If you write poetry, if you paint or if you dance, it has nothing to do with spirituality. Just by painting you will not become spiritual. A man need not be a painter to become a spiritual person; spirituality is apart. But a spiritual man may like to paint. Zen masters have been painting and they have created wonders. Zen masters have been writing poetry, and their haiku are some of the greatest insights into beauty, into splendor, into reality.

Spirituality is possible without being a poet, without being a dancer, without being a musician. But if you are a musician, a poet, a dancer, your life will have more fulfillment. Spirituality will be at the center and all these values will be on the circumference. You will have a far richer life. Many people may be spiritual but their life will be a desert.

And when it is possible to be spiritual and a garden too, why prefer the desert? When you can be spiritual and poetic too, why not have both? Have as many dimensions to your life as possible, have a multi-dimensional life.

Become more aesthetic, more responsible. But I don't give you any details. And remember always, these are not essentials for being a spiritual person -- they will not help your enlightenment and they will not debar it. But the journey can be very very beautiful or it can be very very desert like. It all depends on you.

(Fim)

One day, a wise man arrived in the city. A crowd gathered around him and he was asked all manner of questions. He was asked about Mind, Soul, God, Stars, Love, Fate, and the significance of the Sanskrit language. These were all non-controversial topics. But then a young man asked 'Should I eat meat?'

A hush fell over the crowd, for this was important. The wise man answered with another question: 'How do you feel when you eat meat?' The young man thought about that for a moment, then said 'Well, not as good.' And the wise man replied 'Then don't eat it.'

Then another young man rose and said 'I like meat and I feel fine when I eat it.' And the wise man said 'Fine, then eat it.' And there was a murmur of approval from the meat lovers.

Remember that. Whatsoever goes well with you is fine. Don't impose unnecessary structures upon your being. You are already in a prison, don't create bigger prisons for yourself. Although remember one thing: work as diligently as possible for becoming more conscious. Forget about character; character is a concern of the stupid and the mediocre. Let your whole concern be consciousness. And when you are conscious, when you are a little bit alert, aware, when a light starts burning in your inner being, when you are able to see, many things will change. Not according to any structure, not according to any ideology, not according to any fanaticism -- but according to your own understanding, things are bound to change.

My own feeling is -- remember, it is my feeling; it need not be a commandment to you -- my own feeling is that if you become more and more alert and aware, you will find it less and less possible to eat things which depend on hurting animals, which depend on destroying animals' lives. But this is not a commandment, and this has nothing to do with spirituality. It simply has something to do with an aesthetic sense.

To me, the question is more about a esthetics than about spirituality. In that sense I will call Mahavira more aesthetic than Jesus. Spiritual they both are, but Mahavira is more aesthetic. It is simply ugly to eat meat -- not unspiritual, remember, not a sin -- just ugly, dirty. To depend on killing animals -- just visualize -- for your small taste buds which can be satisfied in many other ways, torturing millions of animals around the earth is anesthetic. You are not showing poetry, you are not showing feelings.

Spirituality is possible. But a man should not only be spiritual, he should have some aesthetic sense too. The question is like this: If you ask me 'Is it essential to have a Picasso painting in my bedroom to become spiritual?' I will say it is not essential. You can become spiritual without a Picasso painting; no painting is needed. But having a painting in the room is aesthetic -- it creates a milieu of art around you, a sense of beauty. And once you understand this difference you will not be a fanatic, because art does not create fanaticism. In that way, art is more non-violent than your so-called religions -- they create fanaticism.

(continua...)

You ask: WHAT ABOUT FOOD? I don't talk about food, I talk about you -- the real thing is to happen there. When it has happened then I am not worried about you; then whatsoever you do will be right. Let me say it in this way: There is no act which is right and no act which is wrong, there are only persons who are right and persons who are wrong. When the right person does something it is right, when a wrong person does something it is wrong. Right and wrong are not qualities of any act -- all depends on who is behind the act.

For example, it happened: Buddha said to his disciples, to his monks and nuns, 'Whatsoever is given to you, you have to eat it. You should not demand, you should not become a burden on the society. You should simply go and stand before a house and if the people feel like giving they will give. You are not even to ask and you are not to give the details of what you need. Whatsoever is given, accept it in deep humbleness, gratitude, and eat it.' One day it happened, a monk was returning after begging food from the town and a crow flew upon him and dropped a piece of meat into his begging-bowl. Now, Buddha had said 'Whatsoever is given...'

The monk was disturbed. He had not asked for this meat; it had fallen, it was in the bowl, he had not desired it. What should he do? He started thinking 'Should I throw it away or should I eat it? -- because Buddha has said "Don't throw anything away. People are starving, food is always a scarcity. Don't throw anything away; eat whatsoever is given." Should I throw it away or should I take it?'

The problem was such that there was no precedent. So he thought 'It is better to ask the Buddha.' When the assembly gathered he brought his begging-bowl and he asked the Buddha 'What am I supposed to do?'

Buddha closed his eyes, for a moment he meditated. He meditated because of two seasons. One: if he says 'Throw it away' then he will be creating a precedent of throwing things away. Then later on -- such is the cunning mind of man -- people will think that Buddha has given the freedom, if you feel that something is wrong you can throw it away. But then they will start throwing away foods that they don't like. That will be a wastage . And then he thought 'Crows are not going to drop meat every day. This is just an accident and the accident should not be made a rule -- it is an exception.' So he said 'It's okay. Whatsoever is given, even if the crow has dropped meat, you have to eat it.'

That transformed the whole Buddhist history -- in subtle ways. The monks and the nuns started spreading the news to people that whatsoever is given, even if meat is given, they would accept it. And Buddhism became a meat-eating religion just because of that crow. You see? The crows are more important than your Buddhas. They transform things. Man is so stupid that he will follow a crow rather than a Buddha.

I don't give you any particular instructions, what to eat or what not to eat. I simply teach you one thing: become more and more conscious, become more and more aware, and let your awareness decide.

I simply give a light to you -- and that light will be enough, you will be able to find your path. I don't give you the map and I don't give you instructions: 'First go a hundred miles this way, then move to the right and then to the left.' The journey is such that no details are possible. I would like to share a parable with you.

(continua...)

Osho - What you do is never essential, what you are is always essential. Being is essential, doing is not essential. Being is essential, having is not essential. Consciousness is essential, character is not essential -- because it is not character that creates consciousness but consciousness that creates character.

If you are religious, if you are spiritual, things will change around you. You may become a vegetarian, you may not. It depends -- people are different. But to be a vegetarian cannot be an essential condition for being spiritual. There have been spiritual people who were vegetarians, and there have been spiritual people who were not. And it is good that life consists of variety, it is good that life consists of different kinds of people. Otherwise it would be utterly boring.

Just think -- only Mahaviras, roaming around the earth, naked vegetarians. No Krishna, no Christ, no Buddha, no Mohammed, no Mansoor. It will be a very poor world, it will be really ugly. And remember, Mahavira is beautiful but too many Mahaviras won't be beautiful. God never creates the same person again. And the reason is that once is enough, once is more than enough. God is completely satisfied. He never repeats, He never duplicates. He believes only in originals, He has no carbon copies.

So I cannot say that food has any essential thing to contribute to your spirituality. But your spirituality may change your food habits. That too cannot be predicted; I keep your freedom intact. Jesus used to drink, and he is not less spiritual because of that. Patanjali will never be able to even conceive of a spiritual man drinking, but that is Patanjali's angle of seeing things. Jesus will not be able to understand: "Why is Patanjali not drinking? If Patanjali cannot drink, then who else? If Patanjali cannot celebrate, then who else? He should be dancing, he should be singing, he should be celebrating -- he has arrived."

But celebrations are also different. Somebody may celebrate by fasting, somebody may celebrate by feasting. People are different. If you can remember this you will never become a fanatic. Otherwise the danger is always there: on the path of spiritual growth the greatest danger is that of fanaticism. All so-called religions are fanatic, because they only allow that which THEIR scripture says, and THEIR founder says -- everything else has to be denied. That is making life very very limited. And life is unlimited, it is an infinity.

(continua...)

Você sabe ler em inglês? Aquele texto do Osho do qual falei está em inglês. Se você souber, vai me poupar um bom tempo, porque senão irei traduzí-lo antes de postá-lo. Posso colar aqui o texto em inglês, mesmo?

Abraço.

Tenho um amigo que sempre me diz o seguinte: mais vale pôr a Verdade em prática durante um minuto por dia, do que ler dezenas de páginas de livros espirituais num único dia.

Eu concordo com ele. A prática está situada num certo nível, enquanto a leitura, o entendimento lógico cerebral, está situado em outro.

A compreensão é importante, mas, sem a prática, a compreensão não passa de exercício mental. Osho nos oferece muita compreensão, ele é um homem de grandes insghts. E, em certo sentido, há um perigo de a pessoa lê-lo, achar que começou a entender e saber muito, e assim passar a se sentir mais "orgulhoso", mais "elevado" do que antes, mais "espiritualizado", e talvez até "mais" do que outras pessoas. Afinal de contas, Osho explica de forma simples conceitos e verdades elevados difíceis de conceber sozinho.

Nesse sentido, a mera compreensão desacompanhada de prática, faz a coisa se tornar ainda mais perigosa. É perigosa porque é sutil, é mais prazerosa. A pessoa acha que está se elevando (e até mesmo sente isso em sua mente), quando na verdade está andando para trás. Mas ela não percebe porque o ego é muito sorrateiro, e sabe como usar até mesmo "verdades espirituais" a seu favor. Como diz o Osho: pensamos que fizemos o ego finalmente ir embora, mas ele entrou sorrateiramente pela porta dos fundos.

Eu já vi o Osho faland mal de todo mundo. Inclusive de Buda. Mas ele não tende a falar tanto mal dele, porque, afinal, ele veio de um cultura oriental. A única coisa que nunca vi Osho falar mal é do Zen. Ele usa o Zen, exemplos do Zen, em tudo como forma de abordar/explicar suas palestras. Na minha opinião, as palavras dele não importa (se Jesus, se Buda, se Lao Tsé, se Krishna, etc.), o que importa é o silêncio meditativo que ele consegue criar em nós enquanto estamos em contato com as palavras. Ele realmente sabe como usar de forma proveitosa as palavras. Mas o ponto não está nas palavras faladas - está no silêncio que ele, através da maestria de seu uso/aplicação, cria em nós.

Por último, "livrar-se" do ego não significa destruí-lo, ou fazê-lo desaparecer. Estar o ego presente ou não... esse não é o problema. O ego nunca pode sumir. Nunca some em ninguém. Dependemos de um ego para vivermos nesse mundo. Osho mesmo tinha ego. Uma vez, alguém veio até Osho perguntar sobre o que ele pensava à respeito de U.G. Krishnamurti... e Osho respondeu ao homem que U.G. era um mestre iluminado. Pouco tempo depois, saiu nos noticiários uma matéria que UG Krishnamurti escreveu, falando que ele não gostava do método que o Osho se utilizava para ensinar, a maneira como ele se comportava, como predizia ele ser um mestre.. chamou Osho de charlatão. Logo em seguida, Osho começou a atacar UG Krishnamurti, chamando-o de charlatão, também. Isso foi só pra elucidar que mesmo Osho tinha um ego. Nós não ficamos sem ego apenas quando esse ego "some". Não é nesse sentido que ele tem de "sumir". Se ele estiver presente, e você aprender absolutamente a não se incomodar com ele, a não ser atingido com ele - mesmo ele estando presente -, então você ficou sem ego. Com ego ou sem ego - esse não é o ponto, ainda é dualidade. Não se preocupe se o ego existe ou não. Para fins de transcendência, tanto faz se o ego existe ou não - você está transcendete a ele, então para você a questão simplimente não vai importar. Se, apesar de o ego estar presente, você se manter observando cada passo que ele estiver dando, você está transcendente a ele. Se estiver consciente, apenas observando, obviamente você não irá classificar e julgar; estará apenas distanciado, será um observador sentado na colina. Acho que isso é o que Osho diria.

Continue buscando... uma hora encontramos o que tanto procuramos, se estivermos realmente procurando de coração.

Estamos todos na mesma caminhada.

Grande Abraço.

Mas parece-me que ele faz algumas distinções de alguns iluminados para outros. Li em algum livro, não lembro qual rsrs, em que ele dizia que apenas alguns poucos iluminados poderiam se tornar Mestres. O motivo (bem óbvio) que ele deu é que se é difícil conhecer-mos a nós mesmos, imagina os outros? E que apenas esses Mestres teriam a opção de reencarnar mais uma única vez e não mais. Os iluminados não mestres não reencarnariam nunca mais, saindo do samsara. Entendo que ele considerava Jesus como Mestre.

Dos outros Mestres que vc citou já li "O poder do agora" e "O poder do silêncio", duas jóias do Eckhart Tolle. O poder do agora já li mais de cinco vezes hehe.

Mas colocar em prática seus ensinamentos é muito difícil. Não que eu não tente, mas os tombos e racaídas são muitos. E vivendo numa sociedade tão conturbada e injusta como essa então, se torna quase impossível. Acho que por isso que os monges se isolam, deve tornar as coisas mais fáceis.

A meditação, leitura de livros e de sites como o seu ajuda muito, mas livrar-nos do ego é mesmo muito difícil.

No mais agradeço muito a atenção pelos esclarecimetos. Muito obrigado! Abraço!