Chapter title: Always on the Rocks

< Previous | Contents | Next >

‌Chapter title: Always on the Rocks‌

1 September 1979 am in Buddha Hall Archive

code:

7909010

ShortTitle:

BESTIL01

Audio:

Yes Video:

Yes Length:

0

mins

The first question Question 1

OSHO, MEDITATIVENESS AND SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE.

YET PAINTING A PICTURE, WRITING A POEM, AND SOLVING A SCIENTIFIC

PROBLEM ALL BRING THE SAME JOY. THE SAME JOY!

WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE MEDITATIVE AND A SCIENTIST?

WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE INNER AND THE

OUTER SCIENCES, THE SCIENCE OF GENTLENESS AND LOVE AND THE

SCIENCE OF AGGRESSION AND DEATH, LIVE IN HARMONY?

Ananda Prabhu,

THE VERY EFFORT TO RECONCILE THE POLAR opposites is wrong -- you will never succeed in it. It is like trying to reconcile day and night, it is like trying to reconcile life and death. You need not reconcile them, you have only to see that they ARE

reconciled. Day and night are moving perfectly in rhythm; life and death are like two wings of existence.

Once you see that the polar opposites can't exist separately, once you have seen that reconciliation is not needed at all, that they are already reconciled, that awareness will help you to move from one pole to another without any problem. They are totally different phenomena -- polar opposites, but all polar opposites are also complementaries.

Science is concentration: it is mind, it is effort.

Meditation or religion is a totally different world: it is relaxation, it is let-go -- it is not concentration at all. It is not one-pointedness, it is no-pointedness. So how can you reconcile them? How do you reconcile work and rest? But you work hard in the day, and at night the rest comes of its own accord. You have earned it; your hard work brings rest.

Philosophically reconciliation is not possible: work cannot be rest, rest cannot be work. If you try to create a synthesis you will destroy both, the beauty of both. Work is work, rest is rest. But work done well brings rest, and if you have rested well in the night; in the morning you will feel so vital, so alive, so full of energy, that work is needed. Rest brings work, work brings rest -- it is a circle. Reconciliation is already there: day brings night, night brings day; life brings

death, death brings life. They are half-circles; with both together the circle is perfect and complete. But please don't try to reconcile them in theory, in philosophy.

In existence watch, and see how polar opposites are functioning together, hand in hand, as complementaries. That has not been done yet; in fact, humanity was not mature enough to do it up to now. Everything needs a particular time, a particular maturity, in which to be done.

The East has lived religiously -- that is one pole -- and because IT has lived religiously it has not been able to produce science. The West has lived scientifically, and because of its science it has lost track of religion. Now for the first time, the East is no more East and the West is no more West. The earth is becoming one: the earth is becoming one. global village. This is the time when the reconciliation can be seen, can be understood.

Man is entering into a new phase; a new consciousness is to dawn. For at least ten thousand years, as far as consciousness is concerned, nothing new has happened. There have been Buddhas and there have been Albert Einsteins, but we are still waiting for a Buddha who is also an Albert Einstein or an Albert Einstein who is also a Buddha. The day is coming closer and closer. Albert Einstein in his last days was very much interested in meditation, in religion. His last days were full of wonder. He said in his old age, "I used to think when I was young that sooner or later all the mysteries of existence would be solved, and I worked hard. But now I can say that the more we know, the more existence turns out to be mysterious. The more we know, the less we know and the more we become aware of the vastness "

Science has not been able to demystify existence. Now this is recognized not by ordinary technicians but by geniuses, because they are the pioneers; they can see the dawn very close by, they are the prophets. Albert Einstein says that science has failed in demystifying existence, that on the contrary it has mystified things even more.

For example, it was so easy in the old days, just a hundred years ago, for the scientist to say that all is matter. Now matter has disappeared; in neo-physics there is no entity called matter. The deeper the physicist went into the world of matter, the more matter was not to be found at all: it is pure energy. How to define energy now? Is it material? Energy cannot be material; energy is

something totally different from matter. Matter is static, energy is dynamic; matter is a noun, energy is a verb. Matter is measurable. That is exactly the meaning of the word 'matter': it comes from 'measure', the root means

'measurable'. Matter can be measured, that's why it is called matter. Energy is immeasurable, it cannot be called matter. And as the physicist has entered into the world of energy, he has become more and more puzzled; never before has he been so puzzled.

Mystics have always been in awe before existence. The physicist is for the first time in awe, because he has for the first time touched something very vital otherwise he was just looking from the outside. A stone is just a stone from the outside. The physicist now knows that the stone is not just a stone: it contains universes. A single small pebble that you can hold in your hand contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can grow out of it, contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can be destroyed by it. It is not just a pebble any more and it is not solid any more. You are holding it in your hand and you know it is solid, but your knowing is no longer scientific. It only appears solid; it is liquid. And it looks so available, manipulatable; you can do things with it. But you don't know its mysteries which are not manipulatable, and the mysteries are really immense -- almost as immense as the mystery of God itself.

The modern physicist is using the language of the mystics for the first time. Eddington said, "The universe no longer looks like a thing but like a thought." This, from the mouth of a scientist, a Nobel prize-winner -- the universe looks like a thought and not like a thing? That means the universe is more consciousness than matter. And matter has been analyzed, our penetration has become deeper; we have come across atoms, electrons, neutrons -- and we are utterly mystified, at a loss even to express what we have come across. We don't have the language, the right language for it, because we have never known it.

Now the right language has to be found in the words of the mystics: a Buddha will be helpful, a Lao Tzu will be helpful And scientists ARE looking into the words of the Buddhas to find the right language, because these are the people who have been talking about paradox, mystery. And now science is coming across paradoxes.

The greatest paradox is that the electron behaves in such a mysterious way that the scientist has no language to express it. It behaves simultaneously as a particle

and as a wave. This is impossible, inconceivable for the mind. Either something is a particle or it is a wave; the same thing cannot be both at the same time.

You know Euclidean geometry: either something is a point or something is a line; one thing cannot be a point and a line together at the same time. A line means many points following each other in sequence; a single point cannot function like a line. But that's now electrons are functioning -- simultaneously as a point and as a line, as a particle and as a wave. What to make of it? How to say it?

The scientist is dumb. Now he knows that the mystics, who have always been talking in paradoxes, who have been saying God is far away and very close by, must be saying something through their experience. The mystics who used to say that life and death are one, not two, for the first time are becoming relevant to the scientist's mind. A new science is arising which says it is a science of uncertainty. NO more certainty! Certainty seems to be too gross.

Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a

'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not.

It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?"

Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity.

Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events.

That's what modern science is saying, that there are no things in the world, but only events. And we cannot say anything absolutely, we cannot say, "This is so." Whenever somebody says absolutely, "This is so," he is behaving foolishly. In the past he was thought to be a man of knowledge; the more certain he was, the more it was thought that he knew. The uncertain person, the hesitating person,

was thought to be ignorant.

That's why Mahavira could not influence the world very much; he came too early, he arrived before his time. Now is the time for him -- now he will be understood by the scientist, by the highest intelligence in the world. But he was talking to people, the ordinary masses, who could not understand his SYADAWAD -- his perhaps-ism. People wanted certain knowledge: "Is there a God?" And Mahavira would say, "Perhaps. Yes --

in one way it can be said yes, and in another it can be said no. And both are right together, simultaneously."

Now the time has come. Ananda Prabhu, don't try to reconcile things -- that will be a false phenomenon. Just watch, just look deep into things as they are. They are already reconciled; there is no conflict in existence. All contraries are complementaries.

YOU SAY: MEDITATIVENESS AND SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE.

If you try to reconcile them it is not only difficult but impossible. It cannot be done. You will go mad -- the very effort to reconcile them will drive you crazy. Avoid such an effort. Rather, on the contrary, simply watch.

Life is paradoxical. It is already a synthesis of paradoxes; the opposites are already meeting in it. All that we need is a pure mirror-like consciousness, so that whatsoever life is it is reflected. And you will see in that reflection the meeting of the opposites: the meeting of East and West, the meeting of religion and science.

YOU SAY: YET PAINTING A PICTURE, WRITING A POEM, AND SOLVING A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM ALL BRING THE SAME JOY. THE SAME JOY!

Yes, they can -- because art is just in the middle between both, equidistant from religion and science. Art has the qualities of both. One aspect of art is scientific, the technological aspect. Hence the scientist can paint and enjoy painting, and will have the same joy; and the mystic can also paint and will have the same joy as in prayer, as in meditation --

although both are doing the same thing, the mystic's painting will be totally different from the scientist's painting.

You can look: modern painting in the West is too much under the influence of technology. It has lost beauty; it is no longer helpful in bringing you to the divine presence that permeates existence. On the contrary, it simply reflects the insane mind of man. Looking at Western painting you will feel dizzy, nauseous, ill.

Zen Masters have also painted, but their painting is totally different. Watching a Zen painting you will feel uplifted; a feeling of subtle joy will arise in you. You would like to dance or sing or play on your flute. Zen painting comes from the other side, the mystic's side. Picasso, Dali, and others come from the side of science. Now, there is no similarity between a Picasso painting and the painting of a Zen Master, no similarity. They are two totally different worlds, and the reason is that the painters are different.

Yes, Ananda Prabhu, you may be feeling the same joy in painting, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem. It is all mind. Solving a scientific problem is mind; your poem will also be more or less mathematical, logical. It will have only the form of poetry but its spirit will be prose.

That's why in the West poetry is dying, painting has become ugly, sculpture is no longer representative of nature. Something is immensely missing: the spirit, the very spirit of art is missing. Looking at a Zen painting you will be overwhelmed; something from the beyond Will start showering on you.

Have you watched a Zen painting closely? There are a few things you will be surprised to see. Human figures are very small, so small that if you don't look minutely you will miss them. Trees are big, mountains are big, the sun and moon, rivers and waterfalls are big, but human beings are very small.

In Western painting the human being is very big; he covers the whole canvas. Now this is not right, this is not proportionate, this is not true. The human being covering the whole canvas is very egoistic -- but the painter IS egoistic. The Zen Master is right: man is only a tiny part in this great universe. The mountains are big and the waterfalls are big and the trees are big and the stars and the moon and the sun -- and where is man?

Just the other day I was looking at a Zen painting. The men were so small, two small figures crossing a bridge, that I would have missed them because tall

mountains and trees were covering the whole painting. But there was a note underneath the painting saying,

"Please don't miss: there are two human figures on the bridge." I had to look very closely

-- yes, they were there, two human figures, very small, walking hand in hand, passing over the bridge. This is the right proportion; this is a non-egoistic painting.

In Western paintings you will find the whole canvas covered. In Zen painting only a small part of the canvas is covered, and the remaining part is empty. It looks like a wastage: if you are going to make such a small painting, why not use a small canvas?

Why use such a big canvas which covers the whole wall, and just in the corner make a small painting? But the Zen people say that's how things are: "Emptiness is so much all around. The whole sky is empty -- how can we leave out the sky? If we leave out the sky the painting will be untrue."

Now no Western painting has that vision, that we are surrounded by emptiness: the earth is very small, humanity a very small part of the earth, and infinite emptiness all around.…

To be true, to be existentially true, the emptiness cannot be left outside; it has to be there.

This is a different vision, from a different side.

Zen painting is not done in the Western way. In Western painting you will find that the painter goes on improving: over one coat of paint there will be another coat of paint and still another coat of paint, and he goes on improving and touching up and doing things.

Zen painters cannot do that; that is impossible. They use a certain kind of paper, rice-paper, on which you can make only one stroke. You cannot correct it; you have to leave it as it is. The paper is so thin that if you try to correct it the whole thing will be lost. Why is rice-paper being used? So that the mind has nothing to do -- the mind is constantly trying to improve, to make things better. It has to be from the heart, a single stroke. If your heart is full of it, it will come right. But

you cannot correct it; correction comes from the mind.

Zen painting is never corrected; if you correct it your correction will always show that you are not a Master. It has to come out of your meditativeness, your silence. Your feeling of the moment is spread on the rice-paper.

Art is just in the middle, equidistant from science and religion. It can be both. It can be scientific art, as it is in the West -- that's what you mean, Ananda Prabhu. It can be religious art: you don't know anything about that yet, because before you can know anything about it you will have to know what meditation is.

Meditation is not a state of concentration; it is not a state of mind at all. It is a state of total mindlessness -- and not a state of sleep either. No mind, no sleep; no mind, but total awareness. Out of that awareness you bring a different quality to music, to painting, to poetry. And out of that meditativeness you can bring a totally different quality to science too. But before that can happen we will need large numbers of meditative people around the earth.

That's what my work is. That's what I am trying to do here: to create meditators. That is the first requirement. If we want to bring a new world vision where science and religion can meet, we will have to create the foundation first; only then can the temple be raised on it. Meditation has to be the foundation.

And don't try to reconcile things: just become more meditative. In your meditation is reconciliation, because in your meditation you become able to see that the contradictions are only apparent, that the contraries are only enemies on the surface but deep down they are friends. It is like two friends playing chess: on the surface they are enemies, but deep down they are friends. That's why they are playing chess -- they are friends; but because they are playing chess they are pretending to be enemies.

This is the LEELA of existence, the play of existence. God has divided himself into two, because that is the only way to play hide-and-seek. k is a very beautiful play if you understand it as play. Don't take it too seriously because then you will not be able to see the playfulness of it.

You ask me: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE MEDITATIVE AND A SCIENTIST?

It is not. To be meditative is difficult for everybody; it is not only a question of

the scientist. Ananda Prabhu is a scientist. But it is the same difficulty as a businessman will feel, it is the same difficulty as the carpenter will feel. It is not just something new to the scientist. Maybe quantitatively it is a little more difficult, because his whole mind knows only one way of functioning, that of concentration. He knows only one way to use the mind: to focus it on a certain object. And meditation means remaining unfocussed, just remaining open, open for everything.

While listening to me you can listen in two ways. The scientific way is to concentrate --

what I am saying, concentrate on it. That means close your mind to everything else: the airplane passes by, and the train makes a noise, and the traffic on the road and the birds singing in the trees...close your mind to everything. Just let there be only a small keyhole available to me; listen only to me. That's how the scientist listens; he looks through a keyhole into existence.

The mystic comes out of the room, stands under the sky, utterly open to everything. That is the other way of listening, the way a meditator listens. Then you go on listening to me, and the chirping of the birds goes on as a background to it. And what I am saying the chirping of the birds cannot disturb -- no, not at all. It enhances its beauty; it gives it color, it gives it music And not only the chirping of the birds but the airplane passing by and sudden noise create more silence in contrast.

When the airplane has passed by, you are suddenly listening to me on a deeper level. And while the airplane is passing and the noise is there, you listen to both. You don't become disturbed. You don't say inside, "This stupid airplane is disturbing me." The airplane cannot disturb you. But if you say inside, "This stupid plane is disturbing me," your SAYING it will be a disturbance; when you are saying it you will lose track of me. The airplane cannot disturb you, but your reaction to it is bound to.

Listening meditatively means all that is is accepted, welcomed. In all its multiplicity the universe is received. You are simply open from all sides to all that is happening. And you will be surprised' It brings such a great silence, such exquisite silence, such profound silence.

Concentration tires you, meditation never tires you. But it is difficult for

everybody, not only for the scientist -- because we have become accustomed to a certain pattern of looking at things. You will have to melt your pattern; you will have to become a little more liquid, fluid, and meditation will come to you. Don't be worried about it being difficult for the scientist; that idea can create difficulty. Once you have accepted the idea that it is difficult then it will be difficult. Don't bring that idea; that will become auto-hypnotic, it will become a suggestion. It is not difficult: meditation is the simplest and the easiest thing in the world. We have just become accustomed to concentration. We have been told since childhood to concentrate: from the primary school to the university we have been trained for concentration. This is a kind of habituation; it takes a little time to drop the old habit and to learn something which is not a habit but your very nature.

YOU SAY: WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE INNER

AND THE OUTER SCIENCES, THE SCIENCE OF GENTLENESS AND LOVE AND

THE SCIENCE OF AGGRESSION AND DEATH, LIVE IN HARMONY?

Now the time has come. Everything can happen only at a particular time. Religion has come to its ultimate peak in the Buddhas; now science is also coming to an ultimate peak.

And only when two things have grown is a meeting possible.

A seed cannot meet a tree; the seed will have to become a tree. Only then, high in the winds, in the clouds, can they whisper to each other, can they fall in love with each other, can they embrace each other, hug each other -- can they have a dialogue. But a seed cannot have a dialogue with a grown-up tree; it is impossible. The seed will not know the language, the tree will not understand the language of the seed.

Religion has been in a mature state for almost five thousand years. Science is still growing, coming to maturity. Hence I say this time is one of the most precious times.

You are fortunate to be alive today, because something immensely great is going to happen -- and that is the meeting of science and religion, the meeting of West

and East, the meeting of the extrovert mind and the introvert mind. It will create the new man who will be able to move easily to the outside or into the inside, who will be able to move easily into the extrovert world of science and into the introvert world of religion -- just as you move outside your house into the garden and back into the house. It is not a problem; you don't need any reconciliation. You need not make a great effort each time you come out of your house onto the lawn -- you simply come out! It is feeling cold inside, and the sun is beautiful and warm outside: you come onto the lawn, you sit on the lawn. Later on when it becomes too hot you simply move in because there is coolness inside.

Just as easily as you come out of your house and go in, a total man will be able to move into science and religion; the inner and outer will both be his.

Carl Gustav Jung has divided human beings into two: the extroverts and the introverts.

His categorization is relevant for the past but will be utterly useless for the future, because the future man will be BOTH together. In the past, we have always been categorizing in this way, but the future man will not be a man and will not be a woman. I am not saying biologically -- biologically the woman will be a woman, and the man will be a man -- but spiritually the future man will have as many feminine qualities as the woman, and the woman will have as many masculine qualities as the man. Spiritually they will never be labeled as man or woman any more. And that will be the real liberation

-- not only the liberation of women, but the liberation of men too: liberation from straitjackets, liberation from imprisoning categories, liberation from all labels.

Man is not going to be Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian; man is not going to be Indian, German, English; man is not going to be white or black. Not that colors will disappear --

the white man will be white and the black will be black -- but these will become irrelevant, trivial, meaningless; they will not be decisive. The new man will have a universal consciousness, and the foundation will be laid by the meeting of science and religion.

The second question

Question 2

OSHO, CAN BUDDHA OR CHRIST BE CREATED OR DEVELOPED OUT OF

EVERY COMMON HUMAN BEING? OR IS BUDDHA OR CHRIST ONLY BORN

AS SUCH? EVERY MAN IS BUDDHA, EVERY MAN IS CHRIST: I FEEL IT IS NOT

TRUE.

Bal Krishna Bharti,

THE BUDDHA OR THE CHRIST CANNOT BE CREATED because the

Buddha is your intrinsic nature. It need not be created. It has not to be developed either; it is already there, it is already the case. It has only to be unfolded, it has to be discovered.

The treasure is there; you have to find the key to unlock the door. The treasure is not to be created, the treasure is not to be developed; you only have to find the right key. You have forgotten about the key -- the key is also with you. God provides you with everything that is needed on the journey; you come absolutely prepared. But society disturbs every child, distorts every child, because a Buddha or a Christ is useless to the society; they don't serve any utilitarian purpose.

What can you do with a Buddha? What purpose is he going to serve? He will be a beautiful flower, but flowers don't serve any purpose. Flowers have to be enjoyed, appreciated, loved. You can dance around them, you can drink their beauty, but they are not commodities in the marketplace. What can you do with the full moon? You cannot sell it, you cannot purchase it, you cannot be profited by it. You cannot have a bigger bank balance because of the full moon.

Hence the society is not interested in a Buddha or a Christ. Buddha is a full moon, a Buddha is a lotus flower, a Buddha is a bird on the wing. The Buddha is a poem, the Buddha is a song, the Buddha is a celebration. Because they are utterly beyond utility, the society is not interested in them; it is really afraid of these people. It wants you to be slaves, to be cogs in the wheel of the society. It

wants you to be servants to the vested interests. It does not want you to be rebels

-- and a Buddha is bound to be a rebel.

A Buddha cannot follow stupid commandments given by the politicians or the moralists or the puritans or the priests. And these are the people who are exploiting humanity, oppressing humanity. They start destroying every possibility of every human child ever becoming a Buddha. They start crippling, they start poisoning. And down the centuries they have learnt many ways to poison. It is a miracle that once in a while a child has escaped -- must have somehow been a mistake on the part Of the priests and the politicians that a child escaped from the trap and became a Buddha.

Bal Krishna, every man is born to be a Buddha, every man has the seed of Buddhahood in him. But I can understand your question.

You say: I FEEL IT IS NOT TRUE.

Yes, if you look at the masses it doesn't seem to be true. If it were true there would be many Buddhas, but one rarely hears about a Buddha. We only know that somewhere, twenty-five centuries ago, a certain Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha. Who knows whether it is true or not? It may be just a myth, a beautiful story, a consolation, an opium for the masses, to keep them hoping that one day they will also become Buddhas. Who knows whether Buddha is a historic reality?

And so many stories have been woven around the Buddha that he looks more like a mythological figure than a reality. When he becomes enlightened, gods come from heaven, play beautiful music, dance around him. Now how can this be history? And flowers shower on him from the sky -- flowers of gold and silver, flowers of diamonds and emeralds. Who can believe that this is history?

This is not history, true, I agree. This is poetry. But it symbolizes something historical, because something so unique has happened in Buddha that there is no other way to describe it than to bring poetry in. Real flowers have not showered on Buddha, but whenever somebody becomes enlightened the whole existence rejoices -- because we are not separate from it.

When you have a headache your whole body suffers, and when the headache goes your whole body feels good, a well-being. We are NOT separate from existence. And until you are a Buddha you are a headache -- a headache to

yourself, a headache to others, a headache to the whole existence. You are a thorn in the flesh of existence. When the headache disappears, when the thorn becomes a flower, when one man becomes a Buddha, a great pain that he was creating for himself and others disappears.

Certainly -- I vouch for it, I am a witness to it -- certainly the who]e existence rejoices, dances, sings. How to say it? It is nothing visible; photographs cannot be taken of it.

Hence the poetry; hence these metaphors, symbols, similes.

It is said that when Buddha was born his mother immediately died. It may not be a historical fact, it may be. But my feeling is that it is not a historical fact -- because it is said that whenever a Buddha is born, the mother immediately dies. That is not true. There have been many Buddhas -- Jesus' mother did not die, Mahavira's mother did not die, Krishna's mother did not die. Maybe Siddhartha Gautam's mother died, but it cannot be said that whenever a Buddha is born the mother dies, not historically.

But I know it has some significance of its own which is not historical. By 'the mother' is not really meant the mother; by 'the mother' is meant your whole past. You are reborn when you become a Buddha; your whole past functions as a womb, the mother. And the moment a Buddha is born, the moment you become enlightened, your whole past dies.

That death is necessary.

Now, THIS IS absolutely true. It happened with Mahavira, with Krishna, with Jesus; it has happened always. To say it, it is said that whenever a Buddha is born the mother dies.

You will have to be very very sympathetic to understand these things.

I can understand that it is difficult, looking at the greater part of humanity, to see that there is any possibility of every human being becoming a Christ or a Buddha. Looking at a seed can you believe that one day it can become a lotus? Just looking at the seed, dissecting the seed, will you be able to infer, conclude, that each seed is going to become a lotus? There seems to be no relationship at all. The seed looks nothing, and when you dissect it you find nothing in it, only emptiness. Still each seed carries a lotus within it --

and each human being carries the Buddha within him.

YOU ASK ME: CAN BUDDHA OR CHRIST BE CREATED OR DEVELOPED...?

No, they cannot be created and they cannot be developed: they have to be discovered, they have to be uncovered. they are already there. You just have to reach your innermost core and you will find the Buddha enshrined, you will find the Christ. Christ and Buddha mean the same: the ultimate state of consciousness.

And you say:...OUT OF EVERY COMMON HUMAN BEING?

I have never come across a single common human being. I have come across thousands of people, I have looked into the depths of thousands of different people, but I have never come across a common, ordinary man. Every human being is unique, extraordinary, uncommon, exceptional. God never creates common human beings, God only creates unique consciousnesses .

Drop this idea of a common human being. This is an insult to humanity. And you say: IS BUDDHA OR CHRIST ONLY BORN AS SUCH?

No. Nobody is born as such. We are all born alike. That too is again a trick of the mind to avoid growing. If it is settled that a Buddha is born as a Buddha, and a Christ is the ONLY begotten son of God, and Krishna is a reincarnation of God, this is a beautiful strategy to avoid: "Then what can we do? If we are not Buddhas it is not our fault -- we are not BORN like that. And if Buddha is a Buddha, so what? He is BORN a Buddha. No credit to him; he has not done anything special. If we were born like Buddha we would be Buddhas too. But we are born as COMMON human beings."

This is a strategy. Very cunning is the mind, and subtle is its cunningness: beware of it.

Nobody is born as a Buddha yet everybody brings the potential of being a Buddha. And don't say, "I feel it is not true" -- because how can you feel unless you have become a Buddha? You can only infer, you can only think, you cannot feel.

Listen to me! I FEEL that everybody can become a Buddha. And I feel it because I was also a common human being...and then suddenly this explosion, then suddenly this light, then suddenly this meditativeness blossomed. You can also become a Buddha; it is your birthright. Don't be tricked by your mind -- remain alert, aware.

The third question Question 3

OSHO, I FIND MYSELF MOSTLY ATTRACTED TO WOMEN AND VERY

RARELY DEEPLY TO A MAN. I AM A LITTLE BOTHERED ABOUT IT. COULD

YOU PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

Ma Prem Loka,

SEX HAS BEEN CALLED THE ORIGINAL SIN -- it is neither original nor sin. Even before Adam and Eve ever ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge they were having sex, and all the other animals in the Garden of Eden were having sex. The only thing that happened after the eating of the fruit of knowledge was awareness: they became aware of it. And by becoming aware of it they became ashamed.

Why did they become ashamed? From where did this shame come? They became ashamed because they saw that they were behaving just like other animals. But what is wrong in behaving just like other animals? Man is an animal too. But the ego came in: the fruit of knowledge created the ego. It created superiority, the idea of superiority: "We are superior human beings. These foolish animals, if they do certain things they can be forgiven. But we cannot be forgiven -- this is below our dignity."

Sex is such a fundamental activity in nature that the ego of man started trying to get rid of it.

The first thing I would like you to remember: sex is natural. There is no need to make any effort to get rid of it -- although I know a moment comes when you transcend it, that is something totally different. It is not by your effort that you

can get rid of it; if you try to get rid of it you will fall a victim of perversions. Because for centuries man has been trying to get rid of sex he has created many kinds of perversions. Homosexuality has arisen because we have deprived people of heterosexuality. Homosexuality was born as a religious phenomenon in the monasteries because we forced monks to live together in one place and nuns to live in one place, and we separated them by great walls.

Still now there are Catholic monasteries in Europe where for twelve hundred years not a single woman has entered -- not even a six-months baby, female baby, has been allowed to enter. What kind of people are living there who are afraid of a six-month-old girl?

What kind of people? Must have become very much perverted, must be very much afraid they might do something. They cannot trust themselves.

Homosexuality is BOUND to happen. It happens only in monasteries and in the army --

because these are the two places where we don't allow men and women to mix. Or it happens in boys' and girls' hostels; there also we don't allow them to mix. The whole phenomenon of homosexuality is a by-product of this whole stupid upbringing.

Homosexuality will disappear from the world the day we allow men and women to meet naturally.

From their very childhood we start separating them. If a boy is playing with girls we condemn him. We say, "What are you doing? Are you a sissy? You are a boy, you are a man! Be a man, don't play with girls!" If a boy is playing with dolls we immediately condemn him: "This is for girls."

If a girl is trying to climb a tree we stop her immediately: "This is not right; this is against feminine grace." And if a girl tries and persists and is rebellious she is called a tomboy; she is not respected. We start creating these ugly divisions. Girls enjoy climbing trees; it is such a beautiful experience. And what is wrong in playing with dolls? A boy can carry dolls, because in life he will have to meet dolls and then he will be at a loss as to what to do!

Loka, this whole phenomenon has nothing to do with you personally. It is a social disease spread all over the world.

Two English gentlemen of the old school were discussing old acquaintances one evening in their London club. "What," asked one, "ever became of old Cholmondeley?"

"Why, didn't you hear? Cholmondeley went to Africa on a game hunt, and, by Jove, the chap took up with an ape!"

"An ape? Is the old boy queer?" "Heavens, no! It was a female "

If it is a female, even though an ape, it is perfectly okay.

We create these conditionings so deeply that out of so much conditioning sometimes people start revolting against them. Sex should be taken VERY naturally -- we have been taking IT very seriously. Either we condemn IT as ugly, animalistic, or we raise it to something divine, but we never accept it as human and we never accept it as fun.

Basically it is fun, it is a good sport! And humanity is going to remain burdened with ugly nonsense if we don't accept its beauty as a sport. It is good physical activity too, and the best of exercises.

You can ask the heart specialists. Now they say sexual activity prevents heart attacks.

One thing is certain, that no man has ever had a heart attack while making love. In every other kind of activity heart attacks have happened, but never making love. Have you ever heard that anybody had a heart attack making love and died? No, never. It is a natural physical activity, and fun, a good sport.

If you take it non-seriously, then there is no need to be worried even if you are attracted to women. Don't be worried -- because your worry is not going to help. It's perfectly okay. In a really free world which is unconditioned by the primitive, ignorant past, in a really enlightened world, we will accept all these things. Yes, once in a while you may love a woman or a man. Nothing is wrong in it, because inside you both are there. Each man is both a man and a woman, and each woman is both a woman and a man, because you are born out of the meeting of one man and one woman. So half of you comes from your father and half of you comes from your mother; part of you is man and part of you is

woman.

So there is nothing much to be worried about. It may be that your man part is attracted towards other women, but because biologically you are a woman you feel afraid. No need to be afraid! Take things easily -- that is my basic approach. Take it easy. And by taking things easy one can go beyond them more comfortably, conveniently, quickly, than by taking things seriously. If you take them seriously you become entangled with them, you become burdened with them.

And this is not such a big problem. There are bigger problems, Loka.

The famous Greek shipowner, Ori Oristotle, was having a house built on a large piece of land in Greece. He said to the architect, "Don't disturb that tree over there, because directly under that tree is where I had my first love."

"How sentimental, Mr. Oristotle," said the architect "Right under that tree?"

"Yes," continued Ori Oristotle. "And don't touch that tree over there either, because that is where her mother stood watching while I was having my first love affair."

"Her mother just stood there while you were screwing her daughter?" asked the architect.

"Yes," said the Greek shipowner.

"But, Mr. Oristotle, what did her mother say?" "Baaa."

There are greater problems, Loka. Your problem is nothing -- at least you are attracted to other women, at least to other human beings. Perfectly okay. A little outlandish, but not too serious. Things like that have been happening always. Now people have become more courageous and they ask questions -- particularly in the West people have become more honest. Now no Indian will ask such a question -- not that things like that are not happening in India, they are happening, but no Indian will have courage enough to ask such a question.

Loka, you asked the question. I am happy. This is sincerity, this is authenticity.

One should be able to expose oneself as one is. The West is becoming freer; the East is very much repressed. And because the East is very much repressed it will take a longer time for the East to get rid of its perversions. The West is going to transcend sooner.

When the Queen had her baby, she was being offered congratulations by hundreds of people when a certain gentleman walked by.

"What do you do for a living?" "I'm a photographer," he replied.

"Isn't that remarkable?" said the Queen. "My brother-in-law is a photographer!" "Isn't that remarkable," he said. "My brother-in-law is a queen."

Things like that are always happening everywhere. It is part of the human scene. So don't make much fuss about it, and don't get disturbed.

You say: I FIND MYSELF MOSTLY ATTRACTED TO WOMEN AND VERY RARELY DEEPLY TO A MAN.

Good -- at least you find yourself attracted to somebody. There is a possibility of love.

There are people so dull, so dead, so insensitive, that they only feel attracted towards money, or political power, or fame. You are in a far better situation; at least you are not in love with money. Even Ori Oristotle was in a far better situation than the people who are in love with money. But these people are not thought to be perverted. They are the REAL perverts: money is their whole life, their devotion; money is their god.

You are attracted to women: perfectly good. Go deep into relationship with women. If you make an anxiety out of it you will not be able to go deep in relationship with a woman. If you go deep in relationship with women, my understanding is that sooner or later you will find that this relationship cannot be very fulfilling, because two women are alike. And a relationship needs a certain tension to be fulfilling, a certain polarity to be fulfilling. Two women in love, or two men in love, will have a good relationship, but it will not be very spicy. It

will be a little dull, monotonous, a little boring.

But if you go deeply, only then will you become aware of these things. Your anxiety will not allow you to go deep, and then your whole life you will remain interested and attracted towards women.

My approach about all problems is that if anything is there, go DEEPLY into it, so either you find the treasure, if it has any treasure, or you find that it is empty. In both cases you are enriched. If you find the treasure, of course you are enriched. If you find it is empty, you are finished with it.

Two women in relationship can't have a very great love affair. It will remain on plain ground; it will not have heights and it will not have depths. So people who are afraid of heights and depths will find it very comfortable, convenient. Hence the homosexuals are called 'gay' people. They look gay; they look far more gay than heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals are always going into turmoils -- more conflict, more fight, less understanding. It is bound to be so, because two women can understand each other far better than one man and one woman can understand each other. Two men can understand each other far better because they are of the same type, but the spark will be missing.

Yes, a certain gayness will be there, but NOT great poetry, not great romance -- mild.

The relationship will be homeopathic. It will not have adventure, surprises: safe, secure, more understanding, less conflict, less nagging.

With a man and a woman there ARE problems -- problems of misunderstanding. They live in totally different worlds; they are two different poles of consciousness. The woman thinks intuitively, the man thinks intellectually, hence there is no meeting. The woman simply jumps to conclusions without going into any process of thought. And the man goes step by step, comes to a conclusion. The man tries hard to come to a conclusion and the woman simply jumps to the conclusion. She has an intuitive feeling. Hence you cannot deceive a woman, particularly not your wife. That IS impossible; nobody has ever been able to do it. She will immediately see through you -- through and through, because her way of seeing is not your way of seeing. She comes from the back door, and you don't know that you have a back door too. You arrange everything

at the front door and she comes from the back door and knows all the ins and outs.

The husband comes home prepared. What he is going to say, how he is going to answer --

he rehearses everything. And the moment he looks at the woman all rehearsing goes to the winds and he is almost like a small child, stuttering. Even a very great person like Napoleon was very much afraid of women. His own wife he was very much afraid of, because she would see through and through him.

Man's mind goes zigzag, woman goes direct like an arrow. She does not listen to what you say, she looks into your eyes. She listens to HOW you say it. She sees your trembling hand, she sees your eyes are trying to avoid her. She does not listen to what you are saying; that is irrelevant -- she knows that that is a story; you have managed to put it together on the way from the pub to the house. But she has more attunement with your body language. And your body language is more authentic, because you cannot yet manage to control it, manage to deceive by it. Even great actors are not able to manage the body language.

For example, if somebody talks about women, you may be a celibate and you may be against all relationship and all sex -- that is all in your head -- but somebody can go on watching your eyes. Try this on some friend who is a BRAHMACHARIN, a celibate, against all relationship and sex, and all those ugly things -- just try this on him. Just start describing Sophia Loren naked: all the curves and the beautiful body. And don't listen to what he says, look at his eyes. His pupils will become big -- that he cannot control, that is beyond his control. The moment you say, "Sophia Loren!" his eyes are no more the same.

Watch how he is moving his body: he will sit erect. If he was leaning back he will come forward, closer, to listen. Although he is saying, "Nonsense! What are you talking about?

This is all dirty," he is all alert. Just now he was yawning; now he no longer yawns.

This I have tried. Whenever I see that somebody is yawning somewhere, I know now a joke is needed -- and immediately the yawning disappears. Even Sheela comes back from her sleep! Once she is certain that now I am going to talk metaphysics she falls asleep, she goes to sleep, she takes a rest. But the moment

I start a joke, even in her sleep she remains that much alert: immediately she is back.

The body has its own language just as the mind has its own language. The spirit also has its own language. A man and woman are bound to be in conflict, but that conflict takes them far away and again and again creates situations for mini honeymoons.

A homosexual relationship is a little saccharine -- too sweet, a little bit nauseating. But a man/woman relationship is always on the rocks. You cannot fall asleep, the other will not allow it. They go on goading each other. And they are such different worlds; THAT is the attraction.

Loka, go as deeply as possible in your relationships with women -- don't be worried.

Soon you will see that there is a different kind of relationship that can exist only between polar opposites. Then go into a deep relationship with a man, because only by going deep in relationship with a man will you be able to know that all relationships fall short. Even the man/woman relationship falls short; it never brings you the contentment it promises.

And only by your own experience -- not by what Buddhas say, not by what I say

-- only by your own experience will you one day be able to go beyond all relationships. Then you can be happy alone. And the person who can be happy alone is REALLY an individual. If your happiness depends on the other, you are a slave; you are not yet free, you are in bondage.

When you are happy alone, when you can live with yourself, there is no intrinsic necessity to be in relationship. That does not mean that you will not relate. But to relate is one thing, and to be in relationship is quite another. Relationship is a kind of bondage, relating is sharing. You will relate with many people, you will share your joy with many people, but you will not depend on anyone in particular and you will not allow anybody else to depend on you. You will not be dependent, and you will not allow anybody to be dependent on you. Then you live out of freedom, out of joy, out of love.

You say: I AM A LITTLE BOTHERED ABOUT IT.

Don't be bothered about it at all, not even a little. En joy it. It is not your fault.

You have been brought up by Christians, Jainas, Hindus, Buddhists -- it is not your fault. What can you do? You come into a world which is already conditioned, and you come so innocent, so clean, unaware of what is going to happen to you. And your parents start writing on you, and the whole society starts writing things on you. It is not your fault, it is simply symptomatic of an ill society.

We have to transform the society. But the only way to transform it is to transform individuals; there is no other way, there is no shortcut. Enjoy it, it is good -- not enough but still good. It will lead you into heterosexual relationship; that is a little better. Even that is not going to satisfy. Then that will lead you into meditativeness, into solitude, into that beauty, that benediction, which happens only when you are alone.

That's what sannyas is all about: learning how to be alone and yet joyous. Be Still and Know

Chapter #2

Chapter title: No Sin, No Virtue

2 September 1979 am in Buddha Hall Archive

code: 7909020

ShortTitle: BESTIL02

Audio: Yes Video: Yes

Length:

0

mins

The first question Question 1

OSHO DOES WITNESSING ALWAYS BRING JOY? THE MOMENTS THAT I CALL WITNESSING SOMETIMES FEEL DISTANT -- ALMOST COLD IN THEIR

NEUTRALITY. OTHER TIMES IT IS LIKE SPROUTING WINGS AND SOARING

IN JOY OVER THE OPEN SEA.

Deva Abhiyana,

THE STATE OF WITNESSING IS NEITHER COLD NOR hot. It is neither

happiness nor unhappiness. It is neither dark nor light. It is neither life nor death. The Upanishads say NETI NETI -- neither this nor that.

If you feel joy you have already become identified; witnessing is gone. If you feel sad you are no more a witness; you have forgotten witnessing, you have become involved.

You are colored by your psychology of the moment. Joy, sadness, all these qualities, are part of your psychology. And witnessing is a transcendence; it is not psychological.

The whole art of meditation consists in witnessing. Then what does it bring? At the most we can say it brings total peace; it simply brings eternal silence. You cannot define it as joy. The moment you define it as joy you have fallen into the world of duality again.

Then you have become part of what is passing, you have started clinging to it.

The state of witnessing remains indefinable. That's why Buddha has not used the word

'bliss' at all, because it can give you a wrong idea -- because in your mind bliss will mean happiness. That's how you are going to translate it, to interpret it. Buddha has not used the word 'bliss', he has not used the word 'God'.

The word that he has used is 'absolute void' -- SHUNYAM. There will be nothing left, just absolute silence, absolute emptiness -- but not emptiness in the English meaning of the word. SHUNYAM has a totally different connotation; it has been translated and can only be translated as emptiness. But emptiness is negative, emptiness means something is missing, emptiness means loneliness. Emptiness is not a life quality but a death quality.

SHUNYAM IS not negative; it is not even positive, how can it be negative? It simply means you are alone -- not lonely, but alone. You are not missing anything. You are spacious, there is great space in you, but it is not empty of something. On the contrary, it is utter plenitude. It is full of emptiness -- if you allow me the expression It is FULL of emptiness, but one is fulfilled.

SHUNYAM IS blossoming in you. There is great peace but not joy, because joy becomes positive; but not sadness, because sadness becomes Negative. Peace is exactly the middle, neither cold nor hot. It is not neutrality, it is not indifference. It is not a state where you turn your back towards something, you are no more interested No, there is no question of disinterest, indifference or neutrality. You are utterly there, absolutely there, totally there, but like a mirror, just reflecting whatsoever is the case.

Joy passes by and the mirror reflects it, but the mirror does not become joy itself; it never becomes identified. And sadness comes like a cloud, a dark cloud, and passes by, and the mirror reflects it. The mirror has no prejudice against it. The mirror is not favorable to joy and unfavorable to sadness. The mirror has no liking, no disliking; it simply reflects whatsoever is the case. It is not neutral, otherwise it will not reflect; it does not turn its back towards things. It is not indifferent, because indifference again means you are already prejudiced; you have a certain conclusion. It is not disinterested and you cannot say it is interested -either. It is a transcendence.

Abhiyana, don't get identified with the joy that comes -- watch it. Remain a

watcher on the hills, a mirror. Reflect it but don't cling to it. A bird on the wing...and the lake reflects it.

The Zen people say this is the state of Buddha-hood. The bird has no mind to be reflected in the lake and the lake has no mind to reflect the bird, but the bird on the wing...and the lake reflects it. You see the point: the bird has no mind to be reflected and the lake has no mind to reflect the bird, but the bird IS reflected. It simply happens that the lake is there and the bird is on the wing...the reflection is bound to happen -- it is natural! The bird is gone; the lake does not miss the bird, it does not hanker for it, it does not long for it, it does not hope that it will come again. It does not go into the past, into the memories, or into the future projections. The bird has flown; it never thinks of the lake again, it never desires to be there again. One day it may be there again, and again it will be reflected, but no relationship is created. The HAPPENING IS there but no relationship is there.

This is what I call relating, not relationship. It is a fluid phenomenon. This is witnessing.

The second question Question 2

OSHO, IS IT ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE THAT A BUDDHA WILL ALWAYS BE

MISUNDERSTOOD?

Prem Madira,

YES, IT IS ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE. It can't be otherwise. A Buddha is bound to be misunderstood. If a Buddha is not misunderstood then he is not a Buddha at all. Why is it so? -- because the Buddha lives in a state which is beyond mind, and we live IN

minds. To translate something from the beyond to the mind is the most impossible thing in the world. It can t be done, although every Buddha has tried to do it. That too is inevitable; no Buddha can avoid it.

The Buddha HAS to say the unsayable, he has to express the inexpressible, he

has to define the indefinable. He has to do this absurd act, because the moment he reaches beyond the mind great compassion arises. He can see people stumbling in the dark, he can see people suffering unnecessarily -- creating their own nightmares, creating their own hell and drowning in their own created hells. How can he avoid feeling compassion?

And the moment compassion arises he wants to communicate to them that this is your own doing, that you can get out of it; that there is a way out of it, that there is a state beyond it; that life is not what you think it is -- your thinking about life is just like the thinking of a blind man about light. The blind man can go on thinking about light, but he will never be able to come to a true conclusion. His conclusions may be very logical, but still they will miss the experience. Light is an experience; you don t need logic for it --

what you need is eyes.

Buddha has eyes -- and eyes are attained only when you have gone beyond the mind, when you have become a witness of the mind, when you have attained to a higher state than psychology; when you know that you are not your thoughts, not your body, when you know that you are only knowing -- the energy that reflects, the energy that is capable of seeing: that you are pure seeing.

Once Buddha was asked, Who are you?" He was such a beautiful man and the Buddhahood had conferred such grace on him, that many times he was asked, Who are you?" He looked like an emperor or a god who had come from heaven, and he lived like a beggar! Again and again he was asked, "Who are you?" And the man who was asking was a great scholar. He said, "Are you from the world of gods? Are you a god?"

Buddha said, "No."

"Then are you a GANDHARVA?

GANDHARVAS are the musicians of the gods. Buddha had such music around him --

the music of silence, the sound of no sound, one hand clapping -- that it was natural to ask him, "Are you a GANDHARVA, a celestial musician?"

Buddha said, "No."

And the man went on asking. There are many categories in Hindu mythology from gods to man. Then finally he asked, "Are you a great king, a CHAKRAVARTIN, one who rules over the whole world?"

And Buddha said, "No."

Annoyed, the scholar asked, "Are you a man, or not even that?"

Buddha said. 'Don't be annoyed, but what can I do? I have to state the truth as it is. I am not a man either."

Now the scholar was very very angry, enraged. He said, Then are you an animal?"

Buddha said, "No, not an animal, not a tree, not a rock." Then who are you? the man asked.

Buddha said, I am awareness, just pure awareness, just a mirror reflecting all that is. '

When this moment arrives, great compassion happens Buddha has said that those who know are bound to feel compassion for those who don't know. They start trying to help.

And the first thing that has to be done is to communicate to people who are blind that eyes are possible, that you are not really blind but only keeping your eyes closed. You can open your eyes. You are not born blind, you have only been taught to remain blind.

Your society teaches you to be blind because the society needs blind people. They are good slaves because they are always dependent on the leaders, politicians, pundits, priests. They are very convenient people, they never create any trouble. They are never rebels. They are obedient, always ready to submit to any kind of nonsense, to any stupid politician, to any stupid priest.

And in fact, who else wants to be a politician except stupid people, and who wants to be a priest except stupid people? These are the dimensions for the mediocre, for the inferior.

Those who are suffering from an inferiority complex, they become politicians -- just to prove that they are not inferior, to the world and to themselves.

The society, the establishment, wants you to be blind. From the very beginning it teaches every child: "You are blind"; it conditions every child: "You are blind." Your whole educational system is nothing but a conspiracy against every child -- to keep you blind. It does not teach you meditation, because meditation is the art of opening your eyes.

When somebody arrives at awareness he naturally feels great compassion. All around he sees that people who have eyes -- who have inbuilt capacities to see the truth, who are from their very birth capable of becoming Buddhas, enlightened ones, awakened ones --

are suffering. And the whole suffering is ridiculous! It need not be so. Compassion happens and compassion starts communicating. But communication is difficult, impossible.

Buddha speaks from the hilltop and you live in the dark valleys where light never reaches. He talks in words of light; by the time they reach you their meaning changes. By the time your mind catches hold of them it colors them in its own color.

It is not only so about Buddhas -- even ordinary communication seems to be impossible.

The husband cannot communicate with his wife, the parents cannot communicate with their children, the teachers cannot communicate with their students. What to say about Buddhas? People who exist on the same level, even THEY cannot communicate, because words are tricky things. You say one thing, but the moment it reaches the other person then it is in his power how to interpret it.

The Queen was traveling in England's back country when she saw a man, his wife, and a flock of children. Impressed, the Queen asked, "Are all of these your children?"

"Yes, Your Highness," answered the man.

"How many children do you have?" asked the English sovereign.

Sixteen, was the reply.

"Sixteen children," repeated Her Highness. "We should give you a knighthood." "He has one," piped up the lady, "but he won't wear it.

Or, if you have missed, another story for you:

Thor, the Germanic god of thunder, was feeling restless so he decided to have a weekend fling. Taking a handful of jewels from the Valhalla petty cash department he slipped down to earth, got himself an elegant disco suit and a few gold chains, and began hitting the Saturday night dance bars.

After a big night on the town he finally took home the most beautiful woman he had seen and spent the rest of the night and morning satisfying his heroic libido. When he got out of bed and began dressing he realized that the exhausted girl on the bed lacked his godly sexual stamina. By way of explanation, he leaned down over her and whispered, "Honey, I think you should know -- I am Thor."

Wide-eyed, the girl exclaimed, 'Thor! You big thon-of-a-bitch, I can't even thtand up!"

Ordinary communication, very mundane communication, even in the marketplace, is difficult. And a Buddha wants to communicate to you something which he has found in a state of no-mind, which he has found when all thoughts disappear, which he has found when even he himself is no more -- when the ego evaporates, when there is utter silence, absolute peace, the sky is without clouds.

Now how to bring this infinite experience into words? No word is adequate enough --

hence the misunderstanding.

Yes, Madira, it is absolutely inevitable that a Buddha will always be misunderstood. Only those few people can understand a Buddha who are disciples and devotees.

By disciple is meant one who has put aside all his prejudices, one who has put aside all his thoughts, and is ready to listen -- not to his own mind and his mind s interpretations, but to the words of Buddha; who is not in a state of argument

with the Buddha, who is not inside thinking about what Buddha is saying, who listens to a Buddha as you listen to classical music, who listens to a Buddha as you listen to the sound of running water, who listens to Buddha as you listen to the wind passing through the pine trees or the cuckoo calling from the distance. That is the state of a disciple, or if you rise a little higher and become a devotee.…

A devotee is one who has not only dropped his mind but has brought his heart in, who listens from the heart -- not from logic but from love. The disciple is on the way to being a devotee. The disciple is the beginning of being a devotee, and the devotee is the fulfillment of being a disciple.

Only these few people understand a Buddha. And in understanding a Buddha they are transformed, transported into another world -- the world of liberation, nirvana, light, love, benediction.

The third question Question 3

OSHO, JESUS SAID THAT HIS SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS WAS FOR THE

SALVATION OF THE WORLD FROM THE SINS OF MAN. PLEASE WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THIS.

Anand Geetam,

THE FIRST THING TO BE UNDERSTOOD about a man like Jesus is that whatsoever the church that is bound to grow around such a man says about him, it is bound to be wrong. What the Christian church says about Christ cannot be true. In fact the Christian priest does not represent Christ at all. He is the same old rabbi in new garments, the same old rabbi who was responsible for Jesus murder. The Pope is not a different kind of person.

It makes no difference whether it is a Jewish establishment or a Christian establishment or a Hindu establishment; all establishments function in the same way.

Jesus is a rebel, just as Buddha is or Lao Tzu is. When the church starts establishing itself it starts destroying the rebelliousness of Jesus, Buddha, because rebellion cannot go with an establishment. It starts imposing its own ideas -- once Jesus is gone it is very easy to impose your own ideas. It starts selecting what to keep in the Bible and what not to keep.

Many things have been dropped, many things have not been included in it. For example, the Gospel of Thomas has not been included in the New Testament. It was just discovered a few years ago -- and it is the MOST important gospel. The four gospels that have been included are nothing compared to it, but it is very rebellious.

It seems Thomas has simply reported Jesus without polluting, contaminating, his message. That must have been the reason why the gospel has not been included in the authorized version of the New Testament. And those gospels which have been included, they have also been edited. For centuries conferences went on editing them, destroying them, distorting them.

I know Jesus because I know meditation. My knowing of Jesus is not through the Bible, it is not through Christian theology. I know Jesus directly. I know Jesus because I know myself; that s my way of knowing all the Buddhas.

The moment you know your own Buddhahood you have come to know all the Buddhas; the experience is the same. All differences are in the mind; the moment you transcend mind there are no differences left. How can there be differences in absolute void? Two voids can only be exactly the same. Minds are bound to be different because they consist of thoughts. When there are clouds in the sky then each cloud is different, but when there are no clouds at all then the sky is one and the same.

I don't know Jesus through Christian theology; I know him directly. And my knowing is that he cannot talk in terms of sacrifice -- first thing, the very first. A man like Jesus does not talk in terms of sacrifice; it is celebration, not sacrifice. He is going to meet his God dancing, singing. It is not sacrifice; he is not a martyr. The Christian church tries to make him the greatest martyr, the greatest man who has sacrificed himself for the salvation of the world from the sins of man. In the first place it is not sacrifice -- sacrifice looks business-like -- it is celebration! Jesus is celebrating his life and his death.

Secondly: nobody can solve the problems of others, nobody can be the salvation of the world. And you can see it: the world is still the same. Twenty centuries have passed and Christian priests go on talking nonsense, that he sacrificed himself for the salvation of the world. But where is the salvation of the world? Either he failed, he could not manage...

that they cannot accept, that he failed. Then what happened? The world seems to be exactly the same -- nothing has changed! Humanity remains in the same misery. But Jesus cannot have said, I have come for the salvation of the world.

But it happens always when a church starts establishing itself that it has to create such ideas, otherwise who is going to listen to the priests? Jesus is salvation -- not only that but the ONLY salvation!

Just the other night I was looking at a book: JESUS, THE ONLY WAY. Why the only way? Is Buddha not a way? Is Lao Tzu not a way? Is Zarathustra not a way? Is Moses not a way? Is Mohammed not a way? There are infinite ways to reach God. Why make God so poor? -- only one way?

But the Christian priest is not interested in God: he is interested in creating a business. He has to claim that Jesus is the ONLY way, that all other ways are wrong. He is in search of customers.

That's why every religion creates fascists and fanatics. EVERY religion claims, My way is the only right way -- only through me can you arrive at God. If you go on some other way you are destined for hell, you are doomed." This is a fascist way of thinking and this creates fanatics. And all religious people are fanatics, and the world has suffered very much from this fanatical approach. It is TIME, ripe time now, to drop all kinds of fascist and fanatical attitudes.

Jesus is a way, but the way has to be walked. The way can go on lying there; it is not going to help you. Just by being there, just by being crucified, Jesus cannot be the salvation of the world -- otherwise it would have happened! Then what are we doing now? Then what are the priests doing now? What is the Pope doing now?

Just the other day somebody asked: 'Osho, have you heard? The new Pope has done a miracle?

Yes, I have heard: he has made a blind man lame. What else can these popes do?

What are these popes doing now? The world's salvation has happened! Now no religion is needed and no church is needed. Even Christ is not needed any more! The work is finished. I have heard:

One young man came from medical college with a gold medal; he had topped the university. His father was also a physician. The father said, "Now that you have come I would like to go to the mountains for a rest. For years I have not taken even a single holiday. Now you look after my practice and for one month I would like to go to the mountains."

So the old man went to the mountains. After one month when he came back the young doctor received the father at the airport and said, 'Dad, do you know? -- the old woman whom you have been treating for thirty years and could not manage to cure -- I have cured her within one month! '

The father simply hit his head with his hand and said, You have destroyed the whole business! It is because of her that you could go to medical college. And I was hoping that your younger brother would also become a doctor. You fool! What have you done? That woman was our business! You have finished my whole life s career!

If Jesus has REALLY done the work of salvation, then there is no point in Mohammed coming -- Mohammed came after Jesus. Then there is no point in Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, coming, no point in Kabir coming. He has closed the shop! But it has not happened.

Buddha says: Buddhas can only point the way."

But the fanatic disciples always want to claim.… What to say about Jesus? -- even Jainas claim that Mahavira came to the world for the salvation of humanity. Now it may be a little bit relevant with Jesus because he speaks in such a way that he can be very easily misinterpreted, but Mahavira is VERY clear. He says in absolutely definite terms that nobody can save another: "I have not come to save anybody. If I can save myself, that is enough." Even a man like Mahavira who has stated this absolutely, his disciples -- the Jaina MUNIS and the Jaina monks and the Jaina pundits -- go on claiming that he came for the salvation of humanity.

Why are people after humanity? And how can you manage it? You have not created the misery for the world so how can you destroy it? If Jesus is the cause

of the misery of the world, then certainly he can withdraw it. If HE is the person who has imprisoned you, he can open the gates, unlock the doors and tell you to leave, and you are free. But he is not the person to do it. You have done it; your hell is created by you. What can Jesus do about it?

But this stupid logic has gone very deep in the mind of humanity -- for a certain reason.

We always want somebody else to be responsible -- for our misery, for our happiness, we always want somebody else to be responsible. We don't want to be responsible! To avoid responsibility we become trapped in these kinds of ideas.

Now, Christians say Adam and Eve committed the original sin and the whole of humanity is suffering. It is so patently foolish! Scientists say that humanity has existed for millions of years. Millions of years ago, a couple, Adam and Eve, committed a sin and we are suffering for it. Can you think of a more ridiculous thing? -- that you are imprisoned because millions of years ago somebody committed a crime. You did not commit it, how can you suffer for it? And what original sin are they talking about? It is neither original nor sin! What Adam did was a simple phenomenon: he disobeyed the father.

Every child has to disobey the father. Unless a child disobeys the father he never becomes mature. It is nothing, original, it is very simple and natural. It is very psychological. There comes an age when every child has to say NO to the parents. If he does not say no to the parents he will not have a spine; he will be spineless. If he cannot say no to the parents, he will be a slave his whole life. He will never attain to individuality.

Adam and Eve did not commit any sin; they simply became mature. They said no, they disobeyed. When your child goes behind the house and starts smoking don't be worried too much; he is simply disobeying you That is part of growth. If he never disobeys you, be worried. Take him to the psychoanalyst -- something is wrong with him. If he ALWAYS obeys you then he has no soul; he is abnormal, he is not normal.

Be happy when your child disobeys you. Thank God that now he has started moving towards becoming an individual. It is only by disobeying, rebelling, that a child attains authentic individuality. If parents are wise they will be happy.

And I think God cannot be so foolish as Christian priests are. God must have

been happy the day Adam and Eve disobeyed; he must have rejoiced. He must have sung a song saying, "Now my children are be-coming mature." I CAN'T see him being annoyed. I can't conceive a God who cannot understand such a simple psychological phenomenon.

You have to give your God a little more intelligence than Sigmund Freud! It is such a simple fact of life that each child has to disobey. It is not sin -- disobedience is not sin.

And what is original about it? It is nothing unique and it did not only happen millions of years ago: it happens each time a child starts growing. You will see it happening in your child somewhere near the age of three or four the child starts asserting his freedom.

That's why if you want to remember your life you can remember only back to the age of four or at the most three; beyond that all is dark. Why? You had no individuality, hence no memory. You attained your first individuality when you were three or four. Girls attain at nearabout three, boys attain at nearabout four; they are always lagging behind, and this is going to be their whole life pattern. Apparently the husband is walking ahead, but deep down he is always behind the wife.

I have heard a story:

The great King Akbar once asked his ministers, "My wife was saying to me that all my ministers are hen-pecked. Is it true? I want to know the truth and please don't try to deceive me. If I find that you have deceived me, then death will be the penalty. So stand in a row on the right all those who are hen-pecked husbands, and on the left those who are not."

All except one moved to the line of hen-pecked husbands -- embarrassed, hesitating, but they did not want to be false to the King. They knew perfectly well, "He will go into deep research, and sooner or later, if he calls our wives, we will be caught. So it is better to say it once and finish it."

But one man, whom the King had never thought very heroic, who was the most cowardly, was standing alone. The King said, "I am happy. At least there is one person who is not hen-pecked."

The man said, "Wait! Don't misunderstand me. When I was coming from my

home my wife said, 'Avoid crowds. That's why I am standing here -- just to avoid the crowd. If she comes to know that I was standing in the crowd there will be difficulty, sir, and I don't want any difficulties."

Nearabout the age of three or four That's why I say this parable of Adam and- Eve has so many aspects; I am never tired of talking about it from different angles. It was Eve who was the first to disobey -- that means one year ahead. Adam came to his senses a little later; in fact he was persuaded by Eve.

If the world is really left free then women will seduce men, not men women; that will be the natural course. And in fact that's exactly what happens right now, but in a very subtle way. The woman seduces the male, but seduces in such a subtle way that the gross male mind cannot understand it. The gross male mind thinks, I am taking all the initiative," and the woman goes on laughing deep down; she knows who is pulling the strings. She never takes a single step on her own visibly; you cannot see it. She always allows the man to approach her; she can wait. She trusts her own capacity to pull the man. She does not want to wag her tail; she always manages, persuades the man to wag his tail.

That's what happened: Eve ate the fruit first, disobeyed God, and then Adam followed.

This is not something that happened once; it happens always. It happens to every child and it is good that it happens. It is nearabout four that the child starts feeling a kind of individuality of his own; he starts defining himself.

Lanahan, an Irish political prisoner, escaped from jail by digging a tunnel that opened into a school playground. As he emerged in the open air Lanahan could not help shouting at a small girl, I am free, I am free!"

"That's nothing," said the girl, "I am four."

There is a time when the child wants to declare to the world that "I am here!" that I am!"

He wants to define himself, and the only way to define himself is by disobedience. So there is nothing original about it and nothing like sin; it is a simple process of growth.

And because Christianity has been denying it as a simple process of growth, it

has not helped humanity to become mature.

All the religions have been trying to keep humanity immature, juvenile, childish. They are all afraid that once humanity becomes mature then they will not be of any value; they will lose all luster. They will not be able to exploit a mature humanity; they can exploit only children.

So what sin has humanity committed so that Jesus is needed to come for the salvation of the world?

I would like to make it absolutely clear to you that there is no need for ANY salvation.

Secondly: if there is any need you feel, it can't be done by anybody else except you yourself. Thirdly: you are not living in sin; you are living in nature -- but if nature is condemned you start feeling guilty. And that is the trade-secret of the priests: to make you feel guilty.

I don't think Jesus said that his sacrifice on the cross was for the salvation of the world from the sins of man. Priests must have imposed their ideas on Jesus. The New Testament was written centuries afterwards, and then for centuries it was edited, changed, and the words that Jesus spoke were in a language which is no more alive -- Aramaic. It was not even Hebrew -- a dialect of Hebrew, but different in many ways.

When Jesus' words were translated -- first into Latin -- a great change happened: they lost their original quality, the flavor. They lost something very essential: their soul. And when from Latin they were translated into English, something was again lost. For example, a few words you can meditate over: 'Repentance' is one of the key words because Jesus uses it again and again, says to his disciples: Repent! Repent ye, because the Day of Judgment is very close. He repeats it so many times that it must have been of tremendous value to him. But what does it mean -- 'repent'? Ask the Christian priest; he will say,

"This is a simple word; everybody knows what it means: repent for your sins, repent for your guilt, repent for all that you have done." And the priest can be helpful; he can help you in the ways of repentance. But the word 'repent' has nothing to do with repentance.

Jesus' word for repent simply means 'return'; it does not mean repentance at all.

'Turn in'

it means, 'return to the source', it means, 'return to your own being'. That's what meditation is all about: returning to the source, returning to the center of the cyclone, returning to your very being.

Now you can see the difference. When you use the English word 'repent' it has something very ugly about it: sin, guilt, the priest, confession; this is the climate of the English word

'repent'. But the Aramaic word simply means return to the source, return! Return, don't waste time.

And that's how it is with almost all key words.

It is almost impossible to understand Jesus through the priests. The only pure way, the only possible way, is to go in, return inside. There you will meet Christ- consciousness.

The only way to understand Christ is to become a Christ. Never be a Christian -- be a Christ! Never be a Buddhist -- be a Buddha! Never be a Hindu -- be a Krishna! And if you want to be a Krishna, Christ or Buddha, then you need not go into the scriptures and you need not ask the scholars: you will have to ask the mystics how to go in.

That's exactly what I am doing here: helping you to become aware of yourself. And the moment you know yourself you will be surprised: you have never committed a sin. Sin is the invention of the priest to create guilt in you.

You don't need any salvation. All that you need is a little shaking up so you can wake up.

You don t need priests. You certainly need awakened people, because only the awakened ones can shake those who are fast asleep and dreaming. And humanity needs to be free of guilt, free of the idea of sin, free of the idea of repentance. Humanity needs innocence, and the priests don't allow you to be innocent; they corrupt your minds.

Beware of the priests. They are the people who crucified Jesus -- how can they interpret Jesus? They are the people who have always been against the Buddhas

-- and the irony is that finally they become the interpreters. The fourth question

Question 4

OSHO WHY CAN'T I TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO BELONG TO OTHER RELIGIONS?

Maria,

IT IS BECAUSE OF YOUR UPBRINGING. You have been brought up as a fascist, as a fanatic -- as Christians, Hindus, Jainas, Mohammedans; you have not been brought up as human beings. You are hypnotized from your very childhood; you are living in a kind of hypnosis. To live as a Christian or as a Mohammedan is to live in a hypnosis, is not to live really.

That's why you cannot tolerate people who belong to other religions, because deep down you know they are wrong, they are stupid, they are committing a great crime. They have to be put right, they have to be brought under your flag, into your flock -- because only Jesus saves or only Buddha saves. You cannot tolerate them because they look like pretenders.

To a Christian, a Buddhist is a pretender, because God has only one son. It is very strange

-- why should God have only one son? Is he in favor of birth control? But Jesus is the only-begotten son of God, and the Buddhists claim that Buddha has arrived, that he has attained. It becomes intolerable, the very idea. It creates suspicion in you, it creates doubt. Maybe the Buddhists are right, and you don t want to see this doubt inside yourself, because doubt is heavy and doubt disturbs your peace and doubt disturbs your sleep.

Hence you would not like to read the Buddhist scriptures, you would not like to read the Koran, you would not like to read Mahavira, because their words can be dangerous. Or even if you read them you will read them as ordinary books, because there is only one holy book, the Bible, or only one holy book, the Koran. Your book is the only holy book and all other books are unholy.

There are many things involved in this attitude, Maria. And this is not only your attitude: this is the attitude of the greater masses. It is good that you have become aware of it.

You ask me: WHY CAN'T I TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO BELONG TO OTHER

RELIGIONS?

First: they create doubt in you, they create suspicion, skepticism, about your own beliefs.

And you are so settled with your beliefs, they are so consoling; they are like tranquilizers.

And the person who lives in a different way, behaves in a different way, worships a different God, meditates in a different way, prays in a different way, certainly creates doubt. Maybe he is right -- who knows? You certainly don't know. Whatsoever you have been told has been told by others; it is not your own knowing so you don't have any trust in it.

You have repressed your doubts deep down inside yourself; those doubts are alive, very much alive. They are ready to explode any moment -- any opportunity and they will surface. The people of other religions become an opportunity for the doubts to surface.

In Jaina scriptures it is written that if you are on a road being followed by a mad elephant and you come across a Hindu temple, you can enter the temple and save your life, but it is better not to enter the temple and be crushed underneath the elephant, be killed by the elephant. Not to enter into the Hindu temple even to save your life! It is better to be killed but to remain a Jaina, then heaven is absolutely guaranteed.

And the same, exactly the same, is written in Hindu scriptures too, about the Jainas: don't enter a Jaina temple. It is better to die, be killed by a mad elephant, than be saved by going inside a Jaina temple. Why? -- because the Jaina priest may be saying something there, you may hear something. That may disturb you, may create doubt inside you. And doubt is dangerous, the door to hell; belief is the door to heaven.

The first thing, Maria: people who are not like you -- not only religiously, but people who dress differently from you -- even they are not liked.

That's why my disciples are disliked by the so-called Indian society . The reason is not that you are doing anything wrong; the reason is simply that you are different. And that is the problem: nobody likes the different person. People like you to be like them, exactly like them. Dress like them, behave like them, use the same language, go to the same temple -- and then you are accepted, because you don't create doubt.

Now my disciples are bound to create doubt, my sannyasins are bound to create doubt.

They are behaving in a totally different way they are behaving with freedom, and the slaves are bound to get disturbed. Slaves of tradition, slaves of orthodoxies, they are bound to get disturbed.

Just seeing a young man and a young woman walking together holding hands and it is enough to disturb the Hindu mind. It has repressed so much that all that repression starts coming up. They would also like to walk hand-in-hand with their beloveds but they cannot. If THEY cannot then they cannot allow anybody else to do the same.

In the West if you are walking hand-in-hand with a woman no problem arises, because the society is also the same. But walk hand-in-hand with a man, two men walking hand-in-hand, and people start looking at you. Something is wrong

-- you look homosexual, you look gay. It is dangerous!

Now homosexuals have been one of the tortured minorities in the world, very much tortured. In some countries they are killed. In some countries, for example in Iran, if it is found that two persons are living as homosexuals or lesbians, then the only punishment is death. What nonsense! They have not committed any crime against anybody, they have not harmed anybody! Two men living together, or two women living together, this should be nobody else's business. But there is a great fear of homosexuality, and the reason is that homosexuality has been repressed down the ages.

In fact, in every person homosexuality is repressed, because there are four stages. First the child is auto-erotic, then the child becomes homosexual, then the child becomes heterosexual, and the fourth and the ultimate state is that of

brahmacharya -- the person goes beyond sex.

Each child passes the stage of homosexuality. If he passes it naturally there will be no repression, but because he is not allowed to pass it naturally, repression happens; then a hangover remains. Now these people who kill homosexuals are really homosexuals themselves -- repressed homosexuals -- they cannot tolerate it.

It is so about everything: you cannot see the things that you are doing.

For example in India -- just the other day somebody asked: I was saying good- bye to my girlfriend; we hugged and kissed and we were caught by the police. It took two hours for us to manage somehow to get out of the trouble. They were going to put us in jail and they were trying to take us to the court, to make a case Now, kissing in a public place!

The questioner has asked, And I see Indians pissing in public places and nobody objects.

Kissing is objectionable, pissing is not?"

You don't know: this country belongs to Morarji Desai. Pissing is a holy act! If you are pissing in a public place you are doing something great -- you are making the earth holy.

It is not urine: it is water of life!

In India you can piss in a public place, you can go and defecate anywhere. The whole country is a latrine! But that is allowed. Nobody takes any note of it. Only Westerners when they come to India, they note it. They immediately note it -- what is happening?

Just coming from Santa Cruz airport to Bombay, the whole way on both sides people are defecating -- but NO Indian takes any note of it!

We only see things which are not accepted by us. We only see things which are strange.

The Indian has lived in the same way for centuries; he is not taking any note. It is just the natural way; no question arises in his mind.

You see beggars on the street. All the Westerners go on writing letters to me: "We feel very much disturbed." And no Indian seems to be disturbed at all -- what is the matter?

The Indians accept the beggars; that is accepted. They are suffering from their past karmas; nobody else is responsible for it. A beautiful strategy, a defense, they have created out of this theory, that everybody has to suffer according to his past lives. These people must have done something wrong, something really ugly; now they are suffering.

Every-body has to pay for their past, so there is no question of compassion.

In fact you will be surprised to know that there is a Jaina sect in India, TERAPANTH, whose head is Acharya Tulsi; this sect believes you should not help the beggar because by helping the beggar you will be disturbing his life pattern. If you help him then he will have to suffer some other time. He HAS to suffer! If a man has fallen into a well don't take him out, because if you take him out he will fall into another well some day -- so what is the point? Let him suffer and let him be finished with the karma so he is free from it -- one thing. And secondly, if you save this man from the well, if you take him out and he goes and kills somebody then you are also responsible for the murder. If you had not taken him out of the well he would not have committed the murder -- so fifty-fifty. Then beware: in some other life you will have to suffer also. You will have to fall in some well

-- maybe not so deep.…

So on two grounds Acharya Tulsi and his sect teach: don't help anybody. And if you look, the logic is there. If the theory of karma is right then Acharya Tulsi's conclusion is very logical; the logical conclusion cannot be doubted. But the theory itself is an invention; you don t suffer for your karmas in your next lives.

Life is immediate: if you put your hand in the fire you will be burnt right now, not in your next life. Each karma is immediately finished. You immediately suffer or you immediately enjoy the bliss, but there is no waiting. The whole theory is nonsense. To try to postpone for other lives is a strategy -- political, social.

Indians can accept the beggars but they cannot accept a couple kissing good-bye. But why should you be so much worried? If kissing is something bad, they may

be suffering from their past karmas -- let them suffer! Why should you interfere? But interference is there because you are sexually suppressed. Indian society is very much sexually suppressed; it cannot accept people who are sexually free.

So, Maria, it is not only a question of religion -- it is a question of everything. The different person creates doubt, the different person creates suspicion about whether what you are doing is right or wrong. You want to destroy the different person so that you can suppress your doubt again -- one thing.

Secondly: a person belonging to a different religion hurts your ego; you would like your religion to be the suprememost, the only religion. It hurts your ego that there are other religions also claiming the same supremacy

You have a double-bind mind: for yourself you think in one way, for others in a totally different way. If you claim your Bible as the holy book, you don't allow Mohammedans to claim their book as the holy book. And the Mohammedans don't allow the Hindus to call their Vedas the holy book. And the people who believe in the Vedas -- the Hindus --

they laugh at the nonsense of calling the Koran or the Bible holy books. The Vedas is the only holy book -- because the Vedas are written by God himself; all other books are written by human beings. Maybe they contain something good, but written by human beings they are bound to be fallible -- the Vedas are infallible.

This is the way of the ego.

Mrs. Keen and Mrs. Monahan were sitting on their stoop watching the apartment across the street, which was rented by a young Italian girl. As a steady stream of men entered and left at half-hour intervals they kept saying, She is a slut. She is no good. She is a disgrace to the neighborhood!"

Then after ten visitors, Father Gilhooley, the neighborhood priest, went in. "Oh my!" said Mrs. Keen. 'The poor girl must be sick.

Now you see the change! Immediately a different standard is applied.

Walsh stumbled out of a saloon and into a church he thought was a cathedral, and fell asleep. The sexton soon woke him and told him they were closing. "They don't close cathedrals," said Walsh.

"This is not a cathedral," said the sexton. "It is a Presbyterian church."

Walsh looked around and saw stained-glass windows of St. Luke, St. Mark and St.

Thomas.

"And since when," asked the Irishman, "did the saints become Presbyterians?" All the saints belong to YOUR religion!

Mahavira and Neminath are not even mentioned by Hindu books -- not even mentioned.

A man like Mahavira remains unmentioned in Hindu books. Jesus is not mentioned in any Jewish book. A man like Jesus remains unmentioned?

You apply double standards. For your own religion you have one valuation, for the others, different valuations. You don't weigh on the same weighing machine. This is the way of the ego; it is always doing it in every dimension of life.

And let me repeat again: each religion creates fascism in you. Each religion creates Adolph Hitlers because of this idea that "My way is the only right way." And when you are a fascist and when you are a fanatic you are murderous. You may not murder, but deep down you are murderous. You may not murder anybody, but one thing is certain: you will murder your qualities of love and compassion and brotherhood.

A group of young men -- all Irish Catholics -- go into a pub. They don't greet Abbie, one of the men already standing at the bar. Paddy, one of the young Irish fellows, asks his friends why they don't greet Abbie. "Oh, he is a Jew," they say, "and Jews are awful people. They killed our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paddy is very upset to hear this and goes over to Abbie and starts beating him up.

"Stop, stop!" shouts Abbie. "What are you doing this for?" "I'm doing it because Jews tortured Jesus and killed him."

"Yes, I know," says Abbie, "but it is nothing to do with me. That happened two thousand years ago."

Paddy gives him another blow and says, "I don't care. I only heard it ten minutes ago!"

I don't want you to be tolerant of other religions. Mahatma Gandhi used to teach people:

"Be tolerant of other religions." But if you become tolerant of other religions that simply means intolerance persists underground.

I don't teach tolerance; tolerance is ugly. It is better to be knowingly intolerant; at least the disease is on the surface and sooner or later you will become aware of it -- as Maria has become aware of it. If you become tolerant, as Gandhians have become tolerant, then the disease goes deep into the unconscious. On the surface you are very polite, sweet, and you say good things, that the Bible and the Gita, they say the same thing: ALLAH

ISHWAR TERE NAM SABKO SANMATI DE BHAGWAN -- all are names of

the same God, and let God give understanding to all." You go on saying these things, but deep down it is not so.

Mahatma Gandhi his whole life prayed morning and evening saying that Allah and Ram are the names of the same God. But when he was shot in Delhi...by a Poonaite, remember! Beware of the Poonaites! The man who murdered Gandhi, Nathuram Godse, was a Poonaite; Poona is one of the strongholds of Hindu orthodoxy. I have knowingly chosen a place to create trouble for you!

When Gandhi was shot dead he didn't say Allah. The last words were "Ram -- Hey Ram!

Oh Ram!" He forgot all about Allah. His whole life...but still deep down he knows that he is a Hindu. The Gita he says is his mother. And who is his father -- the Koran? That he never says anything about. The Gita is his mother but the Koran is not his father. And he chooses words from the Koran which are really nothing but echoes of the Gita, and he also chooses words from the Bible which are echoes from the Gita. He is REALLY

clinging to the Gita; the Gita is the criterion. Whatsoever is in the Gita is right; if

it is in the Koran, then too it is right because it is in the Gita. He leaves out everything that goes against the Gita. This is tolerance.…

I don't teach tolerance. I teach freedom from all the nonsense of being Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian. Be free from all prejudices. Be just a human being! And in that freedom you will find great joy, and in that freedom. for the first time you will feel love for other human beings, compassion, brotherhood. You will start feeling the whole universe as your family, your commune. And not only with human beings -- when the fascist in you has disappeared and the fanatic is gone, even with the trees and the birds and the animals you will have a communion. You will be constantly in a beautiful dialogue with existence.

Maria, drop all this nonsense. To be a Hindu, to be a Mohammedan, to be a Christian, to be a Jaina, to be a Buddhist, these are stupid hangovers from the past. Be finished with them, and in a single blow -- not slowly, not gradually. See the point and be finished with them RIGHT now, this very moment! Because who knows? -- tomorrow may come, may not come. Who knows? -- the next moment may come, may not come. This is the only moment available. Rebel against all nonsense! Be free!

Be Still and Know Chapter #3

Chapter title: No Question, No Answer 3 September 1979 am in Buddha Hall Archive

code: 7909030

ShortTitle: BESTIL03

Audio:

Yes Video:

Yes Length:

0

mins

The first question Question 1

OSHO, ALL QUESTIONS SEEM TO BE POINTLESS. ONLY THE ANSWERLESS

QUESTION OF LIFE REMAINS.

Anand Ali,

IT IS SO. ALL QUESTIONS NOT only seem to be pointless, they are. In your mind there is still a lurking doubt. Hence you say:

ALL QUESTIONS SEEM TO BE POINTLESS.

It is not a question that they SEEM, that they APPEAR -- they are. The moment you understand that they are pointless, even the answerless question of life will not remain.

Then there is mystery -- no questions, no answers. Then there is tremendous mystery.

One is not trying to solve it because it is not a problem. One is not seeking for any answer because it is not a question. One starts LIVING it. And the day you start living life as a mystery you have entered into God.

Life understood as a question creates science; life understood as a mystery creates religion.

And you say: ONLY THE ANSWERLESS QUESTION OF LIFE REMAINS.

If it is answerless, how can it be a question? A question Is always a question in reference to an answer; an answer is only an answer in reference to a question. They are together, halves of one whole. If one REALLY disappears, the other disappears automatically.

That's why I say there is a lurking doubt in you: "Maybe there is some question which is NOT pointless. Maybe I have still to find it. Maybe my questions are pointless, maybe the questions that I know ARE pointless, but who knows? -- there may be a valid question, a real question."

There is none.

When this becomes a trust in you and no lurking doubt remains...because it is doubt that creates the question, it is doubt that becomes a question. When there is no doubt left, when you know that nothing can be known, that knowledge is impossible; when you come to the same understanding as happened to Socrates -

- "I know only one thing, that I know nothing" -- if that innocence happens to you, then nothing is left, not even an answerless question. The very word 'question' becomes irrelevant.

A silence is left, a deep silence and a great joy, a benediction is left. Life flows through you, passes through you, not creating any question. You simply live it.

This is simplicity -- not the cultivated simplicity of a SADHU or a monk. This is the simplicity of innocence, uncultivated. One has great wonder about everything, one lives in awe. One can worship a tree, one can worship a rock, because the moment questions are gone and your heart is full of the mysterious and the miraculous, your whole life becomes a prayer, a worship.

It is so tremendously unbelievable that we are alive -- for no reason at all! -- that we are breathing, that we can see, that we can taste, that we can hear, that we can love, that our hearts are beating, that life is passing through us, that life has chosen us as its vehicles.

Just to know it is enough to be grateful, just to feel it is enough to be prayerful.

No God is needed to pray to. If you pray to a God your prayer is false. When there is simply prayer, not addressed to anyone in particular, a kind of

prayerfulness, a state of praying...not a prayer to any God, Hindu, Christian, Mohammedan, because they are all manufactured by the mind of man, they are not true. ALL Gods are false. They are bound to be false because they are answers to certain questions -- and questions are false, questioning is false, and the Gods are answers to certain questions.

Somebody asks, "Who created the world?" Now that question becomes a thorn in the flesh; the mind cannot rest at ease unless an answer is found. You have to invent an answer just to console yourself. Either you do it or some cunning priest will do it for you on your behalf, will say, "God created the world." The question was false -- how can a false question lead to a right answer? The very premise was false, hence the conclusion is false.

And people are so stupid that they accept such an answer: "God created the world." And they don t ask "Who created God?" Yes, sometimes small children ask that: "Who created God?" Then we immediately hush them up. We say, "Wait! You are too young for such deep mysteries. When you become grown-up you will know." As if you have known by becoming grown-up. But you cannot accept your ignorance.

You are untrue even to children. You are untrue, deceiving dishonest. insincere, even to innocent children. You go on pretending as if you know and you go on telling them that they will also know when they are grown-up, more experienced. And they will repeat the same stupidity to their own children. That's how stupidities are perpetuated for centuries Ask a question and somebody is bound to supply an answer. If nobody supplies one, YOU are going to invent one yourself. This is not true religion; a religion that is based on a false answer is not true religion. And all the Gods have been created in the same way, and all the scriptures too -- just to console you, just to keep you in a false state of knowledge, because you are so afraid of being innocent, you are so afraid of being ignorant.

Remember: ignorance is not stupidity, knowledge is. Ignorance is innocence. No question, no answer...one simply lives moment-to-moment. And one is grateful because the universe is. One is grateful because the sun rises and the birds sing and the flowers bloom and the clouds float and in the night the sky becomes full of stars. One is simply grateful because there are mountains and rivers and oceans and deserts. One is simply grateful because there are animals and human beings. Such an incredible existence, so far out! Such a celebration, so

psychedelic, so colorful! Such a dance of energy!

When feeling it you simply bow down, you simply bow down on the earth. Not in a temple, not in a mosque, not in a GURUDWARA, not in a church -- they are all man-made. When you simply bow down before the sky, before the sunset, with no motive...what can you ask from a sunset? You cannot ask for money, you cannot ask for power, you cannot ask for prestige. It will look so stupid! What can you ask from a tree?

But when you go into a temple, into a church, you start asking for these things. Your prayer is rooted in some motive, and a prayer rooted in any motive is ugly, a prayer addressed to somebody is ugly.

But just a prayerfulness, a thankfulness, a pure gratitude...the sheer joy that we are part of such a mysterious existence!

Anand Ali, you are very close to understanding that all questions are pointless, but you have not yet touched the target; you are going round and round.

You say: ALL QUESTIONS SEEM TO BE POINTLESS.

Why do you use the word 'seem'? There is still some possibility: "Maybe, perhaps there is a question that is not known to me yet which is not pointless." Hence your second statement:

ONLY THE ANSWERLESS QUESTION OF LIFE REMAINS.

Although you say it is answerless, still you call it a question. Be very watchful about words. Be very careful what you say, how you say it -- because it shows your state of consciousness. You are very close, missing the target only by inches. But whether you miss the target by inches or by miles it makes no difference -- you miss it all the same.

Become a little more alert. Let all questions go, and all answers. Remain in that silence that is left behind. Become that silence, BE that silence.

C. E. Bignall says:

Where shall wisdom be found.

be still and know.

seek the strength of no desire. The second question Question 2

OSHO, WHAT IS TRUE WISDOM?

Prem Samadhi,

WISDOM CANNOT BE TRUE OR UNTRUE. Wisdom is simply wisdom. It is truth.

There is no possibility of there ever being an untrue wisdom. All knowledge is untrue: all wisdom is true. Knowledge is borrowed, hence it is untrue. It is yours, that's why is it untrue. It may have been true to the person who imparted it to you.

The Buddha talking to his disciples is talking wisdom, but the moment it reaches the disciples it becomes knowledge. Wisdom falls from its heights to the level of the listeners and becomes knowledge.

Hence Buddhas have always been very much aware that they impart something of their presence, something of their silence, something of their joy, rather than imparting their wisdom. Even if they have to talk, they talk only in order to persuade you to be silent.

Even if they use words, those words are used to create a wordless state of consciousness in you.

So the first thing, Prem Samadhi: wisdom as such is truth, it cannot be untrue. Just as light is light and cannot be dark, just as life is life and cannot be death, just as logic is love and cannot be hate. If it is hate, it is not love.

Wisdom is intrinsically true because it is an existential experience. It is not something known from others, it is not something gathered from the scriptures; it is something that grows in your heart. It is a growth, not an accumulation. It is experience, not information.

Knowledge makes you learned: wisdom makes you innocent. Knowledge is very ego-fulfilling, very ego-strengthening. The ego feeds on knowledge; it is the best tonic for the ego. But wisdom happens only when ego has disappeared; wisdom appears only on the death of the ego. The death of the ego is the birth of wisdom.

Mind is interested in knowledge not in wisdom, because for wisdom you will have to create a space called no-mind. And, naturally, mind is afraid of your ever becoming interested in wisdom, because mind does not want to commit suicide.

Sannyas is a suicide of the mind, so is meditation, so is wisdom. These are different names for the same phenomenon, different aspects of the same diamond.

Knowledge depends on words. You can easily become knowledgeable by sitting in a library, but you cannot become wise that way. To become wise you will have to be in communion with a wise man. For knowledge all that is required of you is that you should be a student, that you should be full of questions, inquiries; you should be able to learn from scriptures, books, teachers, universities, libraries. Your memory becomes more and more rich, your biocomputer becomes full of information, but wisdom is not arrived at that way.

Wisdom is more or less a love affair with Master. One has to be a disciple, not only a student. The student keeps a distance from the Master. For him the Master is only a teacher; he is interested in the Master because of his teaching. Really he is interested in the teaching, not in the being of the Master. The disciple is not interested in teaching because one thing he has come to understand: that knowledge can be taught but wisdom can only be caught.

Wisdom is contagious. You have to be available to a Master, to his being. He has become afire, your candle of the heart is still unlit; if you become available to the fire of the Master you can also become a lit candle, you can also become aflame.

To be aflame with silence, with joy, is wisdom. It is not through logic but through love. It is not through words but through a wordless state called meditation or a state of no-mind, satori, samadhi.

Beware of learning, otherwise you may never become wise. To be knowledgeable is very easy; it is not risky, it is safe. To move into the dimension of wisdom is risky; it is going into the unknown, into the uncharted. Great

courage is needed, guts are needed.

And when you have tasted something of wisdom, knowledge looks so stupid, so utterly stupid. But if you have not tasted anything of wisdom, knowledge seems to be of tremendous value.

Zalewski got a job as a delivery boy in a pet shop. One day he was told to deliver a pet rabbit to Mrs. Caldwell, Route 2 -- Box 4.

"You better write that down in case I forget it," said the boy.

Slipping the address into his pocket, Zalewski started off on his errand. Every few minutes he glanced at the address and said, "I know where I am going: Mrs. Caldwell, Route 2 -- Box 4."

Everything went smoothly until he hit a huge hole in the road. The truck landed in a ditch and the rabbit began to run for its life across an open field.

Zalewski stood there laughing uproariously. A passerby stopped and asked, "What's so funny?"

"Did you see that crazy rabbit running across that field?" said the Polack. "He does not know where he is going because I have got the address in my pocket."

That is the state of the knowledgeable man: he has got the address in his pocket. He knows where God is, he knows where heaven is, he knows where hell is. He knows everything -- all is in his pocket. He carries scriptures, AND he believes in the letter and he misses the spirit. He goes on believing in words, he believes too much in the words.

And words are useful if you can understand the spirit that is hidden behind them, that is not so apparent, not so visible.

In the hands of a meditative person words can become of infinite value, because they can be indicators. But in the hands of non-meditators words are dangerous, very dangerous, because the spirit is completely missed and one starts believing in the hollow, empty word, and one starts following the word.

That is what is happening to the Christians, to the Hindus, to the Mohammedans, to the Jainas, to the Buddhists -- all are believers in words. Somebody believes in

the Koran and somebody in the Gita and somebody in the Bible, and they ALL are missing the spirit.

Because to know the spirit of the Bible, you will have to come to certain inner spaces where you become acquainted with Moses, with Jesus Unless you have

a direct, inner contact with Moses and Jesus you will not understand the Bible.

But following the word you may look Very important -- to people who are just like you, not different in any way. They also believe in words, you also believe in words; both live in the same kind of ignorance. This is not wisdom.

Wisdom is an interior phenomenon. It is the discovery of the spirit of all the Buddhas.

And there is no need to go into the history of the Buddhas. You have only to go within yourself, because you contain the whole past of existence, the infinite past, and you also contain the infinite future.

A mailman was delivering his mail during the Christmas season. At one house the door was opened by a beautiful woman wearing a sheer negligee.

"Would you like to come in?" cooed the woman. "Sure," replied the startled mailman.

She led him up to her bedroom and made love to him. When they were finished she got up and handed the man a dollar. "Why the dollar?" asked the puzzled mailman. "Well,"

replied the woman, "when I asked my husband what to give the mailman for Christmas he said 'Just give him a buck and fuck him!'"

The third question Question 3

OSHO, GURDJIEFF TALKS ABOUT THREE ASPECTS OF BEING: ESSENCE, FALSE PERSONALITY AND TRUE PERSONALITY -- FALSE PERSONALITY

BEING A FALSE, CONDITIONED VEHICLE FOR OUR REAL ESSENCE, AND

TRUE PERSONALITY BEING THAT WHICH CAN BE DEVELOPED AND CONVEYS AND PROTECTS OUR REAL SELF.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES LIVE IN THE ESSENCE STATE LIKE ANIMALS. THEY

ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT NOT ENLIGHTENED. IF ENLIGHTENMENT IS NATURAL

AND OUR BIRTHRIGHT, WHY ARE NOT THE PRIMITIVE PEOPLES ENLIGHTENED, OR ARE THEY?

I HEAR YOU TELL US TO ACCEPT THE ANIMAL THAT WE ARE, RETURN TO

ESSENCE. I HAVE READ GURDJIEFF SAYING YOU MUST BECOME YOUR

TRUE SELF -- THE MASTER. HE SAID BEWARE OF BEING SWALLOWED BY

THE ANIMAL. GIVE IT SOME CIGARETTES OR ICE CREAM AND IT WILL BE

CALMED.

WHAT IS TRUE PERSONALITY AND WHAT IS ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ESSENCE?

Paul Maniloff,

THERE IS NO PERSONALITY. Personality as such is false. The word 'personality' has to be understood. It comes from 'persona'; persona means a mask. In ancient Greek drama the actors used to wear masks; those masks were called persona -- persona because the sound was coming from behind the mask.

'Sona' means sound. The masks were apparent to the audience and from behind the mask the sound was coming. From that word

'persona' has come the word 'personality'.

All personality is false. Good personality, bad personality, the personality of a sinner and the personality of a saint -- all are false. You can wear a beautiful mask or an ugly mask, it doesn't make any difference.

The real thing is your essence. But the question is relevant. If essence is the real thing, as I say, then Maniloff asks:

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES LIVE IN THE ESSENCE STATE JUST LIKE ANIMALS.

THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT NOT ENLIGHTENED.

It is true -- they cannot be enlightened. For them to become enlightened, first they will have to create a personality. Enlightenment is dropping of the personality; they don't have any personality to drop. You will feel a little puzzled: Why can't one become enlightened when one has no personality?

Personality is also a necessary part of growth. It is like if you catch hold of a fish in the sea and you throw it on the shore; the fish jumps back into the sea. Now for the first time it will know that it has always lived in the sea; for the first time it will know that "The sea is my life." Up to now, before it was caught and thrown on the shore, it may not have ever thought of the sea at all; it may have been utterly oblivious of the sea. To know something, first you have to lose it.

To be aware of paradise, first you have to lose it. Unless it is lost AND regained you will not understand the beauty of it.

Adam and Eve had to lose the Garden of Eden; that is part of natural growth. Only Adam leaving the beautiful Garden of God can become a Christ one day -- he can come back.

Adam leaving Eden is just like the fish being caught and thrown on the shore and Jesus is the fish jumping back into the sea.

The primitive people cannot become enlightened. They are beautiful,

spontaneous, natural, but utterly unaware of what they are; they don't have any awareness. They live joyously but their joy is unconscious. First they have to lose it. They have to become civilized, educated, knowledgeable; they have to become a culture, a civilization, a religion. They have to lose all their spontaneity, they have to forget all about their essence, and then suddenly one day they start missing it. It is bound to happen.

That is happening all over the world, and it is happening in such great measure because this is the first time that humanity has really become civilized.

The more civilized a country is, the more is the feeling of meaninglessness. The backward countries still don't have that feeling, they can't have. To have that feeling of inner emptiness, meaninglessness, absurdity, one has to become very civilized.

Hence I am all in favor of science, because it helps the fish to be thrown on the shore.

And once on the hot shore, in the hot sand, the fish starts feeling thirsty. It had never felt thirsty before. For the first time it misses the ocean around, the coolness, the life-giving waters. It is dying.

That is the situation of the civilized man, the educated man: he is dying. Great inquiry is born. One wants to know what should be done, how one can enter into the ocean of life again.

In the backward countries, for example in India, there is no such feeling of meaninglessness. Even though a few Indian intellectuals write about it, their writing has no depth because it does not correspond to the situation of the Indian mind. A few Indian intellectuals write about meaninglessness, absurdity, almost in the same way as Soren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jaspers, Heidegger.… They have read about these people or they may have visited the West, and they start talking about meaninglessness, nausea, absurdity, but it sounds phony.

I have talked to Indian intellectuals -- they sound very phony because it is NOT their OWN feeling; it is borrowed. It is Soren Kierkegaard speaking through them, it is Friedrich Nietzsche speaking through them; it is not their own voice. They are not really aware of what Soren Kierkegaard is saying; they have not suffered the same anguish. The feeling is alien, foreign; they have learnt it like parrots. They talk about it, but their whole life says and shows something else.

What they say and what their life shows are diametrically opposite.

It is very very rare that any Indian intellectual ever commits suicide -- I have not heard of it -- but many Western intellectuals HAVE committed suicide. It is very rare to come across an Indian intellectual who goes mad; it is a very common phenomenon in the West, many intellectuals have gone mad. The real intellectuals have almost inevitably gone mad; it is their life experience.

The civilization all around, the over-developed personality, have become an imprisonment. They are being killed by it. The very weight of civilization is too much and unbearable. They are feeling suffocated, they can't breathe. Even suicide seems to be a liberation, or if they cannot commit suicide then madness seems to be an escape. At least by becoming mad one forgets all about civilization, one forgets all about the nonsense that goes on in the name of civilization. Madness is an escape from civilization.

Do you know that primitive people don't go mad? It is only the civilized man's privilege.

Primitive people don't commit suicide; again it is the civilized man's privilege.

But to feel that life is utterly meaningless is to be on a crossroads: either you choose suicide or you choose sannyas; either you choose madness or you choose meditation. It is a great turning-point!

Maniloff, ALL personality is false. There is an essence inside which is not false, which you bring with your birth, which has always been there.

Somebody asks Jesus: "Do you know anything about Abraham?" And Jesus says, "Before Abraham ever was, I am."

Now what an absurd statement, but also of tremendous significance. Abraham and Jesus -

- there is a big gap between them; Abraham preceded Jesus by almost three thousand years. And Jesus says, "Before Abraham ever was, I am." He is talking about the essence.

He is not talking about Jesus, he is talking about the Christ. He is talking about the eternal. He is not talking about the personal, he is talking about the universal.

The Zen people say that unless you come to know your original face that you had before your father was ever born, you will not become enlightened. What is this original face?

Even before your father was born you had it, and you will have it again when you have died and your body has been burnt and nothing is left except ashes -- then you will have it again.

What is this original face? The essence -- call it the soul, the spirit, the self. These are words signifying the same thing. You are born as an essence, but if you are left as an essence without the society creating a personality for you, you will remain animal-like. It has happened to some people.

Just six months ago, again one child was found somewhere in North India near the Himalayas, a child of eleven years who had been brought up by wolves, a wolf-child -- a human child brought up by wolves. Of course wolves can only give the personality of a wolf; so the child was human, the essence was there, but he had the personality of a wolf.

Many times it has happened. Wolves seem to be capable of bringing up human children; they seem to have a certain love, compassion, for human children. But these children are not enlightened. They don't have any of the corruption that human society is bound to give; their beings are not polluted, they are pure essence. They are like the fish in the ocean -- they don't know who they are. And it is very difficult once they have been brought up by animals to give them a human personality; it is too hard a job.

Almost all the children have died in that effort. They cannot learn human ways, it is too late now. Their mold is cast; they have already become fixed personalities. They have learnt how to be wolves. They run like wolves on all fours and they are strong like wolves. You cannot fight with a wolf-child; he will kill you, he will eat you raw. They are cannibals! They don't know any morality, they don't know any religion. They are not Hindu, Christian, Mohammedan. They don't bother about God -- they have never heard of him. All that they know is the life of a wolf.

If human personality is a barrier, it is a barrier only if you cling to it. It has to be passed through: it is a ladder, it is a bridge. One should not make one's house on the bridge, true, but one has to pass over the bridge.

Human personality is partial. In a better society we will give children personalities but also the capacity to get rid of them. That is what is missing right now: we give them personalities, too tight personalities, so that they become encapsulated, imprisoned, and we never give them a way to get rid of them. It is like giving a child steel clothes and not giving him any idea of how to unlock, how to throw the clothes, one day when he is becoming bigger.

What we are doing with human beings is exactly what was done in ancient China with the feet of women. From the very childhood girls were given iron shoes so that their feet never grew, they remained very small. Small feet were loved very much, they were appreciated very much. Only aristocratic families could afford them, because it was almost impossible for the woman to do anything. The woman could not even walk rightly; the feet were too small and the body was big. The feet were crippled; she had to walk with a support. Now a poor woman could not afford it, so small feet was the symbol of the aristocracy.

We can laugh at it, but we go on doing the same thing. Now in the West women are walking on such absurd shoes, such high heels! It is okay if you do such a thing in a circus, but such high heels are not for walking. But they are appreciated, because when a woman walks on very high heels she becomes more sexually attractive: her buttocks stand out more prominently. And because walking is difficult, her buttocks move more than they would do ordinarily. But this is accepted, then it is okay. Other societies will laugh at it!

All over the world women are using bras and they think that it is very conventional and traditional. My sannyasins are not using bras, and that is one of the greatest criticisms against them from the Hindus. In fact the bra makes the woman look more sexual; it is just to give her body a shape that she has not got. It is to help her so that the breasts can stand out and can look very young, not sagging. And these Hindu women think they are being very religious and orthodox. They are simply befooling themselves and nobody else -- the bra is a sexual symbol.

Just like the bra, there are societies in Africa, a few primitive societies, which use strange things. Lips are made bigger and thicker. From the very childhood weights are hung on the lips so that they become very thick, big. That is a symbol of a very sexual woman --

thicker and bigger lips can of course give a better kiss!

In some primitive societies the man even used to wear a certain sheath on his genital organs to make them look bigger, just as women are using bras. Now we laugh at such foolish people, but it is the SAME story. Even the younger people all over the world are using very tight pants -- that is just to show their genitals. But once a thing is accepted, nobody takes any note of it.

Civilization should not become a tight enclosure. It is absolutely necessary that you should have a personality, but you should have a personality which can be put on and off easily, just like loose garments, not made of steel. Just cotton will do, so that you can put them off and on; you need not continuously wear them.

That's what I call a man of understanding: he who lives in his essence, but as far as the society is concerned he moves with a personality. He uses the personality; he is the master of his own being.

The society needs a certain personality. If you bring your essence into the society you will be creating trouble for yourself and for others. People will not understand your essence; your truth may be too bitter for them, your truth may be too disturbing for them.

There is no need! You need not go naked in the society; you can wear clothes.

But I have heard about a nun who used to take her bath with clothes on. When other nuns came to hear about it they asked, "What nonsense! Why can't you undress in your bathroom? There is nobody looking."

She said, "No, but the Bible says God is watching everywhere." So the nun cannot even undress in the bathroom because God is watching -- as if God is a peeping Tom! And if God can watch even behind locked doors, can't he watch inside your clothes? He can watch there too! If walls cannot prevent him, just your garments, how can they prevent him?

One should be able to be naked in one's own house, playing with one's children; sipping tea on a summer morning in the garden, on the lawn, one should be able to be naked.

There is no need to go to your office naked -- there is no need! Clothes are perfectly good; there is no necessity to expose yourself to each and everybody. That will be exhibitionism, that will be another extreme. One extreme is that people cannot even go to bed without clothes on; another extreme is that there

are Jaina DIGAMBARA monks moving naked in the marketplace, or naked Hindu SADHUS. And strange is the thing: that these Jainas and these Hindus, they object to MY people because they are not wearing proper clothes.

Now, in a hot country like India people coming from the West find it really difficult to wear too many clothes. It looks so absurd to the Western seeker who comes here to see Indians with ties and coats. It looks so absurd! It is okay in the West -- it is too cold and the tie is protective -- but in India it is an effort to commit suicide. In the West it is okay to have your shoes and socks on, but in India? But imitative people! They are moving the whole day with shoes and socks on in a hot country like India. The Western dress in India is not relevant -- tight pants and coat and tie and hat -- it simply makes you look ridiculous. India needs loose garments. But there is no need to go to the other extreme, that you start running naked, bicycling naked into the marketplace. It will unnecessarily create trouble for you and for others.

But the strange thing is that the people who have always worshipped naked SADHUS

and have never raised any problem, for them I am creating a trouble. For them I look as if I am a dangerous person because my sannyasins are not wearing proper clothes.

One should be natural, and by being natural I mean one should be capable of putting on the personality when needed, in society. It functions like a lubricant, it helps, because there are thousands of people. Lubricants are needed, otherwise people will be constantly in conflict, clashing against each other. Lubricants help; they keep your life smooth.

Personality is good when you are communicating with others, but personality is a barrier when you start communing with yourself. Personality is good when you are relating with human beings; personality is a barrier when you start relating with existence itself, with God.

Maniloff, to me there are only two things: the essence and the personality. The personality is good as a means, the essence is the end. And personalities are not real and unreal.

You ask: WHY ARE NOT THE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE ENLIGHTENED?

They are not enlightened because they don't have any personalities yet. Unless you have a personality you cannot drop it. Unless you have a properly developed mind you cannot enter into the state of no-mind. Unless you have an ego, well- formed, mature, you cannot surrender.

These things look like puzzles but they are not. If you just contemplate over these things, they are very simple to understand. What do you have to surrender if you don't have any ego? Hence, first the ego has to be developed. But the ego should be developed and side by side another thing has to be developed: the capacity to drop the ego. Man has to learn this paradox so when the need arises you can drop the ego. Then you are always the master, and the mastery is always of the essence. But if you don't have any personality you will not be the master, because you don't have any slave to be a master of. The essence and personality are both needed, then the essence can be the master.

It is not so ordinarily: the personality becomes the master and essence is either completely reduced to a slave or completely forgotten and thrown into the basement of your unconsciousness. The education is faulty.

MY vision of a right education is to teach people how to grow the ego and how to be able to drop it; how to become great minds and yet be ready any moment to put the mind aside. You should be able to just put your personality, your ego, your mind, on and off, because these are good things if you can use them. But you should know the mechanism, how to put them off. Right now you know only how to put them on.

I am reminded:

Sigmund Freud somewhere remembers that a friend came to visit him from a very very faraway village. They had studied together in primary school; since then they had not met. Electricity had just then come; just a few months before, electricity had come to Vienna where Sigmund Freud lived. He forgot to tell the friend how to put off the light in the night and the friend was almost going mad in the night because he could not sleep --

the light was too much. And he tried every possible way that he could conceive to blow it out.

He even stood on a table and studied the lamp, how to blow it out. But you can't blow it out! He tried every possible way. He could not sleep the whole night and

because of his ego he could not wake Sigmund Freud and ask him what to do with this light. All that he knew about was kerosene lamps. But an electric bulb functions in a different way; it is not a kerosene lamp.

In the morning Freud asked, "You look tired, your eyes are red. What happened? Couldn't you sleep?"

And the man confessed. He said, "No, I could not sleep, and now I have to tell you. I wanted not to tell you because I wanted not to appear so stupid that I don't know how to put off the light, but I tried my best. The whole night I tried to figure it out, how to put it off, but I could not."

Freud took him in the room. He said, "It is very simple: this is the button" -- the button was behind the door so he could not see it; even if he had seen it he would not have thought that the button had any connection with the light -- "you just put it on and off with the button."

Our situation is like that: our society puts on the ego, the personality, and nobody ever teaches us how to put it off. So day in, day out, we are burdened by it, tortured by it, goaded by it. We become slaves of something false.

I don't want you to drop your personality forever; I simply want you to be capable of putting it off when it is not needed. This is the whole art of real religion: to teach you how to put the mind off and how to put it on.

Talking to you, I have to put my mind on, otherwise how can I talk? The heart cannot talk, the being cannot talk, the essence knows no language. I have to use the personality.

But the moment I have said, "Enough for today," you may not know but that is how I put it off. I tell you the secret! It is not to you that I am saying enough for today; I am saying to my own mind, "Enough for today. Now go to sleep."

You also say, Maniloff: I HEAR YOU TELL US TO ACCEPT THE ANIMAL THAT

WE ARE, RETURN TO ESSENCE. I HAVE READ GURDJIEFF SAYING YOU

MUST BECOME YOUR TRUE SELF -- THE MASTER. HE SAID BEWARE

OF

BEING SWALLOWED BY THE ANIMAL.

He is right! -- beware of being swallowed by the animal. But why not swallow the animal yourself? Otherwise you will have to be constantly alert and aware and on guard, because the animal will be there. And the animal is the animal: if the animal finds you off guard, it will jump upon you.

So I don't say only beware of the animal and go on persuading the animal, as Gurdjieff says. You say that he says:

"GIVE IT SOME CIGARETTES OR ICE CREAM AND IT WILL BE CALMED. "

It is not so easy! It will not be calmed by SOME ice cream -- it will ask for more. It always asks for more. It will not be calmed by SOME cigarettes; it will go on asking for more. And it is not only a question of cigarettes and ice cream, otherwise the problem would not have been very complex.

It asks for money, it asks for power; it wants to be the president of the country, the prime minister of the country. The animal has strange ideas to be fulfilled! It wants all the women of the world; it can't be satisfied with one. The animal is mad, the animal is insane! The animal is simply animal; it has no understanding

-- you cannot expect understanding from it. Don't believe that it will be calmed just by giving it some cigarettes and ice cream -- don't be so simplistic. It will go on demanding new things and more things, and there is no end to its demanding. If you try to persuade it in this way you will never be able to persuade it.

Why not swallow the animal yourself? Eat it and be finished with it! That's my idea. Why not make ice cream out of the animal? Why not make cigars out of it and smoke it and be finished with it?

That's why I say don't repress -- because if you repress, the animal is there. I say go deep into the very spirit of the animal. Enjoy it! That's what I mean when I say eat it. Be capable of digesting it and you will be more mighty by digesting it. Your sex digested will release so much energy that you can attain to superconsciousness. Hence I say 'from sex to superconsciousness'. Your greed digested will become your love.

You will be surprised to know that the English word 'love' comes from a Sanskrit word LOBHA; LOBHA means greed. It may have been just a coincidence that the English word 'love' grew out of LOBHA; LOBHA means greed. But my feeling is it cannot be just coincidence; there may be something more mysterious behind it, there may be some alchemical reason behind it. In fact greed digested becomes love. It is greed, LOBHA, digested well, which becomes love.

Love is sharing; greed is hoarding. Greed only wants and never gives, and love knows only giving and never asks for anything in return; it is unconditional sharing. There may be some alchemical reason that LOBHA has become 'love' in the English language.

LOBHA becomes love as far as inner alchemy is concerned.

Swallow the animal! That is the way to transform it. That is the way to transmute lower energies into higher energies.

You are given a great opportunity. You have been thrown out of the sea -- this is the opportunity; expelled from the Garden of Eden -- this is the opportunity. Adam can become Christ if he uses the opportunity well. Use the opportunity: eat the animal, digest the animal. Don't try to cut it off, otherwise you will become poorer. Don't try to destroy it as your so-.called saints have been doing down the ages, otherwise you will be dull and dead, insipid. Don't repress it, otherwise it will take revenge -- the animal is animal. One day it will jump upon you with such vengeance that you will be destroyed by it.

And don't try to persuade it because it cannot be persuaded. Its demands are infinite, its thirst cannot be quenched by anything. Give it anything and it immediately asks for something more. The 'more' is its very way of living.

So don't befool yourself that cigarettes and ice cream and things like that will help the animal to subside and to be calmed. No, you will need great insight into the animal, you will need great acquaintance with the animal. You will need very deep awareness of the working of the animal. And you will have to digest it slowly slowly, gradually, so that one day the animal becomes part of your being.

The animal has great energy, that's why it is called animal. 'Anima' means aliveness, power, vitality; 'animal' means one who is vital. The saints cut their roots from the animal; they became non-vital. That's why they have not been able to transform the whole world -- they were not even able to transform their

own selves. They became impotent. Rather than becoming more potent, rather than becoming omnipotent, they became impotent. Hence I am not for suppression.

I am for understanding, I am for transformation. And if the animal is transformed and absorbed by the essence, you will feel great power, great fire. Your life will become such a passionate affair with existence, you will have such intensity, that each moment will give you the joy of an eternity.

The fourth question Question 4

OSHO, BEFORE, WHEN I WAS CLEVER, I WAS REALLY STUPID. NOW I AM

NO LONGER CLEVER, BUT STILL FEEL STUPID. IN FACT, THIS IS A STUPID

LETTER...DOES THAT MEAN I'M STILL CLEVER? OR DO SOME PEOPLE WHEN

THEY DROP THEIR CLEVERNESS FIND THAT THEY ARE SIMPLY STUPID?

PS: I ALWAYS WANTED TO WRITE AN IMPRESSIVE QUESTION, BUT SEEM

TO HAVE WAITED TOO LONG. A JOKE TO ILLUSTRATE MY PROBLEM: A MAN TELEPHONES HIS DOCTOR: "DOCTOR, YOU KNOW THOSE PILLS YOU

PRESCRIBED FOR MY MUSCULAR WEAKNESS...WELL, I CAN'T GET THE TOP

OFF THE BOTTLE."

Devageet,

YOU ARE IN A BEAUTIFUL MESS! Remain this way.

No need to figure it out, whether you are clever or stupid; whatsoever you are, it is perfectly okay. Trying to figure it out is an unnecessary effort. If one is stupid, one is stupid -- so what?! How does it matter? If one is clever, one is clever -- so what! How does it matter?

But we have always been thinking in terms of comparison. Man is very much conditioned to create hierarchies: who is clever, who is stupid, who is beautiful, who is ugly...We can't accept people as they are.

And if you start figuring it out you WILL be in trouble -- because nothing can be figured out. Life is mysterious. If you are clever you are stupid; if you know you are stupid you are clever.… Now you will be moving in a circle; there will be no end to it. It will be like a dog chasing its own tail: the more the dog chases the tail, the more the tail will jump --

with the dog, of course, because it is the dog's tail. And the dog can go crazy! Sometimes you can watch dogs going crazy, just chasing their tails. Philosophers are like dogs chasing their tails.

Devageet, don't be a philosopher. Such problems have arisen in philosophy many times.

They say that before Socrates there was a great school of sophists in Greece; they used to train people in sophistry. Before philosophy, sophistry was the dominant thing in people's minds; the sophist was thought to be the real intellectual. And the fundamental of sophistry was that nothing is true and nothing is false.

You can try anything, and you can prove anything right and you can prove anything wrong. Something can be proved right and the same thing can be proved wrong, it all depends on what you want to prove.

Logic is a whore! -- logic can go with anybody. So whenever someone wins in an argument it does not prove that he has the truth. It only proves that he is more clever in logical gymnastics, that's all; he may not have the truth at all. When someone is defeated in logic, argumentation, it does not prove that he does not have the truth; it may be simply that he is not logically skillful. So there is no truth, no untruth; it is only a game.

Sophistry was a game, and the sophists used to teach people, whosoever wanted

to learn the game -- the aristocracy, the rich people, particularly, loved it very much. It was like a chess game.

It happened to a great sophist:

A young man came and he said, "I have heard much about you -- you are the greatest sophist master in the country. If you trust so much in your own intelligence, this is my proposal: that I will pay half of your fees right now and the other half I will pay only when I win in an argument."

The master was so trustful of his own skill, he said, "Perfectly okay. You can give half my fees now and half I will take when you win your first argument. It is bound to happen

-- you are going to win. Never have my students been defeated anywhere."

But the young man was also really clever. He learnt the whole art, but he never argued with anybody. The master was puzzled about what to do: "Unless he argues and wins, half of the fee is gone, and if he never argues..." and he used to avoid. The master told many other disciples, "Create some argument with him." But he would always say, "Yes, you are right." Whatsoever you said he would say, "Yes, you are right." He would never argue. The master was at a loss: "It seems as if the disciple is winning and I am being defeated."

So the master put a case in the court: "This disciple has not paid half my fee which is due to me, and the court should force this young man to give me my fee which he has promised." Now the master thought, "If I win In the court, the court will order the young man to give my fee and I will get the fee. If I am defeated in the court, then too nothing is lost -- outside the court I will say to the young man, "You have won your first argument, now give me the other half of my fee.

But the disciple belonged to this same master. He said, "Okay. If I win in the court I will say this will be an insult to the court if I pay you now. If I am defeated in the court, how can I pay you? -- because my first argument, and I am defeated!"

And this is how it happened. The court decided that the young man is right, because unless he wins how can he pay?

The master said, "Okay. So he has won his first case -- I want my fee."

The young man said, "How can I give it? I have won the case and it will be an insult to the court now. I cannot go against the court, against the law of the country."

How to decide it? It is impossible, it can't be decided. Another story is told:

A young man from Sicily came to Athens and told Socrates, "All men in Sicily lie."

Socrates looked at the young man and said, "You come from Sicily?" He said, "Yes."

"Are you lying?"

Now the problem arises: if he is lying then what he is saying is not true; if he is NOT

lying, then too what he is saying is not true -- because one man from Sicily is not lying, is saying a truth. In either case it will be impossible to figure it out, where we stand.

You ask, Devageet: WHEN I WAS CLEVER, I WAS REALLY STUPID. NOW I AM

NO LONGER CLEVER, BUT STILL FEEL STUPID. IN FACT, THIS IS A STUPID

LETTER...DOES THAT MEAN I AM STILL CLEVER?

Forget about it! You are in a beautiful mess -- remain in it. There is no need to decide because we are not labeling people here, who is clever and who is stupid.

The whole effort here is: who lives in the mind and who lives out of the mind.… The stupid and the clever both live in the mind, because cleverness or stupidity, both are qualities of the mind. It does not matter whether you are clever or you

are stupid. You are in the mind, that is the real thing. Slip out of the mind. Slip out of cleverness and stupidity both! And the best way to slip out is not to be bothered by these things because if you are bothered by these things you will remain entangled.

Slip out of the mind! Be a no-mind, neither clever nor stupid. Then you will know what truth is, then you will know what bliss is.

And the last question Question 5

OSHO, ARE YOU REALLY THE FIRST BUDDHA WHO JOKES?

Gangatar,

I AM NOT ONLY THE FIRST BUDDHA WHO JOKES, but the last

too...because I am going to tell all the jokes! I am not going to leave a single joke untold!

Be Still and Know Chapter #4

< Previous | Contents | Next >