Quantcast

Read Book

OSHO Online Library   »   The Books   »   The Book of Secrets
« < 2 3 4 5 6 > »
 

Chapter 27: Soundlessness, Soundfulness and Total Awareness

Physicists say that now we have come to the electron, it seems we have come to the limit, to the very limit, because the electron cannot be said to be matter. Electrons are not visible; they have no material property. And they cannot be called non-matter either because all matter consists of them, is constituted of them. If they are neither matter nor non-matter, what to call them? No one has seen electrons, they are just inferred; it is mathematically assumed that they are there. Their effects are known, but they have not been seen. Now we cannot move beyond them. The “Law of the Three” is the limit, and if you move beyond “The Law of the Three” you move into the unknown. Nothing can be said then. Even about electrons very little can be said.

Aum is the limit as far as sound is concerned, you cannot move beyond. That is why Aum has been used so much, in India, and all over the world. The Christian-Mohammedan “Amen” is nothing but Aum in a different form; the same basic notes are there. The English words omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient contain it: the prefix omni is a derivation of Aum. So omnipresent refers to that which is present in the whole of the Aum, in the whole of existence. Omnipotent means that which is absolutely potent. Omniscient means that which has seen the Aum, the whole, “The Law of the Three.” The whole universe comes under it.

Christians, Mohammedans, have been using after their prayers “Amen.” But Hindus have made a complete science out of it - the science of sound and the science of how to transcend sound. And if mind is sound, then no-mind must be soundlessness, or - and both mean the same - soundfulness.

This has to be understood. The absolute can be described in either of two ways - negative or positive. The relative has to be described in both the ways - negative and positive: it is a duality. When you try to express the absolute, you can use either positive terms or negative terms, because human languages have two types of terms - negative and positive. When you are going to describe the absolute, the indescribable, you have to use some terms symbolically. So it depends on the mind.

For example, Buddha liked to use negative terms. He would say soundlessness; he would never say soundfulness. Soundfulness is a positive term. Buddha would say soundlessness, but Tantra uses positive terms. The whole thinking of Tantra is positive. That is why the term used here is “soundfulness”: Enter soundfulness. Buddha describes his absolute in negative terms: shunya, nothingness. The Upanishads describe the same absolute as the brahman - absoluteness. Buddha will use nothingness and the Upanishads will use absoluteness, but both mean the same thing.

When words lose meaning you can use either the negative or the positive, because all words are either negative or positive; you just have to choose one. You can say for a liberated soul that he has become the whole. This is a positive way of saying it. Or you can say he is no more - he has become nothingness. This is a negative way of saying it.

« < 2 3 4 5 6 > »