The Great Origin
Questioner: The first question is from Akhil. Acharya Ji Pranam, Chapter 14 of Tao Teaching states: “He who knows this ‘Origin,’ shall know the teaching and principle of the Great Tao.” The origin has been variously touched upon by Lao Tzu as follows. Then he quotes from three chapters where the origin has been mentioned.
Chapter one: “Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth; This same origin is called ‘The profound mystery.’ As profound the mystery as it can be, it is the gate to the essence of all life.”
“Tao (The Way)” says, chapter 4 “can be infused into the nature and put to use without being exhausted. It is so deep and subtle like an abyss that is the origin of all things.”
And then again in chapter 52: “By knowing the creation of all lives, one can then return to the origin and abide by the mother.”
I request you to please speak on the origin in detail. Thank you.
Acharya Prashant: Akhil, it is pertinent that we appreciate the difference between creation and modification, origination and reappearance. Things appear and disappear in the same dimension, and this is a thing of common observation. Soil takes the shape of the tree. The tree becomes the fruit. The fruit becomes the body. The body becomes the soil. And this entire movement is in the dimension of the soil — or you could say the dimension of the tree, of the fruit, or the body. And since all these dimensions are in the same dimension, call them as one.
But all this modification, disappearance, reappearance does not really explain origination. The forms keep changing. That which is changing can be seen and experienced. There remains something behind the changes that eludes experience. The proof is that merely looking at the cycle of change will never satisfy you. You will be left a bit hungry.
You know that these things can't just happen on their own. You know there is something more to it. You know there is somebody as the primal cause of all change — and yet not visible in the change. Not a part of the change. Causing it, but not included in it. That is the origin.
There is no proof of the origin except the fact it's something in your consciousness — knows very well.
The things don't add up. There is a deep vacancy. And that vacancy is apparent to anyone who bothers to probe a little and understand things and check whether all is square. In the language of Vedant, this origin would be Satya and Tao would be Ṛta. Tao is the great invisible natural order of the universe.The origin is the center of the universe. It strikes the observant mind — that such organized change cannot be there without changelessness.
That in a universe where everything is prone to birth and decay, such continuation of birth and decay cannot be without something that is not expendable. Vedant would call the truth as Avyay — that which can never be spent off, that which can never get exhausted.
Seen outside with the help of your senses. One clearly is left wondering — what is it that is behind all this? This same query, turning inwards, gets answered and silenced. The moving universe is clearly seen as the moving mind, and the great origin of the moving universe is then undoubtedly the unknowable center of the mind.
When we are looking at the universe, the origin was a very, very strong but speculative urge of the mind. One said, “The origin has to be.” It is not possible that the origin is not. When one turns inwards and looks at his mind, then one says, “The origin is.” Now there is absolute certainty. There is no need to speculate. Once being becomes the autonomous proof of the origin.
The being of the meditator — it's the living proof of the origin. Things rising, things falling. Things experienced, things perceived. Tornadoes swirling. Stars collapsing. Entire universes expanding and contracting. And yet — nothing at all. Just nothing. A great void — that, by its own will and decree, sucks everything into itself. And then, on a change of mood, let loose the universe. That's the origin.
The origin of the proof is a Lao Tzu. The origin that appears with Lao Tzu — because you cannot perceive it sincerely and there is no other proof. The way of knowledge has said that. The way of devotion has asserted that. There is no proof of the origin other than the being of Lao Tzu. The Upanishads would say Brahma with *Bhrama eva bhavati". The Gurbani would say “Harijan Hari antar nahi.” Kabir Sahab would say that “the body of the Saddhu is the proof of truth.”
If you search for the meaning of origin, or the origin itself, in the universe — you will come very very close. You will come frustratingly close, but you will never come close enough to know. When you will look for it in your mind, then you stand a chance.
See how your silence is so expressive. See how much can be directly expressed out of your silence. Engage the infinitude of words that are contained in your silence — anonymously, homelessly, unorganized, not born, not even in womb, not there yet fully — ready to instantaneously appear. And you see how all words rush, finally dissolve in silence. See how silence is like a great vacuum soaking all words into itself. Where do they go once they have reached?
Nobody knows where I just suddenly came from. Nobody knows. Nobody knows the language of words. Nobody knows in the world of words. Otherwise, it's all too obvious. Is the origin therefore unknowable? Yes, the origin is unknowable. …..do not stand there. …. if you stand there, then there is no need to know the origin.
Is the original mystery? Yes, quite mysterious to those who are away from it. Is the origin a mystery to those who are at the origin? No. They do not even know that they are at the origin. All knowledge requires distance. When you are just there, you are freed from the burden of knowledge.
Lao Tzu is the poet of the great feminine because all proceeds from the origin and all disappears into the origin. So he calls the origin as the great female, sometimes the great mother. Why does he talk so much about it? Lao Tzu has no particular reason to talk much about anything. In fact, even the Tao Teaching, it is said, was extracted out of [Music] him. He was not particularly willing to write it.
It's just that to those who are not at the origin. The origin is hope, the origin is a relief, the origin beckons. So to others, all this talk of the origin is useful. To Lao Tzu, it is a nuisance to talk so much — about the obvious, about the indescribable.
In chapter 52, Akhil, you have quoted: “By knowing the creation of all lives, one can then return to the origin and abide by the mother.”
One remains lost among the living. One doesn't bother to inquire what the livingness is. One remains occupied with structures, movements, peripheries, crowds, worry — forgets the center of everything. Therefore, these lines are useful — useful to the ones who would circumnavigate and avoid the center.
Lao Tzu says, “By knowing the creation of all lives…” If you could really know what the game is all about, won’t you gloriously, victoriously exit the game? The game is the circumference. The center of the game is the victory. One keeps on playing energetically at the boundary, often not realizing that the energy is keeping one at the boundary.
There is a great gravitational pull by the center. But one's own energy is creating centrifugal force in a direction opposite to the center, and keeps playing the game energetically. That is the game. There are several players. It’s quite a sound and a show. One doesn’t examine because one is involved. Because one is involved, one becomes the involved one. And the involved one, to stay alive, must stay involved. And the more one stays involved, the more one remains a part of the centrifuge.
The more one remains a part of the centrifuge, the more actively one is able to resist the gravitation of the center.
It’s just that there is no peace in the orbit. And so, when there is no peace, some people then turn to Lao Tzu — and he says, “The origin.” Is the game important? Yes, it entertains. But see how exhausted you are. Are the players important? Yes, you can indulge with them. But do they fulfill you? And then he roars out his whisper that runs through the galaxies — “Origin.”
So you see, Lao Tzu is a poet of "I’m not doing." The moment the particle in the orbit turns a non-doer, it gets sucked in — and the separation is lost. The other would tell you — all this that you are doing on the periphery is a mischief towards yourself. You're doing everything but the one right thing. If you can seize, the right would happen on its own.You don’t even need to do it. Your doing is the trouble. And so, you see, Lao Tzu is not a proponent of hard work. He would rather talk of soft submission.
The harder you work, the bigger the object. Run with a greater speed and you just increase the radius of the circle. Do more…Do more…Do more. And what are you doing? You are just doing something against yourself.
It's a strange thing — that which proceeds from the origin assumes a life of its own and starts avoiding the origin. And how does it avoid it? Not necessarily by consciously creating a distance, but often through passive ignorance. So, there is mischief which appears in the form of active avoidance. And then there is ignorance, which is passive avoidance.
You asked me to speak about the origin in detail. From the origin, all details emerge — but then they are for the one who is at the origin. The one who is not at the origin must rather seek the details of where he is — and that would help. Instead of asking me, “Please tell me in detail about the origin,” how about asking yourself, “What are the details of where I am?”
This is the way of knowledge. The way of knowledge does not seek the details of the origin. It seeks the details of the periphery, the orbit, the entire spherical universe. "Just tell me about this that I'm perceiving."
The way of knowledge says, “I don't want to speculate. I’d rather start off with that which is evident to my senses. The periphery is evident. I want to know the details of the periphery. I want to know who these players are. Why are these balls striking against each other? What is this merry-go-round? Where did those shadows come from? Who's behind the curtains? Did somebody just say — me?”
And then there is the way of the simple-minded one — the one who doesn't claim that he has the power to dissect the universe and get into the anatomical details.
How does this one remember the origin? This one doesn't remember the origin by saying that things are false and do not fulfill. This one is a curious case. This one is so crazily innocent — he somehow manages to directly remember. He doesn't have to cross over on the boat of negation. "Neti-Neti" are not the two paddles that he uses. He somehow manages to just fly over. The origin strikes him as an old memory, as an undeniable reality.
You don’t have to go to it via something. He has an inexplicable direct connection. How does he have a direct connection when he does not know? Strange words.
तरनापो इउ ही गइओ, लीओ जरा तनु जीति ॥ (Your youth has passed away like this, and old age has overtaken your body).
कहु नानक, भजु हरि मना, अउध जातु है बीति ॥ (Says Nanak, meditate — vibrate upon the Lord; your life is fleeting away)!
~Salok Mahalla 9 (Guru Granth Sahib)
Why recite a name? Why meditate upon someone, something, somebody? No answers. But the devotee is sure that that is what needs to be done.
तनु धनु जिह तो कउ दीओ, तां सिउ नेहु न कीन॥ (He has given you your body and wealth, but you are not in love with Him).
*कहु नानक, नर बावरे, अब किउ डोलत दीन॥ (Says Nanak, you are insane! Why do you now shake and tremble so helplessly)?
~Salok Mahalla 9 (Guru Granth Sahib)
Tanu dhanu jih to kau deeo, taaN si-o nehu na keen (तनु धनु जिह तो कउ दीओ, तां सिउ नेहु न कीन), TaaN si-o (तां सिउ) — “Act” with Him. With whom? With Him? With whom? With Him? With whom? With Him?
taaN si-o nehu na keen (तां सिउ नेहु न कीन). Kahu Nanak, nar baavare, ab kiun dolat deen (कहु नानक, नर बावरे, अब किउ डोलत दीन). The devotee is not even explaining the existence of the origin — he is asserting it. He’s saying, “From the origin you got everything, and that’s why it is the origin. Everything originates there. From there you got everything. Tanu dhanu jih to kau deeo (तनु धनु जिह तो कउ दीओ). From there you got everything — but you couldn’t love Him. Kahu Nanak, nar baavare, ab kiun dolat deen (कहु नानक, नर बावरे, अब किउ डोलत दीन). And now why do you find it strange that you roam hither and thither in your uprooted state?”
He’s not saying that the origin is. He’s saying, “We don’t want to talk about the origin. We want to talk about you.” Your distance from the origin is appearing in the form of your freckled face, distorted eyes, general sense of deenata, inner impoverishment.
That's what happens when the particle that emanates from the origin develops an individuality of itself and decides to keep a distance. The saint is not saying “the origin is.” And that is beyond his narrative. The discourse is not on the origin, but on you. The origin — the saint is sure.
The way of knowledge is the way of skepticism. The way of devotion is the way of utter surety. Gyan Margi proceeds through his skepticism about the universe. The devotee proceeds through surety about the origin. So, the devotee is sure of the origin — and disappointed in you.
So, Akhil — depends on you. If you have some innocence, then just know. That is “know” without proof. Know without reason.
And if you have sold yourself out to reason, then proceed to reason fully. Half-baked arguments are the curse and the support of the ego. It's not that the truth does not like arguments. It's just that the truth is not amenable to half-baked, fearful arguments that dare not go the distance.
If you want to reason out, then have the guts to take reason to its very end. You have reasons to be on your own — play the game and avoid the center. Reasons fuel your activity.
Why not reason things out fully? And that will take you to the real reason. The real reason is false. So, reason is nice. Truth likes reason — because reason is self-destructive. If only you have the honesty to reason it out fully.
What stands between you and the origin is not intellect or reason. It is pseudo-reason — false, incomplete, biased, amateur reasoning. Like a noise in the first class of logic, happily proving Plato and Pythagoras wrong. And how did he do that? Using his logic. Using his logic, he succeeded in proving the master logicians wrong.
That's how the tiny particle on the periphery operates. It has its own reasons. Using reasons, it manages in its own eyes to defeat the One, defeat the Origin, from where all reason proceeds and into which all reason sinks.
