UNMANI BHAAVAH PADDYAM

THE MIND is the bridge between matter and consciousness, between without and within, between the gross and the subtle. When I say mind is the bridge, I mean many things. Man comes to the world through mind; man comes to the body through mind; man comes to desires through mind. So wherever you reach, the reaching is always through the mind. If you create a hell for yourself, you create it through mind. If you create a heaven, that also is through mind.

Hui-Hai

One of the Zen patriarchs, Hui-Hai, has said, "Mind is heaven and mind is hell." So whatsoever you are or whatsoever you can be, it will depend ultimately on how your mind works. This working can create something for you which is not; this working can reveal to you that which is. So a mind can create a very illusionary world around it: it is capable. It can dream, and it can dream so real that you cannot even detect that whatsoever is seen and perceived is not real.

So mind has a projective force; it can project. That which is not, mind can create. And because mind can create that which is not, it can forget that which is. It can just be in such a state that the reality is never in any contact with it; and whatsoever happens, it depends only on the mind. So the mind has to be taken as the root of everything that one can experience. Even if one has to know the Divine, one has to go through mind. Of course, that going is difficult because that going implies dropping of the mind. Even if dropping of the mind is needed, it is through mind - because unless you drop the mind you will never be able to know the true.

Mind is everywhere, either positively or negatively. Whatsoever you are doing - creating an illusory world or discovering the real, creating a madness for yourself or creating a meditative state - it is all through mind. Wherever you go, you go through the bridge of the mind. Even if you have to come to yourself, it will be through mind. Of course, the coming will be negative; you will have to negate mind. You will have to come back, and the same steps will have to be taken - only the direction will be different. If I go from my home, there are steps which lead me away. If I am returning back, the same steps will lead me back - only the direction will be different. So if you can understand how mind goes out, you know that the same path is to be followed back.

Secondly, in Indian symbology, "upward" is synonymous with "inward", and "downward" is synonymous with "outward". When we say "upward" we mean inward; they both mean the same. The more inward you go, the more upward; the more outward you go, the more downward. These two are different symbols. The Chinese mind has always used "downward" as synonymous with "inward", and "upward" as synonymous with "outward". So whenever Lao Tzu would speak he would never use "upward"; he would say, "Come downward," and by down he means come within. So, the 'within' for Lao Tzu is just like an abyss: you fall in.

Indian symbology is different. We use upward for inward. For us the inward is not like an abyss, it is like a peak. Both can be used because symbols are just symbols, they indicate; more than that is meaningless. So it has always been a problem. The Upanishads always talk of upward, and the symbol is fire - fire constantly running upward. For Lao Tzu and Taoists, water is the symbol - water running downward, finding the most downward position possible. It can rest only when the deepest abyss has been found. But fire will rest only with the sun. It will go upward, upward, to the invisible upwardness.

But there is no contradiction. Really, whenever persons like Lao Tzu or Zarathustra or Jesus speak, they may use contradictory terms but they are never contradictory. They cannot be, that is impossible. So if their words are contradictory, that only shows their type, their choice, their individuality, their way of saying things - nothing more. But pundits, scholars, can make much out of these apparent contradictions. And whenever we are talking about the Absolute, the Ultimate, one thing must be understood very clearly: you can use either of the extremes to express it, and each extreme is as valid as the other.

For example, the Upanishads use for the Divine the word "Absolute". This is one extreme, that of positivity - the Perfect, the Absolute. Buddha uses for that same state and the same realization, "Nothingness" - the other extreme. Totally opposite as far as words go, but as far as the realization is concerned, they both mean the same. But it created much confusion.

Buddha appeared to be absolutely contradictory to the Hindu mind. He was not. He was one of the purest Hindus possible, but he used a negative word. That was his liking, and it is good not to discuss likings - because one is as valid, or as invalid, as the other. Both can be used. Either you say "the infinite" or you say "the zero" - both are infinite. If you take it in the beginning, it is zero. If you take it in the end, it is infinite. Both mean the same thing.

Just like this, Buddha and Mahavir, both contemporaries, used very contradictory language. Mahavir says, "To know the Self is the ultimate knowledge, the wisdom. To know the Self is the wisdom." And Buddha says, "To believe in the self is the only ignorance." Mahavir says, "Only the Self is," and Buddha says, "Only the self is the deception, the most false thing." Nothing can be more contradictory, so Jains and Buddhists have been fighting constantly for twenty-five centuries. But the whole conflict is based just on linguistic fallacies - because Mahavir uses the word "Self", negating everything of the ego in it. He says, "You become the Self when there is no ego." So really, "Self" becomes just like "no-self". If there is no ego, the Self becomes just like no-self. And Buddha uses the "self" as the ego and he says the self means the ego, so the most perfect ego means "the self". Then the meaning becomes clear. So both are right. When Buddha says, "To believe in a self is to be ignorant," he is right. And Mahavir is also right when he says, "To know the Self is the ultimate wisdom." The contradiction is just apparent.

Lao Tzu says, "To go down to the last is to reach the basic Existence." He begins from the beginning: "Drop down back to the very beginning, to the original source. The original source is deep down." The Upanishads say, "Go up to the last where the peak is achieved." Lao Tzu says, "Go down to the original source," and the Upanishads say, "Go up to the ultimate possibility, to the very end. Achieve the potentiality to the very end; make the potentiality absolutely actual." The beginning and end are not two separate things. Really, no end can end unless it reaches again to the beginning. And the beginning begins only where the end ends.

Life moves in a circle, so if you begin a circle, the point of beginning will be the point of the ending also. Life moves in a circle, so you can say the same point is the beginning and the end, both. So the upward is not contradictory to the downward. The Lao Tzuan 'downward' and the Upanishadic 'upward' - both mean the same. Only the words differ.

If we can penetrate to the meaning beyond the words, only then can we conceive of and comprehend these minds. These minds are living in such experiences which cannot really be expressed through ordinary words. But they have to use ordinary words, so they can use only ordinary words with a very different meaning, with a very different connotation. So one thing more: when the Upanishads say 'upward', remember, it is the same as 'inward'. The more you go 'in', the more 'up', and vice versa: the more 'up' you go, the more 'in'. What is this upwardness or inwardness? And why should the sutra say that this upward flow of the mind is the only water by which you can worship the feet of the Divine? So many things are implied. One is that it is useless to use just water - it is useless!