You have told us that there have been many enlightened beings who have never become masters. It seems almost easier for me to understand that than why or how somebody becomes a master. When I see the way you are being treated, I wonder. Governments fight you, don’t allow you entry, and put you in jail. The vast majority of people don’t even care to find out who you are or what you are talking about. And the few who love and listen to you still linger in their sleep.
Osho, did you choose to be a master and to try to wake us up, or was it existence’s decision? Who decides whether an enlightened being is a master or not?
The enlightened man is beyond taking any decisions, so the first thing to be understood is he does not decide. Decision is part of the ego. In essence, it is a fight: to do this or to do that. And the ego thinks it is wiser than existence. Once the ego is gone, decision-making is also gone.
The enlightened man simply lives without any decision, without any goal, without any longing. He has come to the point from where any decision will be against existence. Only a non-decisive let-go can be the way of the existential man. So it is not a question of decision. Thousands of people have become enlightened, but only very few have become masters. So naturally the mind thinks, “Who decides that a few should become masters and that the remaining should simply disappear into the universe?” Nobody decides.
The way things work is totally different from decision making. There have been masters and there have been enlightened people, and there have been other dimensions to enlightenment also: there have been poets, there have been painters, there have been sculptors, there have been singers, dancers. This difference happens because of unique individualities.
You come to enlightenment without an ego, without a personality but not without an individuality. In fact, once personality and ego are no longer there, only pure, unique individuality is left. Your uniqueness is left. So everyone who becomes enlightened brings his unique individuality to enlightenment.
If his unique individuality has developed the capacity to be a painter, if he has found his potential in being a painter, then he brings that contribution to his enlightenment. After enlightenment he will paint. Of course, his paintings will be different; before enlightenment and after enlightenment the paintings will be totally different.
I have told you many times the story of five blind men – it is one of the ancient-most stories – who have come to see an elephant.
Each one looks at the elephant from a different side, touches the elephant…somebody the leg, somebody the ear, and so on and so forth. And they all argue.
When the person who is touching the leg of the elephant declares that an elephant is like a pillar you find in the temples, he is not being untrue. He is saying what he is experiencing, but it looks absolutely untrue to anybody who has seen the whole elephant.
Something essential has to be understood. Whenever you try to make the part the whole, you will be in the same blind situation. The blind man is simply touching a part of the elephant and making that part the whole elephant. Naturally he is going to be in conflict.