看的是存在，是经历，是知道。一个人说什么是完全不相关的......他是什么，他的存在才是相关的，而不是知识。
所以，我可以承认他是一个道家人，也很美，但全都是模仿，不是真正的钻石——人造的。
人造的钻石也可以很美——起码看上去很美。塑料花也可以看着很美，它们被塑造成那样就是为了吸引你，但那不是真的。那是欺骗，是伪造。
第二件事：你问：“也许还没抵达海洋，但已经在路上了吧？”
那么你并没有理解我......没有理解我在这里所说的。道是一条无路之路。
那是什么意思？它的意思是道路与目标是一个，如果你在路上，你就已经抵达了。
那就是道的美：如果你上路了，你就到家了......因为道路与目标不是分开的，旅途与目的地不是分开的——旅途本身就是目标。那就是“道”这个字的意思。道就意味着路：路本身就是目标。方法就是目的，没有其它的目的。
你所说的看似很符合逻辑：“此人也许只是在路上——也许还没觉醒，但是在路上了。”你的意思是什么？你是说“一点点觉醒”？“部分地觉醒”？在路上——向着觉醒移动？没有任何部分觉醒的可能：要么是要么不是；要么你抵达了，要么没有抵达，在这两者之间什么都没有，没有中间状态。一个在路上的人就意味着一个进入海洋的人——沉入进去，达成，消失。就道而言，方法与目标是无法分割的，它们不是分开的。那就是道的美，那就是道伟大的了解。一旦有一个目标，那么你就会变得紧绷，因为要达成它的欲望和野心会出现。那么你就必须为它做准备：时间是需要的，方法、技术是需要的，美德、品格是需要的。你会一直处于焦虑和恐惧中，这是不是正确的方向？能不能达成它？又错过了吗？恐惧、焦虑、颤抖会持续，因为有目标就有未来。
当道路就是目标那就没有未来——未来直接被摧毁了，时间消失了。
没有明天。
现在这里一切都唾手可得，不需要拖延。想要拖延是头脑的把戏，想要拖延的头脑分裂成道路和目标。然后道路又被分为无数个里程碑，无数个阶段：首先、其次、第三......人一直在分裂。
这样你的头脑就有很多空间用来投射，道没有给头脑留下任何空间。它彻底地摧毁了头脑，因为没有目标。只需想一下，沉思一下：如果没有目标，头脑如何存在？那么这一刻就是全部，这就是一切。欲望是不可能的，因为没有明天，没有目标。什么都不用达成——那么你还去哪里？你还往哪里逃？
你往哪里躲？目标使你逃离。你可以希望：“我今天不对，明天就会对了。今天我还只是一个新手，明天我就成老手了。”但如果没有目标，没有哪里要去，没有哪里要抵达，那么所有的把戏，所有的工具都被拿走了，所有的道具都被拿走了。那就只有你与当下同在，这一刻就是全部，解脱就在此刻。
头脑从欲望中解脱就是自由，头脑不再处于欲望中那就是觉醒。头脑不再投射，不再希望，那就是进入了海洋。请不要分裂，以一个不可分割的整体来看待生命，它是一体的。
THE PUNDIT IN TODAY'S STORY -- WAS HE NOT ALSO A BEAUTIFUL TAOIST? PERHAPS NOT REACHED THE OCEAN, BUT ON THE WAY?
A:
He can be called a Taoist, but not a man of Tao. Taoist in the sense that he believes that Tao is true, but not a man of Tao because his belief is unbased. It is not his own experience, it is not his own existential understanding; it is still knowledge, it is not knowing. To be a Taoist is easy, it is very cheap: you can always borrow knowledge. To be a man of Tao is arduous, it needs guts.
Sometimes you may be more impressed by a Taoist than a man of Tao, because the Taoist is understandable by your intellect. He has some affinity with you, he talks the same logic and the same language that you can understand. To understand the man of Tao may be difficult because there is no bridge yet between you and him. He exists in a very transcendental world, in a totally different reality. He is part of a separate reality. If he is right, you are totally wrong. The Taoist can be right and he does not make you feel that you are totally wrong. The Taoist is in tune with you, not in tune with Tao. That is the meaning of the end of the story: THE MARQUIS WAS DELIGHTED... but not enlightened.
The answer was really beautiful, delicious, but it has no nourishment in it. You can enjoy it, but you cannot live on it. It is a meaningless, substanceless thing. It is an empty gesture -- howsoever beautiful, but still an empty gesture. It is impotent, it is not creative. Yes, it can entertain you -- but that's all.
So I can concede that the pundit, the scholar was a Taoist. He believed in the philosophy of Tao, but it was a philosophy, a dogma to be believed in. He has not lived it, he has not tasted it; it is not yet his heart. It has not happened to him. It is like a blind man who has heard many things about light, colours, rainbows, flowers, the sun, the moon, the stars, and has become very clever in talking about those things. Maybe whatsoever he says is right, but still how can it be right? A blind man can understand all that is written about light and he can reply to your questions about light perfectly. Maybe he uses the exact words that a man of eyes will use -- as far as words are concerned, they are similar; but as far as experience is concerned, one has experienced, the other has no experience. This has to be remembered. The thing that he said, 'My Master can do these miracles, and he has become capable of doing them, but he is also capable of not doing them' is a tremendous saying, a great statement, but it is coming from a blind man.
If it comes from Lieh Tzu, it will have tremendous significance. If it comes from Buddha, it will have tremendous significance. But it comes from a pundit -- it is meaningless, remember it always. It is much more important who has made the statement, than the statement itself. You can repeat the words of Jesus exactly, but you are repeating them. Your parrot can be taught to repeat the exact words of Jesus, Mohammed... but what will it mean? The parrot repeating -- it is an empty gesture, there is nothing inside the parrot; it is mechanical. But when Jesus said those words they were coming from his heart he was not repeating, he was not imitating -- they were authentic, they were true.
Truth means that which comes from your own experience, arises out of your own experience; is part of your life, part of your blood, bones, marrow, circulates in your being; you breathe it in and out. Then, remember always, the statement in itself does not mean much, but from whom it comes. Sometimes you will be surprised listening to me: if Lao Tzu says the thing I will support it, if Confucius says it I will criticise it.
The same thing! The same words! If Socrates says it I will support it, if Aristotle says it I will condemn it.
And you will be surprised, you will think that this is not fair, but try to understand me. I look into the person, not into the statement. I look into the being, into the experience, into knowing. What a person says is not very relevant... what he is, the being is relevant, not knowledge.
So, I can concede that he was a Taoist and beautiful too, but all imitation; no real diamonds -- artificial.
Artificial diamonds also can be beautiful -- at least, they can appear beautiful. Flowers of plastic can look beautiful, they can be made in such a way that they can attract you, but they are not real. There is deception, fraud.
The second thing: you ask 'Perhaps not reached the ocean, but on the way?'
Then you have not understood me... whatsoever I have been saying here. Tao is a PATHLESS PATH.
What does it mean? It means that the Way and the goal are one; if you are on the Way, you have arrived.
That is the beauty of Tao: If you are on the Way, you have arrived home... because the Way and the goal are not separate, the journey and the destiny are not separate -- the journey itself is the goal. That is the meaning of the word 'Tao'. Tao means THE WAY: the Way itself is the goal. The means is the end, there is no other end.
Whatsoever you say looks logical, 'The man may be just on the way -- may not be yet enlightened, but on the way.' What do you mean? Does it mean 'a little bit enlightened?' 'partially enlightened?' on the way -- moving towards it? There is no possiblity of any partial enlightenment: either it is or it is not, either you have arrived or you have not arrived, and between these two there is none. There are no mid-way stations. A man on the Way means a man in the ocean -- drowned, arrived, disappeared. As far as Tao is concerned, the Way and the goal cannot be separated, they are not separate. That's the beauty of Tao and the great understanding of Tao. Once there is a goal, then you will become tense, because then there will arise the desire and the ambition to achieve it. Then you will have to prepare for it: time will be needed; methods, techniques will be needed; virtue, character, will be needed. And you will always be anxious and afraid whether you are going in the right direction or not. Will you be able to make it or not? Are you going to miss it again? The fear, the anxiety, the trembling will continue, because there is a future with the goal.
When the Way is the goal there is no future -- future is simply destroyed, time disappears.
There is no tomorrow.
Here-now everything is available, there is no need to postpone. These are the tricks of the mind which wants to postpone, the mind which wants to postpone divides the Way and the goal. And then the Way is also divided into many milestones, into many stages: the first, the second, the third... one goes on dividing.
Then there is very much space for your mind to be projected into. Tao leaves no space for the mind. It utterly destroys the mind because there is no goal. Just think about it, contemplate it: if there is no goal, how can the mind exist? Then this moment is all there is; this is all. Desire is not possible because there is no tomorrow and there is no goal. Nothing to be achieved -- then where will you go? Where will you escape?
Where will you hide? The goal gives you an escape. You can hope. 'Today I am not right, tomorrow I will be right. Today I am just a beginner, tomorrow I will become an adept.' But if there is no goal, nowhere to reach, nowhere to arrive, then all tricks, devices, have been taken away, all props have been removed. Then you are left with this moment. This moment is all, and in this very moment there is liberation.
Mind liberated from desire is what liberation is. Mind no more in desire is what enlightenment is. Mind no more projecting, hoping, is what coming to the ocean is. Please don't divide. Look at life as an undivided whole, as one whole.
吾同翻译
赞赏译者
👇延申阅读👇
❤️奥秘之书❤️
