Search

Subscribe   Contact   

Twitter       Facebook  

About         Archives

HEADLINES

BLACK MEDIA

 

LATEST BW ENTRIES

MORE HEADLINES

Login
Powered by Squarespace


Support BW!

Racist Suspect Watch


free your mind!

Cress Welsing: The Definition of Racism White Supremacy

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Racism

Anon: What is Racism/White Supremacy?

Dr. Bobby Wright: The Psychopathic Racial Personality

The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism (White Supremacy)

What is the First Step in Counter Racism?

Genocide: a system of white survival

The Creation of the Negro

The Mysteries of Melanin

'Racism is a behavioral system for survival'

Fear of annihilation drives white racism

Dr. Blynd: The Definition of Caucasian

Where are all the Black Jurors? 

The War Against Black Males: Black on Black Violence Caused by White Supremacy/Racism

Brazen Police Officers and the Forfeiture of Freedom

White Domination, Black Criminality

Fear of a Colored Planet Fuels Racism: Global White Population Shrinking, Less than 10%

Race is Not Real but Racism is

The True Size of Africa

What is a Nigger? 

MLK and Imaginary Freedom: Chains, Plantations, Segregation, No Longer Necessary ['Our Condition is Getting Worse']

Chomsky on "Reserving the Right to Bomb Niggers." 

A Goal of the Media is to Make White Dominance and Control Over Everything Seem Natural

"TV is reversing the evolution of the human brain." Propaganda: How You Are Being Mind Controlled And Don't Know It.

Spike Lee's Mike Tyson and Don King

"Zapsters" - Keeping what real? "Non-white People are Actors. The Most Unrealistic People on the Planet"

Black Power in a White Supremacy System

Neely Fuller Jr.: "If you don't understand racism/white supremacy, everything else that you think you understand will only confuse you"

The Image and the Christian Concept of God as a White Man

'In order for this system to work, We have to feel most free and independent when we are most enslaved, in fact we have to take our enslavement as the ultimate sign of freedom'

Why do White Americans need to criminalize significant segments of the African American population?

Who Told You that you were Black or Latino or Hispanic or Asian? White People Did

Malcolm X: "We Have a Common Enemy"

Links

Deeper than Atlantis
Tuesday
Oct172017

OSHO: And the Flowers Showered 1-2

Sunday
Sep102017

Osho: Zen is a Deprogramming 

From [HERE] In his book, ‘The Way of Zen,’ Alan Watts writes, “One must not forget the social context of Zen. It is primarily a way of liberation for those who have mastered the discipline of social convention, of the conditioning of the individual by the group. Zen is a medicine for the ill effects of this conditioning, for the mental paralysis and anxiety which come from extensive self-consciousness.”

Beloved Master, First, I don’t see any need to master social conventions to be ready for the way of Zen. On the contrary, trying to master dead, old rules shows stupidity. Why not drop them immediately?

Second, do you see Zen as a medicine for the ill effect of conditioning?

Whenever you are reading a book, remember the man who is writing it, because those words are not coming from the sky, they are coming from an individual mind.

Alan Watts was a trained Christian missionary. That training continues to affect his effort to understand Zen. And finally, when he came a little closer to Zen, the Christian church expelled him. That brought a crisis in that man’s life. He was not yet a man of Zen, and he had lost his credibility as a Christian. Under this stress he started drinking wine, became an alcoholic and died because of alcoholism. If you know this man you will understand why he is saying what he is saying.

His statement that “One must not forget the social context of Zen,” is simply saying something about himself – that if he had not forgotten the social context and remained a docile Christian, things would have been better. His interest in Zen, rather than bringing him freedom, brought him catastrophe. But Zen is not responsible for it; he could not go the whole way.

He tried somehow to make a Christian context for Zen. Neither did Christians like it, nor the men of Zen. They don’t need any Christian context; they don’t need any social context. It is an individual rebellion. Whether you are a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Christian does not matter. Whatever load you are carrying, drop it. Whatever the name of the load, just drop it.

Zen is a deprogramming.

You are all programmed – as a Christian, as a Catholic, as a Hindu, as a Mohammedan… everybody is programmed. Zen is a deprogramming. So it does not matter what kind of program you bring; what kind of cage you have lived in does not matter. The cage has to be broken and the bird has to be released. There is no social context of Zen. Zen is the most intimate and the most individualistic rebellion against the collective mass and its pressure.

Alan Watts is not right. His understanding of Zen is absolutely intellectual. He says, “It is primarily a way of liberation for those who have mastered the discipline of social convention.” All nonsense. It has nothing to do with social convention. There is no need to master something which you have to drop finally. There is no point in wasting time. In other words, he is saying, “First, get into a cage, become a slave of a certain conventionality, a certain religion, a certain belief system, and then try to be free of it.”

He is simply showing his mind, unconsciously. He was encaged, and for years trained as a Christian priest. You can expel a Christian, but it is very difficult for the Christian to expel the Christianity that has gone deep into his bones, into his blood. He could not expel it, hence his advice for others who may follow: “It is primarily a way of liberation for those who have mastered the discipline of social convention, of the conditioning of the individual by the group.” Absolutely no.

It does not matter whether you are conditioned this way or that way. Conditioned fifty percent, sixty percent, or one hundred percent – it does not matter. From any point freedom is available. And you will have to drop it, so the less you are conditioned the better, because you will be dropping a small load. It is better if your cage is very small. But if you have a palace and an empire, then it is very difficult to drop it.

When Jesus asked the fishermen to drop their jobs and “come follow me,” they really dropped. There was nothing much to be dropped – just a fisherman’s net, a rotten net. A good bargain: dropping this net and following this man, you will enter into the kingdom of God. But when he asked the rich young man to drop everything and “come and follow me,” the rich man hesitated and disappeared into the crowd. The less you have, as far as conditioning is concerned, the easier it is to drop it.

And he is asking that first you should be conditioned by the group, and master the discipline of social convention. Strange… Do you have to become first a soldier just to get retired from the army? If you don’t want to fight, you don’t have to become a soldier. Why not be fresh? But he was not fresh.

He was contaminated by Christianity, and he hopes – according to his programming – that everybody first should be conditioned, chained, handcuffed, put into a jail, so that he can enjoy freedom one day. A strange way of experiencing freedom!

When you are free there is no need of being conditioned by any group, by any belief. There is no need. As you are, you are already too conditioned. Society does not allow their children to grow like the lilies in the field, pure, uncontaminated. They pollute them with all their conditionings, centuries old. The older the conditioning, the more precious it is thought to be.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Aug292017

OSHO: 'Turning the other cheek: the masochist's slap-up feast'

OSHO,

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN DOGMA OF TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK?

I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach.

My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing.

It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic.

Seeing is not thinking.

The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible.

If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it.

Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality.

Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth.

All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it?

A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it.

Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation.

Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The world "philo" means love; "sophy" means wisdom, knowledge - love for knowledge. In philosia, "philo" means the same love, and "sia" means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being - not for wisdom, but for experiencing.

So that is the first thing to be remembered. Nonviolence is a philosophy to Mahatma Gandhi; it is not a philosophy to me, it is a philosia. That's where I have been constantly struggling with Gandhian philosophers, thinkers. Gandhi wrote his autobiography entitled EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH. Now that is an utter absurdity; you cannot experiment with truth.

When you are silent, truth is there in its fullness, in its absolute glory. And when you are not silent, truth is absent.

When you are silent, truth does not appear like an object before you. When you are silent, suddenly you recognize you are the truth.

There is nothing to see.

The seer is the seen, the observer is the observed; that duality no more exists.

And there is no question of thinking. There is no doubt, there is no belief, there is no idea.

Gandhi was trying to experiment with truth. The simple implication is: you know what truth is; otherwise how are you going to experiment with it? And for a man who knows truth, what is the need to experiment? He lives it For him there is no alternative. To Gandhi everything is philosophy, to me everything is philosia. Gandhi is a thinker, I am not a thinker. My approach is existential, not mental. Non-violence - the very word is not appealing to me, it is not my taste, because it is negative. Violence is positive, non-violence is negative. Nobody has paid any attention to the simple fact that you are making violence positive, solid - and non-violence is simply negating it.

I call it reverence for life, I don't use the word non-violence. Reverence for life - it is positive; the nonviolence happens just of its own accord.

If you feel reverence for life, how can you be violent? But it is possible you can be non-violent and still you may not have any reverence for life.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Aug202017

[Debate is Stupid & is Never Communication] "Trading Dialogue for Lodging" - Osho Rajineesh 

There is an old tradition in some Japanese Zen temples

that if a wandering monk can win an argument

about Buddhism

with one of the resident monks, he can stay the night.

If not, he has to move on.

There was such a temple in northern Japan run by

two brothers.

The elder brother was very learned

and the younger brother was rather stupid, and he had

only one eye.

One evening a wandering monk came to ask

for lodging.

The elder brother was very tired

as he had been studying for many hours,

so he told the younger brother to go and take

the debate.

“Request that the dialogue be in silence,” said

the elder brother.

A little later the traveler came to the elder brother

and said,

“What a wonderful fellow your brother is.

He has won the debate very cleverly,

so I must move on. Good night.”

“Before you go,” said the elder brother,

“please relate the dialogue to me.”

“Well,” said the traveler,

“first I held up one finger to represent Buddha.

Then your brother held up two fingers

to represent Buddha and his teaching.

So I held up three fingers

to represent Buddha, his teaching, and his followers.

Then your clever brother shook his clenched fist

in my face to indicate that all three came from one realization.”

With that the traveler left.

A little later the younger brother came in

looking very distressed.

“I understand you won the debate,”said the

elder brother.

“Won nothing,” said the

younger brother,

“that traveler is a very rude man.”

“Oh?” said the elder brother,

“Tell me the subject of the debate.

“Why,” said the younger brother,

“the moment he saw me, he held up one finger

insulting me by indicating that I have only one eye.

But because he was a stranger I thought I would

be polite,

so I held up two fingers congratulating him on having

two eyes.

At this, the impolite wretch held up three fingers

to show that we had but three eyes between us,

so I got mad and threatened to punch his nose -

so he went.”

The elder brother laughed.

All the debates are futile and stupid. Debate as such is foolish, because no one can reach the truth through discussion, through debate. You may get a night’s shelter, but that’s all. Hence the tradition.

The tradition is beautiful. In any Zen monastery in Japan, for many centuries, if you ask for shelter you have to discuss. If you win the debate, you can stay for the night – this is very symbolic – but only for the night. In the morning you have to move on. This indicates that through debate, logic, reasoning, you can never reach the goal, only a night’s shelter. And don’t deceive yourself that the night’s shelter is the goal. You have to move on. In the morning you have to again be on your feet.

But many have deceived themselves. They think that whatsoever they have attained through logic is the goal. The night’s shelter has become the ultimate. They are not moving, and many mornings have passed. Logic can lead to hypothetical conclusions, never to truth. Logic can lead to something which approximates truth, but never to the truth.

And remember, that which approximates the truth is also a lie, because what does it mean? Either something is true or not true; there is no in-between. Either something is true or it is not true. You cannot say that this is a half-truth; there is nothing like that – just like there cannot be a half-circle, because the very word circle means the full. Half-circles don’t exist. If it is half, it is not a circle.

Half-truths don’t exist. Truth is the whole, you cannot have it in fragments, you cannot have it in parts. Approximate truth is a deception, but logic can lead only to the deception. You may have a shelter for the night, just to retire, relax, but don’t make it your home. By the morning you have to move again, the journey cannot end there. Every morning it will begin again and again. Relax in the logic, in the reasoning, but don’t remain with it, don’t become static with it – and continually remember that you have to move.

The tradition is beautiful. So one thing to be understood about the tradition and the meaning; it is symbolic. Second thing: all discussions are foolish, because through the mood of discussion you can never understand the other. Whatsoever he says is misunderstood. A mind which is bent on winning, conquering, cannot understand. It is impossible, because understanding needs a nonviolent mind. When you are seeking how to be victorious, you are violent.

Debate is violence. You can kill through it, you cannot revive through it. You cannot give life through it, you can murder through it. Truths can be murdered through debate, but they cannot be resurrected. It is violence; the very attitude is violent. Really, you are not asking for the truth, you are asking for the victory. When victory is the goal, truth will be sacrificed. When truth is the goal, you can sacrifice victory also.

And truth should be the goal, not victory, because when victory is the goal you are a politician, not a religious man. You are aggressive, you are trying somehow to overpower the other, you are trying somehow to dominate and domineer. And truth can never become a domination, it can never destroy the other. Truth can never be a victory in the sense that you have overpowered the other.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Jul292017

Osho: Take Yourself Out of the Crowd [To Be Yourself Ignore People Who Want You to Be Something Else] 

FREEDOM FROM, FREEDOM FOR

Never think in terms of being free from; always think in terms of being free for. And the difference is vast, tremendously vast. Don't think in terms of from -- think for. Be free for God, be free for truth, but don't think that you want to be free from the crowd, free from the church, free from this and that. You may be able to go far away one day, but you will never be free, never. It is going to be some sort of suppression.

Why are you so afraid of the crowd? ... If the pull is there, then your fear simply shows your pull, your attraction. Wherever you go you will remain dominated by the crowd.

What I am saying is, just look at the facts of it -- that there is no need to think in terms of the crowd. Just think in terms of your being. It can be dropped right now. You cannot be free if you struggle. You can drop it because there is no point in struggling.

The crowd is not the problem -- you are the problem. The crowd is not pulling you -- you are being pulled, not by somebody else but by your own unconscious conditioning. Always remember not to throw the responsibility somewhere on somebody else, because then you will never be free of it. Deep down it is your responsibility. Why should one be so much against the crowd? Poor crowd! Why should you be so much against it? Why do you carry such a wound?

The crowd cannot do anything unless you cooperate. So the question is of your cooperation. You can drop the cooperation just now, just like that. If you put any effort into it, then you will be in trouble. So do it instantly. It is just on the spur of the moment, of spontaneous understanding, if you can see the point that if you fight, you will be fighting a losing battle. In the very fighting you are emphasizing the crowd.

That's what has happened to millions of people. Somebody wants to escape from women -- in India they have done that for centuries. Then they become more and more engrossed in it. They want to get rid of sex, and their whole mind then becomes sexual; they think only of sex and nothing else. They fast, and they will not go to sleep; they will do this and that pranayama and yoga and a thousand and one things -- all nonsense. The more they fight with sex the more they are enforcing it, the more they are concentrating on it. It becomes so significant, out of all proportion.

That is what has happened to Christian monasteries. They became so repressed, just afraid. The same can happen to you if you become afraid too much of the crowd. The crowd cannot do anything unless you cooperate, so it is a question of your alertness. Don't cooperate!

This is my observation: that whatsoever happens to you, you are responsible. Nobody else is doing it to you. You wanted it to be done, so it has been done. Somebody exploits you because you wanted to be exploited. Somebody has put you into a prison because you wanted to be imprisoned. There must have been a certain search for it. Maybe you used to call it security. Your names may have been different, your labels may have been different, but you were hankering to be imprisoned because in a prison one is safe and there is no insecurity.

But don't fight with the prison walls. Look inside. Find that hankering for security, and how the crowd can manipulate you. You must be asking for something from the crowd -- recognition, honor, respect, respectability. If you ask them, you have to repay them. Then the crowd says, "Okay, we give you respect, and you give us your freedom." It is a simple bargain. But the crowd has never done anything to you -- it is basically you. So get out of your own way!

Click to read more ...