光，生命，爱——这是三个维度。不要停留在第二个维度。要么回落到根部，要么让种子生长、开出花朵。要么回落到光，要么开出花朵。所以有两条道路。一条是求知之路。“求知”意味着回落到光。“智识瑜珈”的真正奥妙就在于此：还原成光。另外就是“奉爱瑜珈”，奉献之路，那意味着走向爱。 一个佛陀回落（goes down），一个蜜拉升华（goes up）。一个马哈维亚回落，一个柴坦亚升华。这是必然的，因为一个说的是回到根部、回归源头，另一个说的是开花结果、走向终点、走向巅峰。在某种意义上，佛陀、马哈维亚、派坦加利——他们的语言是枯燥的。这是必然的，因为他们要回到源头。那里面没有诗意，不可能有，因为他们不是走向花朵。他们用科学的方式谈论。派坦加利的言论就像一个科学家，他谈论规律。佛陀总是说：“做这个，那个就会发生。这样做，那就随之而来。这是因，那是果。” 他们科学地谈论，他们用数学的方式谈论——非常枯燥。他们简单直白，完全没有诗意。他们不可能有，一个物理学家怎么可能诗意地说话呢？他在深挖源头。他完全不关心花朵。他往下挖掘根部。他怎么可能诗意地说话呢？柴坦亚，蜜拉，他们说不一样的语言。他们跳舞，他们唱歌，因为他们走向开花。开花不可能没有舞蹈与歌唱，不可能没有对生活本身的庆祝。所以佛陀与马哈维亚看上去反对生活——因为他们走向根部。柴坦亚与蜜拉看上去非常正向。他们热爱生活，因为他们往上走。 两条路通往同一个终点。走哪条路取决于你。如果你有一个非常科学的头脑，你擅长数学，内心没有诗意，那就回落到光比较好。如果你的头脑是论文导向的，那就回落。但如果你有诗意的、审美的倾向，如果你可以唱歌跳舞，可以庆祝，那就不要走向源头，而是走向花朵。你会到达同样的地方，因为一旦你达成花朵你就达成了种子——种子就是花朵的再度还原。 如果你回到根部，你就再度移动了。你必须离开生命的维度。生命只是一座桥，它只是个歇脚处。它不是终点。不管走向左岸还是右岸，反正生命不能驻足不前。它必须是一种超越自身的运动——要走向一个岸，不管是左岸还是右岸。 基本上，这就是运动的两个方向。任选一个！不存在哪个更好的问题。这取决于你——哪一个对你更好。两条路都是平等的。但对你而言，两条路不可能是一样的。对你而言，你肯定有偏好。这取决于你。所以要去探索你的类型。 我所谓的“诗意型”是非逻辑的、感性的，它是一种感觉类型，它可以爱得深刻、彻底。“理智型”则不是情绪化的，它不是一种感觉类型，它的逻辑性深入骨髓。所以有的人是逻辑的、理智的，他追求知道。感觉是不同的。当你是求智导向的，你的类型追求的就是了解、知道。 当你是情感导向的、走心的，你追求的就不是知道，你追求的就是体验、感受。一开始两者是不一样的。到了最后一切都融会贯通，但一开始它们是不同的。如果你对蜜拉讲知晓真理的道路，她会说：“我要知晓真理干什么？我会怎么做呢？我要与真理相爱。” 但你怎么可能与真理相爱呢？所以奉爱者从不谈论真理。他们谈论爱人，他们谈论朋友。他们使用情感式的语言！“神就是真理”的说法，对他们来说太数学了。 维诺巴说神肯定是个数学家。这里说的不是神，而是表明维诺巴的头脑是数学式的。他对数学的喜爱让神成了数学家。对一个毕达哥拉斯而言，神就是一个数学家。所以这取决于你。如果你觉得神是爱人、朋友、情人，如果你难以把神想象成真理，那就上升，走向开花。那样你的静心将会更有创造性。写诗，作画，跳舞，唱歌——经历这一切会让你光芒四射。 但如果你属于理智型，把神称为爱人就是荒谬的。你是什么意思？真理怎么可能是个情人呢？称神为父亲是没有意义的。神怎么可能是一个父亲？祂只能是真理。所以如果你是理智型的，那就往下走。进入深度而不是高度——走向根部、根源。当你贯通理智，当一个奉爱者贯穿他的情感，你们到达的是同一个中心。不过一个奉爱者往上走，而一个求智者往下走。 这些经文是写给那些求智者的，因为《奥义书》属于理智范畴，它们不适合奉爱者。我提到这一点是为了让你觉察，因为有时候吸引你的未必是适合你的。不要被骗了。吸引不算什么，兴趣不算什么——除非有一种内在的契合（inner attuning）。你也许受到吸引，但那不会起作用。你一定要觉得：“这就是我的类型。我就是这样的。”那样就不要听从任何人的。我们为彼此创造出大量的困扰，因为没人知道自己在说什么。 如果你是一个走心的人，那就不要听从理智，不要听从思辨，不要争论。只要说：“我是个走心的人，我完全不关心道理。”不要听各种辩论，它们会让你混乱。有时候你甚至会被吸引，因为异性相吸。所以会有这种情况：一个感性的人也许被一个理性的人严重影响，因为他在这个层面有欠缺，一个人就会觉得自己欠缺的才是重要的。你当然无法说服一个理性的人，但对方可以说服你。你无法为自己辩论，但他可以为自己辩论。结果你的自我感到受伤，你就开始模仿。你放弃了你的类型，也许要过许多世你才能重新拾起，因为一旦一个进程启动就很难回头。 不要误导任何人。如果你觉得一个人是走心的，那就不要和他辩论，尽管那不是你的风格。不要探讨，不要辩论，什么也不要说。让他安于自己（remain himself）。 我们非常暴力，没人允许别人安于他自己。每个人都在驱赶别人，每个人都试图让别人改走自己的路——完全不知道这也许是在破坏一个极大的可能性。坚守自己。这无关固执。这是一个基本法则：“我必须允许我是我自己。”但当你开始用别人的术语说话，迟早你会被拽进去。所以如果你是情感型的，那就直说：“我完全不关心逻辑与思辨。”不要辩论，不要使用和对方相同的术语或语言。只要说：“我就是非理性的。我有信心。我没有任何证据，但我的信心是确实的，我不需要任何证据。” 人类观念里发生了一个严重的灾难，就是理智型强行把自己认定为唯一正确的类型。他们强迫全世界接受这个观点：他们是唯一正确的类型，其他人都是错误的。教育属于他们，学院属于他们，大学属于他们。他们创作文献，他们建立理论，他们提出正反面的证据，他们创造哲学。 他们变得过于主流，结果情感型就感到自卑：他觉得自己无所适从。确实，没有感性教育，只有理性教育。所以他甚至不知道感性的语言，他不了解情感的思辨，他不明白心的逻辑。他完全不懂，于是他感到内疚。如果他有信心，如果他在爱中走向神性，他就感到内疚，觉得他是错误的。千万不要那样觉得。永远要为你自己把脉——你是什么取向，你是什么天性——然后再做决定。换句话说，让你的天性来决定。 所以这是两条道路：沐浴在内在的光中，或者沐浴在内在的爱中。然后你就入门了——那里是恩典开始运作的边界。要么往内走，去寻找源头；要么往外走，去寻找爱人。 记住这一点：如果你要寻找源头，就往内走。如果你要寻找爱人，就往外走。对于事物，你必须往外走；对于爱人，你必须往外走。两种态度是不同的，但两种运动是相同的。寻找爱人意味着在你遇到的万事万物中找到“彼岸”（the That）。往外走，不断寻找，让那一刻来临，那时只有你的爱人遍及一切。那时你就沐浴在爱中，那个结果是相同的。 或者往内走。如果往内走，你也许连“神”这个词都会丢弃。在古老的瑜珈文献里，神完全没有被提及。在后期的瑜珈文献里，神也只是作为一种手段被提及。为了达成“彼岸”，神被作为一种手段提及。你可以抛弃它，它是可有可无的。 所以一个佛陀可以没有任何神的概念而达成，一个马哈维亚可以没有任何神的概念而达成，但一个蜜拉不可能没有任何神的概念而达成。一个柴坦亚不可能达成。 如果你走的是爱之路，神就不是可有可无的，不然你要到哪里去找你的爱人呢？ 不过要移动！不要停留在生命里。要么走向光，要么走向爱！ Light, life, love -- these are the three layers. Don't remain in the second layer. Either go back down to the roots, or go up to the seeds again, to the flowers. Go down to light or go up to flowers. And there are two paths. One is the path of knowledge. "Knowing" means going down to light. By "Gyana Yoga" the real secret that is meant is this: going down to light. And then there is "Bhakti Yoga", the path of devotion; that means going to love. A Buddha goes down, a Meera goes up. A Mahavir goes down, a Chaitanya goes up. They speak very contradictory languages. They are bound to, because one speaks about going to the roots. the source, and the other speaks about going to the flowering, to the end, to the climax, to the peak. In a way, Buddha, Mahavir, Patanjali -- their language is dry. It has to be because they are turning back to the source. There is no poetry, there cannot be because they are not moving toward the flowering. They speak in a scientific way. A Patanjali speaks as a scientist -- of laws. Buddha always says, "Do this, and this will happen. Doing this, this follows. This is the cause, this is the effect." They speak scientifically; they speak in terms of mathematics -- very dry. They speak in prose, never in poetry. They cannot -- how can a physicist speak in poetry? He is digging deep to the source. He is not concerned with the flowers at all. He is digging down to the roots. How can he speak in poetry? Chaitanya, Meera, they speak a different language. They dance, they sing, because they are going up to the flowering. And a flowering cannot happen without dancing and singing, without celebrating life itself. That's why Buddha and Mahavir appear to be anti-life -- because they go to the roots. And Chaitanya and Meera look very affirmative. They love life because they go up. Both paths reach to the same end. Which one you take depends on you. If you have a very scientific mind, mathematical, with no poetry in it, it is better to follow going down towards light. If you have a prose-oriented mind, then go down. But if you have a poetic, aesthetic attitude, if you can sing and dance and celebrate then don't move to the source; move to the flowering. You will reach to the same, because once you reach to the flower you reach to the seed -- the flower is the seed again come back. If you go down to the roots you again move. From life, you must move. Life is only a bridge. It is just a stop-over. It is not the end. Move to this bank or to that, but life must not be static. It must be a movement beyond itself -- to either bank, this or that. Basically, these are the two dimensions of movement. Choose any! There is no question of which is better. It depends on you -- which can be better for you. Both are equal. But for you both cannot be equal. For you one must be preferable. That depends on you. So explore what your type is. The type I call poetic is illogical, sensitive, a feeling type who can love deeply, totally. A knowing type is not emotional, is not a feeling type. He is logical down to the bare bones. So some persons are logical, intellectual, knowledge-oriented. Feel the difference. Whenever you are knowledge-oriented, your type is for knowing, to know. When you are emotion-oriented, heart-oriented, your search is not for knowing -- your search is to be, to feel. And both are different in the beginning. In the end everything becomes one, but in the beginning they are different. If you go to Meera and say to her that this is the way to know the Truth, Meera will say, "What will I do by knowing the Truth? What will I do? I want to love the Truth." But how can you love the Truth? That's why bhaktas never talk about Truth. They talk about the Beloved; they talk about the Friend. They talk in terms of feeling! To say "God is Truth" locks mathematical to them. Vinoba says that Cod must be a mathematician. It is not that God is, but that Vinoba's mind is mathematical. His own love of mathematics makes God a mathematician. For a Pythagoras, God is a mathematician. So it depends on you. If you feel God as a beloved, as a friend, as a lover, if you cannot conceive of God as Truth, then go up, move vertically towards flowering. Then your meditation will be more creative. Create poetry, create painting, create dance, create singing -- and through all these you will come to the illumination. But if your type is a knowing type, to call God a lover is just absurd. What do you mean? How can Truth be a lover? To call God a father is meaningless. How can God be a father? He can be Truth. So if your type is a knowing type, move vertically -- down. Move in the depth, not in the height -- to the roots, to the source. When you come to your knowing, and when a bhakta comes to his feeling, you come to the same center. But a bhakta moves upward, and a gyani moves downward. This sutra is for those whose search is for knowing, because the Upanishads belong to the knowing type; they are not for devotees But I mention this only so that you may be aware, because sometimes something may appeal to you very much, but it may not belong to your type. Then don't be deceived. Appeal means nothing, attraction means nothing -- unless there is an inner attuning. You may be attracted, but that will not do. You must begin to feel that "This is my type; this is how I am." Then don't listen to anyone. We are creating many confusions for each other because no one knows what he is talking about. If you are a heart-oriented person. then don't listen to intellect, then don't listen to arguments, don't argue. Just tell that "I am a heart-oriented person; I am not concerned with arguments at all." Don't listen to arguments because they will confuse you. And sometimes you may even be attracted, because the opposite has a sexual attraction. So it happens that an emotional person may be very much influenced by some intellectual because he lacks this dimension, and one begins to feel that whatsoever one lacks is important. And you cannot convince an intellectual, but he can convince you. You cannot argue for yourself, but he can argue for himself. So your ego feels hurt and you begin to imitate. You miss your type, and it may be for lives that you may not regain it. because once a process begins it is very difficult to come back. And never mislead anyone. If you feel that someone is a heart type, then don't discuss with him even if it doesn't appeal to you. Don't discuss, don't argue, don't say anything. Let him remain himself. We are so violent that no one allows anyone to remain himself. Everyone is after everyone, everyone is trying to convert everyone to his own way -- without knowing that he may be just destroying a very great possibility. Insist on being yourself. There is no arrogance in it. This is a simple law that "I must be allowed to be myself." But when you begin to talk in others' terms, sooner or later you will be pulled in. So if you are an emotional type, then say directly, "I am not concerned with logic at all or with argument." Don't argue, don't use the same terms or the same language. Just say, "I am irrational. I have faith without any proofs with me -- but the faith is working and I don't need any proofs." One very fatal thing has happened to the human mind, and that is that intellectuals have forcibly posed themselves as the only right type. They have forced all over the world the view that they are the only right type and that everyone else is wrong. Education belongs to them, schools belong to them, universities belong to them. They create literature, they create argument, they create proofs, disproofs, they create philosophies. So they have become over-dominant, and the emotional type is just feeling inferior: he feels that he is nowhere. Really, there is no emotional education, only intellectual education. So he doesn't even know the language of emotion, he doesn't know the argumentation of emotion, he doesn't know the logic of the heart. He doesn't know at all, so he feels guilty. If he has faith, if he develops towards the Divine in love, he feels guilty, he feels he is wrong. Never feel that way. Always feel your own pulse -- what you are, what your nature is -- and then decide. Or, rather, let your nature decide. So these are the two paths: either be bathed in inner light or be bathed in inner love. And then you will be on the threshold -- the boundary from where grace begins to work. Move in and find the source, or move out and find the beloved. Remember this also: if you have to find the source, move in. If you have to find the beloved, move out. For things you have also to move out, for the beloved you have also to move out. The attitude is different, but the movement is the same. To find the beloved means to find the That in everything you encounter. Move out and go on finding, and let a moment come when everywhere nothing remains except your beloved. Then you are bathed in love, and the same will be the result. Or, move in. If you are moving in, then you may even discard the very word "God". In old yoga texts, God is not mentioned at all. And even in later yoga texts, God is mentioned only as a means. In order to achieve That, God is mentioned as a means. And you can discard it; it is dispensable. So a Buddha can reach without any concept of God, a Mahavir can reach without any concept of God -- but a Meera cannot reach without a concept of God. A Chaitanya cannot reach, because God is not dispensable if your way is that of love -- because then where will you find the Beloved? But move! Don't remain static in life. Move towards light or towards love!The Ultimate Alchemy新地翻译
