[written 1980 when I was 28 • please wait for translation]
First comment: As mentioned before, duality already exists in the words THEORY OF perception/knowledge. Here you already separate between perception and thinking. The theory must be able to prove !! Or disprove !!
As far as possible, attempts are made to write in a language that transcends the logic, separation, ie. Among other things, to avoid 'I think' 'I perceive' etc. and instead 'it is being experienced ',' experienced ',' thought ',' perception ',' thinking ', etc., because hereby divisions and a priori assumptions are transcended. And this is an important fact in this theory. So it is already attempted before thinking starts transcend the thinking's own built-in duality.
The Theory of epistemology deals with the theory of existence. Thus, the theory cannot a priori presuppose existence. Thus, the theory cannot a priori presuppose the existence of existence. The theory must remain in its own medium: thinking. Otherwise, it would leave itself! If during the course of the theory via thinking can be proved that existence must necessarily exist, the theory can allow itself, but only at this stage in the theoretical development !!! to include existence (both physical, non-physical, etc.) in its theoretical preparation! ! !
Notice, that in the first place we can only move in the own medium of thinking: thinking. The theory also does not move simultaneously (!) in the medium of perception: perception.
Therefore, the thinking can conclude (think), that the most fundamental question for a true theory of epistemology must be:
'DOES THINKING EXIST?'
This sounds paradoxical, but nevertheless the thinking must prove its own existence. Notice the paradoxical way of thinking in the question! and that it originated from: Thinking may be the most fundamental question the question of the very existence of thinking.
Neither the existence of the subject nor the object is asked yet !!! Understood as the classical epistemology's classical understanding of subject as 'I' and object as the 'physical material world.'
IT IS NOT ASKED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE
On the other hand, it is asked about the very existence of thinking. AND IT IS GENIAL, BECAUSE THAT THE QUESTION TRANSCENDS THE DUALITY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT, AND IT TRANSCENDS THE DUALITY BETWEEN THINKING AND EXPERIENCE AND ALL OTHER DUALITIES.
IT IS JUST ASKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF DUALITY BY ASKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THINKING. AND IF THE THINKING - THAT ONLY CAN ANSWER IN DUALITIES, i.e. EITHER ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO' - EVEN CAN RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION, THEN WE HAVE A REPLY THAT IS AND MUST BE TRUE, BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF ITS OWN EXISTENCE TRANSCENDS THE MEDIUM OF THINKING ITSELF: THINKING
Or put in another way:
The question of the existence of thinking transcends the medium of the question itself: thinking or questions at all !!
What answer does thinking gives?
(In order to better understand it, we might have asked: 'IS THINKING TRUE OR FALSE?' And thinking could ONLY answer either TRUE or FALSE.)
If the thinking is experienced, then the premise is true. So now we ask thinking, whether thinking is experienced and it answers (we cannot ask thinking, whether thinking is thought or perception is experienced):
AND NOW COMES THE PARADOXICAL ART GRIP:
FROM THE VERY EXPERIENCE OF THINKING IS CONCLUDED THAT THINKING IS EXPERIENCED
To honour of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh — because He has 'invented' it — it is hereby called: 'THE PARADOXICAL ART GRIP of BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH'
(The smart thing about this grip is, that it ALSO AND AT THE SAME TIME transcends time and moment, see my Appendix VII. B, where this is proved.)
And if we keep asking the thinking (possibly also, if the criterion of truth perception is true), then the thinking answers every single time:
FROM THE VERY EXPERIENCE OF THINKING IS CONCLUDED THAT THINKING IS EXPERIENCED
Now the thinking has come to the following conclusion:
THINKING IS EXPERIENCED.
Note that we started with 'Does thinking exist?' and get the answer 'Thinking is experienced/perceived.' What can we conclude from this? Note, that we can only after the experience of thinking conclude, that we have experienced the thinking.
THE PREREQUISITE 'EXPERIENCE OF THINKING' IS THE ONLY TRUTH CRITERIA AT THIS STEP IN THE PRESENTATION.
THINKING IS ABLE TO THINK PARADOXALLY TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF ITS OWN CONDITION: EXPERIENCE OF THINKING.
The thinking can by 'THINKING EXPERIENCED' conclude that:
EXPERIENCE EXISTS
THE THINKING CAN CONCLUDE THAT
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: NOTE THAT THINKING CAN NOT CONCLUDE THE REVERSE: THINKING EXISTS. This is immediate, but it is wrong at this stage of the presentation! We are currently moving on Transcendence Level III using paradoxical logic and thinking way and are thus able to say something about Level III.
Now we have succeeded in proving that
EXPERIENCE EXISTS.
AND IT IS FANTASTIC OR PARADOXAL IF YOU WANT. BUT IT'S TRUE. AND THAT IS ESSENTIAL.
We move and have moved only in the medium of thinking: thinking and separations, and can nevertheless conclude that perception/experience must exist.
From this we can concluse, that
EXPERIENCE EXISTS
We don't know how yet, but we know, that 'I' exist. To make it even more obvious, we can think this way after the question 'AM I?': From the experience of thinking (namely: the experience of asking the question) it can be concluded, that thinking is experienced. And then we can continue just as before and end up with 'I AM' as a conclusion. GENIAL!
Every time on any question we can conclude back to the original: From the experience of thinking it can be thought that thinking is experienced.
Thinking is therefore capable of thinking paradoxically or transcendently, if it uses either transcendent concepts or if it manages to capture both concepts in the same way with dualistic concepts. And the latter it can do, if it thinks in the same way as described. Thinking is therefore capable of transcending itself and at the same time proving that it is true. From this it follows:
THINKING IS NOT SEPARATE DUALISTIC FROM EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE THINKING IS EXPERIENCED AND THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS IS EXPERIENCE ! ! ! ! !
THOUGHTING CANNOT IMMEDIATELY THINK PARADOXICALLY ON ITS OWN DUALISTIC PLAN, BUT IF IT TRANSCENDS ITS OWN PLAN, IT CAN RAISE ITSELF TO A TRANSCENDENT PLAN.
THOUGHTING CAN BOTH THINK IN DUALITIES AND TRANSCENDENTALLY OR PARADOXICALLY.
(We will return to why it so rarely or never does so.)
Comment on natural science:
THEN IT MUST NECESSARILY BE POSSIBLE TO CODE A COMPUTER TO RESPOND BOTH IN LOGICAL AND IN PARADOXICAL-LOGICAL LANGUAGE.
EXISTENCE IS BOTH SEPARATE AND NON-SEPARATE, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON HOW THINKING IS EXPERIENCED.
I wish I could give some examples from 'real reality' in the course of the presentation, but unfortunately I can't, because we don't deal with it at all yet. The difficult thing is to imagine that thinking and perception are not separate, because that's how we normally experience it, but theory shows that this is not entirely true. It depends on the experience of thinking, how we experience at all, because the only existential thing is perception, as long as we move on the transcendental plane, and that's what we are doing at the moment! Even even though we have introduced the word 'I', which is identical to perception. This is immediately difficult to grasp, but have a little patience (to prepare a little: there exist two different ways of experiencing: one via thinking and the other without thinking.).
Thinking must be able to be experienced or not experienced. ette can be concluded, but in the first instance only the following: Experience exists.
The theory can therefore only rely on itself, thinking. Theory can never rely on experience before it has proven the existence of experience, and it can only prove this by thinking paradoxically from the very experience of thinking itself.
I must honestly admit that my own thinking sometimes has difficulty following. It is like 'double-tying' itself! Now I can see where the difficulty lies in making it explainable in relation to our physical-material reality. I think I will have to explain the difficulty, otherwise it will probably be completely impossible to understand (if it is not already). The following is a diagram that will attempt to describe this line of thinking. But first the following thinking:
So far we have found out that 'perception' is the only thing that exists. But we have found that out by using both logical and paradoxical thinking. So we are trying, using a language that divides — even if it is paradoxical, to describe existence, which can only be one, i.e. unity. I have just found out — again using a meditative state and paradoxical thinking — that there basically only one form of thinking exists, and that is logic. Separation. When this manages to rise above itself, i.e. pull itself up by the hairs, then it is able to describe the plane of unity, but to do so it must paradoxically exploit itself in the language of logic. I will try to describe. Thinking is our only tool. Thinking only thinks logically and nothing else. If it is capable of thinking paradoxically, then we call this way of thinking paradoxically logical.
Now pay close attention:
Existence itself must be a great unity. The fact that we experience it differently is no proof to the contrary. Logic — even if you call it dialectical logic — can only. describe the plane of existence which is either separated into dualities in the sense 'the subject is separated from the object' or in the sense 'the subject is in non-separated (Yin-Yang) relation to the object.' For logic separates: then the result of logic must necessarily be: either 1) subject separated from object or 2) subject in Yin-Yang relationship to object.
And now comes the interesting thing: SINCE LOGIC SEPARATES SUBJECT AND OBJECT, LOGIC CAN AT MOST ARRIVE AT THE DIALECTICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT AND THEREFORE AT THE DIALECTICAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTENCE. LOGIC CANNOT NECESSARILY GRAB THE SUBJECT AND OBJECT SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THEREFORE BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIB THE UNITY OF EXISTENCE. ONLY A PARADOXICAL LOGIC CAN DO THIS, BECAUSE IT IS ABLE TO TRANSCEND THE DUALITY THAT IS ALREADY INSERTED INTO AND WITH THE LOGICAL DUALITY.
I will now try to illustrate, otherwise I think it will be impossible to understand. The point is that when THOUGHT SEES OR CONSIDERS, it sees in dualities, i.e. it sees either in the separation of subject and object, or it sees in the Yin-Yang relationship between subject and object. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT SEES BOTH SUBJECT AND OBJECT. IT CANNOT SEE THAT WHICH TRANSCENDS SUBJECT AND OBJECT, BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY DO SO BY THINKING PARADOXICALLY.
The following diagram is for illustration:
|
LOGICAL THINKING |
PARADOXICAL THINKING |
|
|
(logical or dialectical method) |
(contains logical thinking) |
|
|
I |
II |
III |
|
Subject/Object |
Subject/Object |
Subject alone |
|
Mind |
Meditative state |
Samadhi |
|
Body |
Soul |
Spirit |
|
Thinking and perception |
Experience (of perceptions) |
Light (perception of light) |
|
Experiences of perceptions (thinking) and perceptions |
Experience (of perceptions) |
Light (perception of light) |
|
Physical light |
Spiritual Light |
Spiritual Light |
|
Time is experienced |
Time is not experienced |
Time is not experienced |
The interesting thing is now the following: thinking is in the state of mind, i.e. in I. If thinking theoretically raises itself to realize the possibility of, for example, the subject's dialectical relationship to the object, then it can purely theoretically describe the possibility of II, even if the 'theoretician' has not experienced this state.
And I have tried by writing that logical thinking or logic (it is subordinate whether it says that the subject is separate or in a dialectical relationship with the object) spans I and II, i.e. by thinking logically the 'theoretician' can think of the possibility of II. The 'theoretician' can, however, also think of the possibility of III, but must now also make use of paradoxical thinking, which is logic that transcends itself. I therefore call this form of thinking paradoxical logic, because it contradicts simple logic and dialectical logic (which is still logic) in that it transcends both and is STILL logical, just paradoxically logical.
As far as I can see, this whole theory of mine must be possible to think for any person with an infinite imagination. It is possible to think, but it is difficult to prove, because — as we will see later — it is (in addition to the transgression of an amazing number of taboos) an almost 100% prerequisite that the 'theoretician' has experienced a meditative state, which I have.
But to understand the theory itself, it is only (I) necessary to put oneself in permanent double-binds in THINKING, not in reality in contact with other persons. But there is not much difference.
I have had to let the thinker rest a few times so that it did not burn together, which is concretely experienced as a quiet and gentle drift towards the meditative state. It is wonderful, you just can not think at the same time, but I can now again.
Consider the figure: our normal perception of the world is I, but actually it is I and II in a Yin-Yang relationship. This paradoxical theory of knowledge proves this, as it says that the only thing that exists is perception, for the paradoxical theory states itself — when it introduces dualities, and perception is duality in relation to thinking — in the medium of thinking on plane II with the first answer, which is called EXPERIENCE EXISTS — if we understand perception as 'the experiencer and the experienced.'
AND THIS IS FANTASTICLY INTERESTING, because when the duality between subject and object is introduced (in the form of 'the experiencer' and 'the experienced'), then the theory expresses itself both about planes II and III about the classic question of epistemology: how does cognition take place?
Note that paradoxical logic can speak from plane III about first its own plane and then about plane II. And since I and II are in a dialectical relationship (we have not yet proven this), only paradoxical epistemology is able to speak about all three planes. Simple logic or dialectical logic is not this! Because they only span I and II.
Let us now first take the first (after the duality of thinking and perception) conclusion — we now return to the original presentation.
We know that I AM EXPERIENCE. If we now introduce subject and object, the theory of cognition says that:
'I = EXPERIENCER' and 'THINKING = OBJECT'
Now after the introduction of subject and object in dialectical Yin-Yang relationship (for the first was: 'Experience exists'), we see that thinking is the object of the subject and the subject is the experiencer.
Thinking must be a special form of perception, for only perception exists. We know this from the statement that was made from the plane of transcendence or from the paradoxical logic about all three planes.
If we consider plane II, the experiencer is in Yin-Yang relationship to a special form of perception, i.e. images of previous perceptions. Note that we are on plane III and are making a statement about plane II. The only thing we know is that perception exists, then the object for the subject must necessarily also be perceptions
(I am increasingly surprised how it all fits with 'reality', i.e. physical-material reality, but we are not there yet. We are only at III and are speaking about II and III.)
That this agrees with the experience in the meditative state is excellent, but it is not necessary for the presentation of the theory. It speaks from level III about II and says that the form or expression of thinking is experienced on level II as perceptions.
And now it gets exciting:
We work from the information, i.e. perceptions, which are contained in the thinking or rather: which the thinking must necessarily be. And these are perceptions. But these experiences must be divided into two dualistic categories, because thinking can only divide in such a way. There are certainly also transcendental concepts such as 'process', 'infinity', 'never', etc., but these must either be perceived by thinking in the dualities of simple logic — and this is most probable, since it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to think paradoxically without using long rows of dualities (what we normally call a sentence or a thought) — or simply suppress the contradiction in relation to the original dualities from which the concept of transcendence arose.
Thinking has answered that THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY FOR THINKING to arrive at this answer is by thinking paradoxically-logically. But to my knowledge, no one has learned this (now I bring physical reality into the picture, because it is on this plane that the subject stands).
First, a possible subject for the development of this theory must have accepted that he does not exist as an autonomous subject separate from other subjects and also not separate from the object, etc., and it is difficult if he has never heard this before. Secondly, he gets the answer that THE ONLY WAY FOR THE SUBJECT to get to this answer is by experiencing thinking in the form of perceptions.
THE TRUE THEORY OF COGNITION ANSWERS THAT THE ANSWER TO THE WHOLE OF EXISTENCE IS FOUND IN THE MEDITATIVE STATE ITSELF.
(Once again I have been in a meditative state and now suddenly again I see the whole context!)
IN THE MEDITATIVE STATE THE EXPERIENCER SEES THAT I AM THE EXPERIENCER.
IN THE MEDITATIVE STATE IT IS SEEN, because in the meditative state it is possible to see. It must necessarily be so — NOT because experience shows it (it does that too, but that is secondary) — but because the theory says that only perception exists on levels III and II, and since I am the EXPERIENCER, and since I see in II, I MYSELF must BE THE LIGHT.
Amazing, the theory can prove it !!!!!!!
I AM LIGHT
I AM THE ETERNAL LIGHT MYSELF
I AM THE ETERNAL LIGHT OF LOVE MYSELF
AND HEREBY BOTH THE THEORY OF COGNITION AND I HAVE RETURNED HOME TO MY ORIGINAL STARTING POINT!
EXISTENCE ITSELF HAS RETURNED HOME.
I HAVE RETURNED HOME.
I HAVE RETURNED HOME.
STRAIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT NEVER WAS THERE, TO THE END THAT NEVER WAS THERE, EXISTENCE AND I HAVE EXISTED AND EXIST FOR ALL ETERNITY STILL AWAY.
AND ALL THIS IS PARADOXICALLY THINKED ABOUT BY THE DIVINE THINKING AND THE EGO AND THE COMPUTER.
IF SOMETHING IS PARADOXICAL, THIS IS PARADOXICAL!
The paradox is that the theory itself contains the message:
SURRENDER TO AND THROUGH MEDITATION
or
SURRENDER TO AND THROUGH A STATE OF NO MIND
And this is THE MESSAGE.
I cannot help but mention the following:
As a child I was given the name MICHAEL. It means: WHO IS LIKE GOD?
and when Bhagwan gave me a new name, he gave me the name:
DHYAN SAMARPANO
which means, believe it or not:
SURRENDER TO AND THROUGH A STATE OF NO MIND.
Only Bhagwan can see this, for HE is the very person of existence here on earth at this moment. Only HE speaks a paradoxical language with poetry and music in his heart, I am open-minded and clear as never before. Receiving this gift of existence.
I will now describe the last three days in a different and the same way. I describe as if 'I' were the thinker, that's easiest.
The last few days have been the greatest perceptions of my life so far. I have especially in the last three weeks had to deal with epistemology. I have mostly thought about the problem of moment and time, and in this connection the concept of infinity. The advantage of it all has been that I have previously experienced the meditative state and samadhi, and I have heard and read Bhagwan speak about this countless times.
I've had it on my computer, but I've never really understood it, because I haven't been able to make all the dualities fit together. One of the essential things that helped me was the permanent three-division that I kept coming across:
Now I have written down more than I could see a connection in at the time a few days ago. At first I became skeptical when I encountered these constant three-divisions, because it made description difficult. At first I was happy, i.e. I thought: 'There must be a connection between all three divisions, and then it must be easy to explain.' And so I began to let the thinker work almost 24 hours a day, and just when I thought that 'now I have it', it turned out that I didn't have it after all. Every time I was closest, I always ended up in a duality that I had just assumed from the beginning. And I considered it completely impossible that it should be possible in any conceivable way to prove what one had assumed. It couldn't, in short.
So I thought and wrote (about 100 other pages have been discarded), and I always ended up with the problem of epistemology in the moment, for it had to be in the moment that one grasped the subject and the object simultaneously. And then came the problem: 'How do I logically arrive at time from the standpoint of the moment?' Then I had to introduce the concept of 'infinity' and possibly the speed of light, work with 'crooked moments' etc. And it couldn't fit together. A theory cannot simultaneously contain the moment, time and infinity.
In the back of my mind, Bhagwan's statements about 'You are the witness' and 'You are both the witness and the object' were still messing around, and then his argument with the person who dreamed that he was a butterfly. Was he the butterfly who dreamed that he was 'him'?, or was he 'him' who dreamed that he was the butterfly? And the solution to this apparent paradox is that the person asking the question 'forgets' that it is experienced that the question is being asked at all (or rather: has been asked — namely by himself. And then the problem is almost solved.
But my perception now came to the problem of time, moment and infinity, which I had let the computer work with the most. In the last 14 days, I have taken the whole thing as far as possible as a fun game with words, as a meditation. In the evening, when I went to bed, I lay and looked at all my thoughts to see if something new would appear, and it almost always did. And when I woke up in the morning, I also lay for a while and looked at all the thoughts from last night and at the new thoughts. And when I felt that I had had enough, I sat down at the typewriter, which has almost become a part of me in this period, where I often didn't know what day of the week it was, and wrote as much as I could.
next page: My second satori and Enlightenment