天涯在线书库《www.tianyabook.com》
《And Now, And Here》
Chapter 1
No Bigger Lie Thah
28 October 1969 pm iation Camp at Dwarka, Gurujat, India We bee free from that which we have known.
We also triumph over that which we have known.
Our failure a are only because of norance.
Defeat is because of darkness; when there is light, defeat is impossible -- light itself will bring triumph.
The first thing I would like to tell you about death is that there is no bigger lie thah.
A, death appears to be true.
It not only appears to be true but even seems like the cardinal truth of life -- it appears as if the whole of life is surrounded by death.
Whether we fet about it, or bee oblivious to it, everywhere death remains close to us.
Death is even closer to us than our shadow.
We have even structured our lives out of our fear of death.
The fear of death has created society, the nation, family and friends.
The fear of death has caused us to chase money and has made us ambitious of higher positions.
And the biggest surprise is that ods and our temples have also been raised out of the fear of death.
Afraid of death, there are people who pray on their knees.
Afraid of death, there are people who pray to God with folded hands raised towards the sky.
And nothing is more false thah.
That is why whatever system of life we have created, believih to be true, has bee false.
How do we know the falsity of death? How we know there is h? Until we know that, our fear of death will not go.
Until we know the falsity of death, our lives will also remain false.
As long as there is fear of death, there ot be authentic life.
As long as we tremble with the fear of death, we ot summon the capacity to live our lives.
Only those live for whom the shadow of death has disappeared forever.
How a frightened and trembling mind live? And wheh seems to be approag every sed, how is it possible to live? How we live?
No matter to what extent we may remain oblivious to death, it is never really fotten.
It makes no difference if we put the cemetery outside the town -- death still shows its face.
Every day someone or other dies; every day death occurs somewhere, and it shakes the very foundation of our lives.
Whenever we see death happening, we bee aware of our owh.
When we cry over somebodys death, it is not just for that persoh alone, but also for the hi of our own.
Our suffering from pain and sorrow is not only over someone elses death but also over the apparent possibility of our own.
The occurrence of every death is, at the same time, our owh.
And so long as we remain surrounded by death, how we live? Like that, living is impossible.
Like that, we ot know what life is -- her its joy, nor its beauty, nor its beion.
Like that, we ot reach the temple of God, the supreme truth of life.
The temples which have beeed out of the fear of death are not the temples of God.
The prayers which have been posed out of the fear of death are not prayers to God either.
Only one who is filled with the joy of life reaches the temple of God.
Gods kingdom is filled with joy ay, and the bells of Gods temple ring only for those who are free from all kinds of fears, for those who have bee fearless.
Because we like to live ihis seems difficult.
But this is not possible -- only one of the two things be right.
Remember, if life is true theh ot be true -- and if death is true then life will be nothing but a dream, a lie; then life ot be true.
These two things ot exist simultaneously.
But we hold on to both together.
There is the feeling that we are alive and there is also the feeling that we are dead.
I have heard about a fakir who lived in a faraway valley.
Many people would go to him with questions.
Once a man came and asked him to explain something about life ah.
The fakir said, "You are wele to know about life; my doors are open.
But if you want to know about death then go somewhere else, because I have never died nor will I ever die.
I have no experience of death.
If you want to know about death men ask those who have died, ask those who are already dead.
" Then the fakir laughed and he said, "But how will you ask those who are already dead? And if you ask me to give you the address of a dead person, I ot do it.
Because ever since I have e to know that I ot die, I have also e to know that no one dies, that no.99liｂ? one has ever died.
"
But how we believe this fakir? Every day we see someone dying; every day death happens.
Death is the supreme truth; it makes itself apparent by peing the ter of our being.
You may shut your eyes, but no matter how far away it is from you, it still remains apparent.
No matter how much we escape from it, run away from it, it still surrounds us.
How you falsify this truth?
Some people do, of course, try to falsify it.
Just because of their fear of death people believe in the immortality of the soul -- just out of fear.
They dont know; they simply believe.
Every m, sitting in a temple or a mosque, some people repeat, "No one dies; the soul is immortal.
" They are wrong in believing that just by repeating this, the soul will bee immortal.
They are uhe impression that death be falsified by repeating, "The soul is immortal.
" Death never bees false by such reiterations -- only by knowih it be falsified.
This is very strange, remember: we always accept the opposite of what we go oing.
When someone says he is immortal, that the soul is immortal -- when he repeats this he is simply indig that he knows, deep down, he will die, he will have to die.
If he knows he will not die then there is o go on about immortality; only one who is frightened keeps oing it.
And you will see that people are more scared of death in those tries, in those societies which talk the most about the immortality of the soul.
This try of ours talks untiringly about the immortality of the soul, a is there anyone oh more scared of death than us? There is no one more afraid of death than us! How we recile these two?
Is it ever possible for people who believe in the immortality of the soul to bee slaves? They would rather die; they would be ready to die because they know there is h.
Those who know that life is eternal, that the soul is immortal, would be the first to land on the moon! They would be the first to climb Mount Everest! They would be the first to explore the depths of the Pacific O! But no, we are not among those.
We her climb the peak of Everest nor land on the moon nor explore the depths of the Indian O -- and we are the people who believe in the immortality of the soul! In fact, we are so scared of death, that out of the fear of it we go oing, "The soul is immortal.
" And we are uhe illusion that perhaps by repeating it, it will bee true.
Nothing bees true by repetition.
Death ot be denied by repeating that death does .
Death will have to be known, it will have to be entered, it will have to be lived.
You will have to bee acquainted with it.
Instead, we keep running away from death.
How we see it? We close our eyes when we see death.
When a funeral passes by on the road, a mother shuts her child behind closed doors and says, "Dont go out; someone has died.
" The cremation ground is put outside the town so it rarely meets your eyes, so that death wohere, right in front of you.
And if you ever mentioh to somebody, he will forbid you to talk about it.
Once I stayed with a sannyasin.
Every day he would talk about the immortality of the soul.
I asked him, "Do you ever realize that you are ing closer to death?"
He said, "Dont say suinous things.
It is not good to talk about such things.
"
I said, "If, on the one hand, a person says that the soul is immortal, but also he finds it ominous to talk about death, then this fouls up the whole thing.
He shouldnt see any fear, any omen, anything wrong in talking about death -- because for him there is h.
"
He said, "Although the soul is immortal, I heless do not wish to talk about death at all.
One should not talk about such meaningless and threatening things.
" We are all doing the same thing -- turning our backs oh and esg from it.
I have heard: Once a ma mad in a village.
It was a hot afternoon and the man was walking along a lonely road all alone.
He was walking rather fast, trying not to be scared: it is possible to be scared when someone is already there, but how anyone be scared when there is no one around? But we do feel scared when there is no one around.
In fact, we are afraid of ourselves, and when we are alohe fear is eveer.
There is no one we fear more than ourselves.
We are less afraid when apanied by someone and more afraid whe all by ourselves.
That man was alone.
He became scared and began running.
Everything was still and quiet -- it was afternoon; there was no one around.
As he began to run faster, he sehe sound of runni ing from behind.
He grew frightened -- maybe someone was following him.
Then, afraid, he glanced behind out of the er of his eye.
He saw a long shadow chasing him.
It was his own shadow -- but seeing that some long shadoursuing him, he ran even faster.
Then that man could op, because the faster he ran, the faster the shadow ran after him.
Finally the ma mad.
But there are people who even worship madmen.
When people saw him running like that through their villages, they thought he was engaged in some great ascetic practice.
Except in the darkness of night, when the shadow would disappear and he would think there was no one behind him, he opped.
With daybreak he would start running again.
Then he didnt even stop at night -- he figured that in spite of the distance he had covered during the day, while he rested at night the shadow had caught up with him and would follow him in the m once again.
So even at night he tinued running.
Then he went pletely mad; he her ate nor drank.
Thousands of people watched him run and showered flowers upon him, or someone might hand him a piece of bread or some water.
People began worshipping him more and more; thousands paid their respects to him.
But the man became more and more crazy, and finally one day, he fell down on the ground and died.
The people of the village where he died made his grave uhe shade of a tree, and they asked an old fakir of the village what they would inscribe on his gravestone.
The fakir wrote one line on it.
In some village, someplace, that grave is still there.
It is possible you may pass it by it.
Do read the line.
The fakir wrote on the gravestone: "Here rests a man who fled from his own shadow all his life, who wasted his whole life esg from a shadow.
And the man did not even know as much as his gravestone does -- because the gravestone is in the shade and does not run, heno shadow is created.
"
We also run.
We may wonder how a man run from his shadow, but we too run from shadows.
And that which we run away from starts pursuing us itself.
The faster we run, the faster it follows because it is our own shadow.
Death is our own shadow.
If we keep running away from it we will not be able to stand before it and reize what it is.
If that man had stopped and seen what was behind him, perhaps he would have laughed and said, "What kind of a person am I, running away from a shadow?" No one ever escape from a shadow; no one ever win a fight with a shadow.
This does not mean, however, that the shadow is strohan we are and that we ever be victorious; it simply means that there is no shadow, that there is no question of being victorious.
You ot win against that which does .
Thats why people keep fag defeat by death -- because death is merely a shadow of life.
As life moves forward, its shadow moves along with it too.
Death is the shadow that forms behind life, and we never want to look back, to see what it is.
We have fallen, exhausted, so many times -- after having run this race again and again.
It is not that you have e to this shore for the first time, you must have been here before -- maybe it was not this shore; then some other shore.
It may not have been this body; then some other body -- but the race must have been the same.
The legs must have been the same; the race must have been the same.
Through many lives we live, carrying the fear of death, a we are her able t nor to see it.
We are so scared and frightehat wheh approaches, when its total shadow closes in on us, out of fear we bee unscious.
Generally, no one remains scious at the moment of death.
If, even once, oo remain scious, the fear of death would disappear forever.
If, just once, a man could see what dying is like, what happens ih, then the ime he would have no fear of death because there would be h.
Not that he would be victorious over death -- we achieve victory only over something which exists.
Just by knowih, it disappears.
Then nothing remains over which to be victorious.
We have died many times before, but whenever death has occurred we have bee unscious.
This is similar to when a physi or a surgeon gives ahesia before aion so you wohe pain.
We are so very afraid of dying that at the time of death we bee unscious willingly.
We bee unscious just a little before dying.
We die unscious, and then we are reborn in a state of unsciousness.
We her see death, nor do we see birth -- and hence we are never able to uand that life is eternal.
Birth ah are nothing more than stopping places where we ge clothes or horses.
In olden times there were no railroads and people traveled in horse-drawn carriages.
They traveled from one village to another, and when the horses grew tired they exged them for fresh horses at an inn, and they ged them again at the village.
However, the people ging the horses never felt that what they were doing was like dying and being bain, because when they ged horses they were fully scious.
Sometimes it used to happen that a horseman would travel after drinking.
When he would look around in that state, it would make him wonder how everything had ged, how everything appeared so different.
I have heard that once a drunk horseman even said, "Could it be that I am ged too? This doeso be the same horse I was riding.
Could it be that I have bee a different man?"
Birth ah are simply stations where vehicles are ged -- where the old vehicles are left behind, where tired horses are abandoned and fresh ones are acquired.
But both these acts take pla our state of unsciousness.
And one whose birth ah happens in this unscious state ot live a scious life -- he funs in an almost half-scious state, in an almost half-awakeate of life.
What I wish to say is that it is essential to see death, to uand it, t.
But this is possible only when we die; one only see it while dying.
Then what is the way now? And if one sees death only while dying, then there is no way to uand it -- because at the time of death one will be unscious.
Yes, there is a way now.
We gh an experiment of entering into death of our own free will.
And may I say that meditation or samadhi is nothing else but that.
The experience of enterih voluntarily is meditation, samadhi.
The phenomenon that will automatically occur one day with the dropping of the body -- we willingly make that happen by creating a distance, inside, between the self and the body.
And so, by leaving the body from the inside, we experiehe event of death, we experiehe occurrence of death.
We experience death today, this evening -- because the occurrence of death simply means that our soul and our body will experience, in that jourhe same distin betweewo of them as when the vehicle is left behind and the traveler moves on ahead.
I have heard that a mao see a Mohammedan fakir, Sheikh Fareed, and said, "We have heard that when Mansoors hands and legs were cut off he felt no pain.
.
.
which is hard to believe.
Even a thorn hurts when it pricks the foot.
Wont it hurt if ones hands and legs are cut off? It seems that these are all fantastic stories.
" The man also said, "We hear that when Jesus was hanged on the cross he did not feel any pain.
And he ermitted to say his final prayers.
What the bleeding, naked Jesus -- hanged on a cross, pierced with thorns, hands stuck with nails -- said in the final moments hardly be believed!"
Jesus said, "Five these people, they dont know what they are doing.
" You must have heard this sentence.
And the people all over the world who believe in Christ repeat it tinuously.
The sentence is very simple.
Jesus said, "O, Lord, please five these people, because they know not what they are doing.
" Reading this sentence, people ordinarily uand Jesus is saying that the poor people didnt know they were killing a good man like him.
No, that was not what Jesus meant.
What Jesus meant was that "These senseless people do not know that the person they are killing ot die.
Five them because they dont know what they are doing.
They are doing something which is impossible -- they are itting the act of killing, which is impossible.
"
The man said, "It is hard to believe that a person about to be killed could show so mupassion.
In fact, he will be filled with anger.
"
Fareed gave a hearty laugh and said, "You have raised a good question, but I will a later.
First, do me a little favor.
" He picked up a ut lying nearby, gave it to him and asked him to break it open, cautioning him not to break the kernel.
But the ut was unripe, so the man said, "Pardon me, I ot do this.
The ut is pletely raw, and if I break open the shell the kernel will break too.
"
Fareed asked him to put that ut away.
Then he gave him another ut, one which was dry, and asked him to break that one open.
" you save the kernel of this one?" he asked.
And the man replied, "Yes, the kernel be saved.
"
Fareed said, "I have given you an answer.
Did you uand?"
The man replied, "I didnt uand anything.
What relation is there between a ut and your answer? What relation is there between the ut and my question?"
Fareed said, "Put this ut away too.
There is o break it or anything.
I am pointing out to you that there is one raw ut which still has the kernel and the shell joiogether -- if you hit the shell, the kernel will also break.
Then there is the dry ut.
Now how is the dry ut different from the raw ut? There is a slight differehe kernel of the dry ut has shrunk inside and bee separated from the shell; a distance has occurred between the kernel and the shell.
Now you say, even after breaking open the shell, the kernel be saved.
So I have answered your question!"
The man said, "I still do.
" The fakir said, "Go, die and uand -- without that you ot follow what I am saying.
But even then you will not be able to follow me because at the time of death you will bee unscious.
One day the kernel and the shell will be separated, but at that moment you will bee unscious.
If you want to uand, then start learning now how to separate the kernel from the shell -- now, while you are alive.
"
If the shell, the body, and the kerhe sciousness, separate at this very instant, death is finished.
With the creation of that distance, you e to know that the shell and the kernel are two separate things -- that you will tio survive in spite of the breaking of the shell, that there is no question of you breaking, of you disappearing.
In that state, even though death will occur, it ot pee inside you -- it will occur outside you.
It means only that which you are not will die.
That which you are will survive.
This is the very meaning of meditation or samadhi: learning how to separate the shell from the kernel.
They be separated because they are separate.
They be known separately because they are separate.
Thats why I call meditation a voluntary entry into death.
And the man who enters death willingly, enters it and es to know that, "Death is there, a I am still here.
"
Socrates was about to die.
The final moments were approag; the poison was being ground to kill him.
He kept asking, "It is getting late, how long will it take to grind the poison?"
His friends were g and saying to him, "Are you crazy? We want you to live a little longer.
We have bribed the person who is grinding the poison; ersuaded him to go slowly.
"
Socrates went out and said to the man who was grinding the poison, "You are taking too long.
It seems you are not very skilled.
Are you very o this? Have you never ground it before? Have you never given poison to a ned person?"
The man replied, "I have been giving poison my whole life, but I have never seen a crazy man like you before.
Why are you in so much of a hurry? I am grinding it slowly so that you may breathe a little more, live a little longer, remain in life a little more.
You keep talking like a crazy man, saying it is getting late.
Why are you in such a hurry to die?"
Socrates said, "I am in a great hurry because I want to see death.
I want to see what death is like.
And I also want to see, even wheh has happened, whether I survive or not.
If I dont survive, then the whole affair is finished -- and if I do survive, theh is finished.
In fact, I want to see who will die with death -- will death die or will I die? I want to see whether death will survive or whether I will survive.
But how I see this unless I am alive?"
Socrates was given the poison.
His friends began to mourn; they were not in their right senses.
And what was Socrates doing? He was telling them, "The poison has reached up to my knees.
Up to the knees my legs are totally dead -- I will not even know if you cut them off.
But my friends, let me tell you, even though my legs are dead, I am still alive.
This means ohing is certain -- I was not my legs.
I am still here, I am totally here.
Nothing within me has faded yet.
" Socrates tinued, "Now both my legs are gone; up to my thighs everything is finished.
I wouldnt feel anything if you cut me right up to the thighs.
But I am still here! And here are my friends who go !"
Socrates is saying, "Dont cry.
Watch! Here is an opportunity for you: a man is dying and inf you that he is still alive.
You may y legs entirely -- even then I wont be dead, even then I will still remain.
My hands are also drifting away; my hands will die too.
Ah! How many times I identified myself with these hands -- the same hands that are leaving now -- but I am still here.
"
And, like this, Socrates tialking while dying.
He says, "Slowly, everything is being peaceful, everything is sinking, but I am still intact.
After a while I may not be able to inform you, but dohat make you think I am no more.
Because, if I am still here, even after losing so muy body, how then would an end e to me if a little more of the body is lost? I may not be able to inform you -- because that is only possible through the body -- but still I will remain.
" And at the very last moment he says, "Now, perhaps I am telling you the final thing: my tongue is failing.
I wont be able to speak a single word further, but still I am saying, I exist.
" Until the final moment of death he kept saying, "I am still alive.
"
Iation, too, one has to enter slowly within.
And gradually, oer ahings begin to drop away.
A distance is created with ead every thing, and a moment arrives when it feels as if everything is lying far away at a distance.
It will feel as if someone elses corpse is lying on the shore -- a you exist.
The body is lying there and still you exist -- separate, totally distind different.
Once we experience seeih face-to-face while alive, we will never have anything to do with death again.
Death will keep on ing, but then it will be just like a stopover -- it will be like ging clothes, it will be like wheake new horses and ride in new bodies a out on a new journey, on new paths, into new worlds.
But death will never be able to destroy us.
This only be known by enterih.
We will have to know it; we will have to pass through it.
Because we are so very afraid of death, we are not even able to meditate.
Many people e to me and say that they are uo meditate.
How shall I tell them that their real problem is something else? Their real problem is the fear of death.
.
.
aation is a process of death.
In a state of total meditation we reach the same point a dead man does.
The only difference is that the dead man reaches there in an unscious state, while we reach sciously.
This is the only difference.
The dead man has no knowledge of what happened, of how the shell broke open and the kernel survived.
The meditative seeker knows that the shell and the kernel have bee separate.
The fear of death is the basic reason why people ot go into meditation -- there is no other reason.
Those who are afraid of death ever enter into samadhi.
Samadhi is a voluntary invitation to death.
An invitation is given to death: "e, I am ready to die.
I want to know whether or not I will survive after death.
And it is better that I know it sciously, because I wont be able to know anything if this event occurs in an unscious state.
"
So, the first thing I say to you is that as long as you keep running away from death you will tio be defeated by it -- and the day you stand up and enter death, that very day death will leave you, but you will remain.
These three days, all my talks will be oeiques of how you enter death.
I hope that, these three days, many people will e to know how to die, will be able to die.
And if you die here, on this shore.
.
.
.
And this is an incredible seashore.
It was on these very sands that Krishna once walked -- the same Krishna who told Arjuna in a certain war, "Dont be worried; have no fear.
Dont be afraid of killing or of being killed, because I tell you that her does anyone die nor does anyone kill.
" her has anyone ever died, nor anyone ever die and that which dies, that which die, is already dead.
And that which does not die and ot be killed -- there is no way of its dying.
And that is life itself.
Tonight, we have uedly gathered on this seashore where that very Krishna once walked.
These sands have seen Krishna walk.
People must have believed that Krishna really died -- since we know death as the only .9９ｌｉb?t>truth; for us everyone dies.
This sea, these sands, have never felt that Krishna died; this sky, these stars and the moon have never believed in Krishnas death.
In faowhere is there any room for death in life, but we have all believed that Krishna died.
We believe so because we are always haunted by the thought of our owh.
Why are we so preoccupied with the thought of our death? We are alive right now, then why are we so afraid of death? Why are we so very afraid of dying? Actually, behind this fear, there is a secret which we must uand.
There is a certain mathematics behind it, and this mathematics is very iing.
We have never seen ourselves dying.
We have seen others dying, and that reinforces the idea that we will have to die too.
For example, a raindrop lives in the o with thousands of other drops, and one day the suns rays fall on it and it turns into vapor, it disappears.
The other drops think it is dead, and they are right -- because they had seen the drop just a little while ago, and now it is gone.
But the drop still exists in the clouds.
Yet how are the other drops to know this until they themselves bee the cloud? By now that drop must have fallen into the sea and bee a drop again.
But how the other drops know this until they themselves set out on that journey?
When we see somebody dying around us, we think the person is no more, that yet another man has died.
We dont realize that the man has simply evaporated, that he has ehe subtle, and the out on a new journey -- that he is a drop which has evaporated, only to bee a drop once again.
How are we to see this? All we feel is that one more person is lost, that one more person is dead.
Thus, somebody dies every day; every day some drop is lost.
And it slowly bees a certainty for us that we too will have to die, that, "I too will die.
" Then a fear takes hold: "I will die.
" This fear grips us because we are looking at others.
We live watg others, and that is our problem.
Last night I was telling some friends a story.
Once a Jewish fakir became very upset by his troubles -- who does upset? We are all bothered by our woes, and reatest bother is seeing others happy.
Seeing that others are happy, we tinue being unhappy.
There is more mathematics behind this, the same kind of mathematics I spoke about in refereo death.
We see our misery and we see the faces of others.
We dohe misery in others; we see their smiling eyes, the smiles on their lips.
If we look at ourselves, we will see, in spite of being troubled inside, we go on smiling outwardly.
In fact, a smile is a way to hide the misery.
No one wants to show he is unhappy.
If he ot really be happy then at least he wants to show that he has bee happy, because to show oneself as unhappy is a matter of great humiliation, loss a.
Thats why we keep a smiling face outwardly, and inside, we remain as we are.
On the iears keep colleg; oside, we practice our smiles.
Then, when someone looks at us from the outside, he finds us smiling; however, when that person looks within himself he finds misery there.
And that bees a problem for him.
He thinks the whole world is happy, that he alone is unhappy.
The same thing happened with this fakir.
One night, in his prayers to God, he said, "I am not asking you not to give me unhappiness because if I deserve unhappihen I should certainly get it -- but at least I pray to you not to give me so much suffering.
I see people laughing in the world, and I am the only one g.
Everyone seems to be happy; I am the only one who is unhappy.
Everyone appears cheerful; I am the only one who is sad, lost in darkness.
After all, what wrong have I doo you? Please do me a favor -- give me some other persons unhappiness in exge for mine.
ge my unhappiness for that of anyone else you like, and I will accept it.
"
That night, while he slept, he had a strange dream.
He saw a huge mansion which had millions of hanging pegs.
Millions of people were ing in and every one was carrying a bundle of unhappiness on his back.
Seeing so many bundles of unhappiness, he got very scared, he grew puzzled.
The bundles brought by other people were very similar to his own.
The size and shape of everyones bundle was exactly the same.
He became very fused.
He had always seen his neighbor smiling -- and every m when the fakir asked him how things were, he would say, "Everything is just fine" -- and this same man was now carrying the same amount of unhappiness.
He saw politis and their follurus and their disciples -- everyone ing with the same size load.
The wise and the ignorant, the rid the poor, the healthy and the sick -- the load in everyones bundle was the same.
The fakir as dumbfounded.
He was seeing the bundles for the first time; up to now he had only seen peoples faces.
Suddenly a loud voice filled the room: "Hang up your bundles!" Everyone, including the fakir, did as anded.
Everyone hurried to get rid of his troubles; no one wao carry his miseries even a sed longer and if we were to find such opportunity, we would also hang them up right away.
And then another voice sounded, saying: "Now, each of you should pick up whichever bundle he pleases.
" We might suspect that the fakir quickly picked up someone elses bundle.
No, he did not make such a mistake.
In panic, he ran to pick up his own bundle before anyone else could reach it -- otherwise, it could have bee a problem for him, because all the bundles looked the same.
He thought it was better to have his own bundle -- at least the miseries in it were familiar.
Who knows what kinds of miseries were tained iher peoples bundles? Familiar misery is still a lesser kind of misery -- it is a known misery, a reizable misery.
So, in a state of panic, he ran arieved his own bundle before anyone else could lay his hands on it.
When he looked around, however, he found that everyone else had also run and picked up their own bundles; no one had selected a buhat was not his own.
He asked, "Why are you in such a hurry to collect your own bundles?"
"We became frightened.
Up to now wed believed that everyone else was happy, that only we were miserable," they replied.
In that mansion, whomsoever the fakir asked, the reply was that theyd always believed everyone else was happy.
"We even believed that you were happy too.
You also walked dowreet with a smile on your face.
We never imagihat you carried a bundle of miseries inside you too," they said.
With curiosity, the fakir asked, "Why did you collect your own bundle? Why didnt you exge it for another?"
They said, "Today, each of us had prayed to God, saying we wao exge our bundles of misery.
But when we saw that everyones miseries were just the same, we became scared; we had never imagined such a thing.
So we figured it was better to pick up our own bundle.
It is familiar and known.
Why fall into new miseries? By and by, we get used to the old miseries too.
"
That night, nobody picked up a buhat beloo someone else.
The fakir woke up, thanked merciful God for letting him have his own miseries back.
And decided o make such a prayer again.
In fact, the arithmetic behind it is the same.
When we look at other peoples faces and at our owy -- that is where we it .９9ｌib?a great error.
And with regard to our perception of life ah the same kind arithmetic is at work.
You have seen other people die, but you have never seen yourself dying.
We see other peoples deaths, but we never e to know if anything within these people survives.
Since we bee unscious at the time, death remains a strao us.
He is importaer death voluntarily.
If a person sees death once he bees free from it, he triumphs over death.
In fact, it is meanio call him victorious because there is nothing to win -- theh bees false; theh simply does.
If after adding two and terson writes down five, and the day he es to know that two plus two equals four, would he say hed triumphed over five and made it four? He would say, in fact, that there was no question of triumph -- there was no five.
Making it five was his error, it was his illusion -- his calculation was wrong, the total was four; he uood it as five, that was his mistake.
Once you see the mistake, the matter is over.
Would that man then say, "How I get rid of five? Now I see two and two are four, but before, I had added them up as five.
How I be free of five?" The man would not ask for such freedom, because as soon as one finds out that two plus two equal four, the matter is over.
There is no five any more.
Then what does one have to be free of?
Oher has to be free from death nor does one have to triumph over it.
One o know death.
The very knowing it bees freedom, the knowing itself bees the victory.
Thats why I stated earlier that knowing is power, that knowing is freedom, that knowing is victory.
Knowih causes it to dissolve; then suddenly, for the first time, we bee ected with life.
Thats why I told you that the first thing about meditation is that it is a voluntary entry into death.
The sed thing I would like to say is that one who enters into death willingly, finds, all of a sudderao life.
Even though he goes in search of death, instead of meetih he actually finds ultimate life.
Even though, for the purpose of his search he ehe mansion of death, he actually ends up iemple of life.
And one who escapes from the mansion of death never reaches the temple of life.
Allow me to point out to you that the walls of the temple of life are engraved with the shadows of death.
May I also point out to you that the maps of death are drawn on the walls of the temple of life, and since we run away from death we are also, in effect, running away from the temple of life! Only when t death will we be able to accept these walls.
If ever we could enter death, we would reach the temple of life.
The deity of life dwells within the walls of death; the images of death are engraved all over the temple of life.
We have simply been running away at the very sight of them.
If you have ever been to Khajuraho, you must have noticed a strahing -- all around its walls ses of sex have been sculpted.
The images look naked and obse.
If, after seeing them, a man simply runs away, then he will not be able to reach the deity of the temple inside.
Inside is the image of God, and outside are engravings, images, of sex, passion, and copulation.
They must have been a wonderful people who built the temples of Khajuraho.
They depicted a profound fact of life: they have veyed that sex is there, oside wall, and if you are to run away from there, then you will never be able to attain to brahmacharya to celibacy -- because brahmacharya is inside.
If you are ever able to get beyond these walls, then you will also attain to brahmacharya.
Samsara,the mortal world, is displayed on the walls, and running away from it will never bring you to God, because the one who is sitting ihe walls of samsara is God himself.
I am telling you exactly the same thing.
Somewhere, someplace, we should build a temple whose walls have death displayed on it and the deity of life would be sitting inside.
This is how the truth is.
However, since we keep esg from death, we miss the divinity of life as well.
I say both things simultaneously: meditation is entering voluntarily into death, and the one who enters death voluntarily attains to life.
That means: one who enters death ultimately finds that death has disappeared and he is in lifes embrace.
This looks quite tra99lib.ry -- you go in search of death and e across life -- but it is not.
For example, I am wearing clothes.
Now if you e in seare, first you will e ay clothes -- although I am not the clothes.
And if you bee frightened of my clothes and run away, then you will never be able to know me.
However, if you e closer and closer to me, without being frightened of my clothes, theh my clothes you will find my body.
But the body too, in a deeper sense, is a garment, and if you were to run away from my body, then you would not find the one who is seated inside me.
If you were not to bee frightened of the body and tinued your journey inside, knowing that the body is a garment too, then you would certainly e across that one who sits ihat one everyone is desirous of meeting.
How iing it is that the wall is made of the body and the divine is seated graciously inside.
The wall is made of matter and inside is the divihe sciousness seated in glory.
These are trary things indeed -- the wall of matter and the divinity of life.
If you uand rightly, the wall is made of death and the divine is made of life.
When an artist paints a picture he provides a dark background t out the white color.
The white lines bee clearly visible against the dark background.
If oo get scared of the black, he wouldnt be able to reach the white.
But he doesnt know that it is the black that brings out the white.
Similarly, there are thorns around the blooming roses.
If one bees frightened of the thorns he wont be able to reach the roses; if he goes on esg from the thorns he will be deprived of the flowers too.
But one ts the thorns and approaches them without fear finds to his amazement that the thorns are simply meant to protect the flower; they merely serve the purpose of being the outer wall for the flower -- the wall of prote.
The flower is blooming in the middle of the thorns; the thorns are not the flowers enemy.
The flowers are part of the thorns and the thorns are part of the flowers -- both have emerged from the same life-giving force of the plant.
What we call life and what we call death -- both are part of one greater life.
I am breathing.
A breath es out; a breath goes in.
The same breath that es out goes ba after a while, and the breath that goes in es out after a while.
Breathing in is life, breathing out is death.
But both are steps of one greater life -- life ah, walking side by side.
Birth is oep, death is aep.
But if we could see, if we could pee ihen we would attain the vision of the greater life.
These three days we shall do the meditation of entering into death.
And I shall speak to you on many of its dimensions.
Tonight we shall do the first days meditation.
Let me explain a few things about it to you.
You must have uood my point of view by now: we have to reach a point within, deep inside, where there is no possibility of dying.
We have to drop the whole outer circumference, as happens ih.
Ih the body drops, feelings drop, thoughts drop, friendship drops, enmity drops -- everything drops.
The eernal world departs -- only we remain, only the self remains, only the sciousness remains aloof.
Iation too, we have to drop everything and die leaving only the observer, the witness within.
And this death will happen.
Throughout these three days of meditation, if you will show the ce of dying and drop your self a phenomenon occur which is called samadhi.
Samadhi, remember, is a wonderful word.
The state of total meditation is called samadhi and a grave built after a persoh is also called a samadhi.
Have you ever thought about this? -- both are called samadhi.
In fact, both have a o, a eeting point.
Actually, for a person who attains to the state of samadhi, his body remains just like a grave -- nothing else.
Then he es to realize that there is someone else within; outside there is only darkness.
Following a persoh we make a grave and call it a samadhi.
But this samadhi is made by others.
If we make our own samadhi before others make it, then we have created the very phenomenon we are longing for.
Others will have the occasion to make rave for certain, but erhaps lose the opportunity of creating our own samadhi.
If we create our own samadhi, then, in that state, only the body will die and there will be no question of our sciousness dying.
We have never died, nor we ever die.
No one has ever died, nor anyone ever die.
To know this, however, we will have to desd all the steps of death.
I would like to show you three steps we shall follow.
And who knows, that phenomenon might occur on this very seashore and you may have your samadhi -- not the samadhi others make, but the one you create of your own will.
There are three steps.
The first step is to relax your body.
You have to relax your body so much that you begin to feel as if your body is lying far away from you, as if you have nothing to do with it.
You have to withdraw the whole energy from your body and take it inside.
We have given the energy to our bodies -- whatever amount of energy we pour into the body goes into it; whatever amouhdraw gets pulled inward.
Have you ever noticed something? When you get into a fight with somebody, where does your body get the additional energy from? In that state of anger you lift a rock so big that you couldnt even budge it when you were calm.
Although it was your body did you ever wonder where the energy came from? You put the energy in -- it was needed, you were in trouble; there was dahe enemy was fag you.
You knew your life could be in danger unless you picked up the rock, and you put all your energy into the body.
O happened: a man aralyzed for two years and was bedridden.
He could not get up; he could not move.
The physis gave up, declaring the paralysis would remain with him for the rest of his life.
Then one night his house caught fire and everyone ran out.
After ing out, they realized the head of their family was trapped inside he could not even run; what would happen to him? Some people had brought torches with them, and they found that the old man was already out.
They asked him if he had walked out of the house.
The man said, "How could I have walked? How did it happen?" But he certainly had walked; there was no question.
The house was on fire; everybody was leaving it and for a moment he fot his paralysis; he put his entire energy bato the body.
But when people saw him iorchlight and asked how he had mao e out, he exclaimed, "Oh, I am paralyzed!" and fell down.
He lost the energy.
Now it is beyond him to prehend how this phenomenon occurred.
Now everyoarted explaining to him that he was not really paralyzed, that if he could walk that much he could walk the rest of his life.
The ma saying, "I could not lift my hand; I could not even lift my foot -- then how did it happen?" He couldnt say; he did not even know who had brought him out.
No one had brought him out; he had e out on his own.
He did not know, however, that in the face of danger his soul had poured all his energy into his body.
And then, because of his feeling of being paralyzed, the soul drew its energy inside again and the man became paralyzed once more.
Su i has occurred not with one or two people, on this earth hundreds of instances have happened where a man stri with paralysis has e out of his dition, where he has fotten his dition in the event of a fire or in the face of another dangerous situation.
What I am saying is that ut energy into our body, but we have no idea how to withdraw it.
At night we feel rested because the energy is drawn inside and the body lies in a relaxed state, and in the m we are fresh again.
But some people are not even able to draw their energy inwards at night.
The energy still remains locked in the body and then it bees difficult for them to sleep.
Insomnia is an indication that the energy put into the body earlier ot find the way to return to its source.
In the first stage of this meditatioire energy has to be withdrawn from the body.
Now, the iing thing is that just by feeling it the energy returns.
If, for a while, someone feel that his energy is withdrawing inside and his body is relaxing, he will find that his body is tinuing to relax and relax.
The body will reach to a point where the person will not be able to lift his hand even if he wants to -- everything will be relaxed.
Thus, through feeling it, we withdraw our energy from the body.
So the first thing is the returning of the vital energy, the prana, back to its source.
That will make the body lie still -- just like a shell -- and it will be observed throughout that a distance has beeed between the shell and the kernel within the ut -- that we have bee separate and the body is lying outside us, just like a shell, just like cast-off clothes.
Then the hing is to relax your breath.
Deep ihe breath tains the vital energy, the prana, and thats why a man dies when the breath distinues.
Deep down, the breath keeps us ected to the body.
Breath is the bridge between the soul and the body; thats where the link is.
Hence, we call breath prana.
As soon as the breathing stops, the prana leaves.
Several teiques are applied in this respect.
What happens when a person relaxes his breath pletely, allows it to be still and quiet? Slowly, the breath es to a point where a ma know whether he is breathing inside or not.
He often begins to wonder whether he is alive or dead, whether the breath is happening or not.
The breathing bees so quiet one doesnt know if it is moving at all.
You dont have to trol breathing.
If you try to do so, the breath will never be trolled -- it will try to force itself out, and if you trol it from outside, it will try to force itself in.
Hence, I say, you dont have to do anything from your side, just let it be more and more relaxed -- more and more quiet.
Slowly, at one point, the breath es to rest.
Even if it es to rest just for a moment, then in that moment one see an infinite distaween the soul and the body -- in that very moment the distance is seen.
Its as if lightnio strike right now and I were to see all your faces in one moment.
Afterwards, the lightning might no longer be there, yet I have seen your faces.
When the breath pauses for a momely right in the middle, then in that moment a lightning strikes within oire being and it bees apparent that the body is separate and that you are separate -- theh has happened.
So in the sed stage you have to relax your breath.
Ihird stage the mind is to be relaxed.
Even if the breath is relaxed but the mind is not, the lightning will of course strike, but you wont be able to know what happened because the mind will remain occupied with its thoughts.
If lightning should strike right now and I were to remain lost in my thoughts, I would only e to know of it after it had happened.
In the meantime, however, the lightning has occurred and I have been lost in my thoughts.
The lightning will strike, of course, as soon as the breath pauses, but it will only be noticed if thoughts have ceased; otherwise it woiced and the opportunity will be lost.
Hehe third thing is to relax the mind.
We shall gh these three stages and then, in the fourth stage, we shall sit silently.
If you wish, you may either lie down or sit.
It will be easier lying down -- this is such a beautiful beach; it be put to good use.
Everyone should make a space around himself and lie down.
It is all right if someone wants to sit, but the person should not trol himself if his body begins to fall -- because the body may fall o bees pletely relaxed, and then your trolling it will not allow the body to be totally relaxed.
So we shall follow these three stages and then in the fourth stage we shall remain in silence for ten minutes.
These three days, during that silehere will be an effort on your part to see death, to let it desd.
I will give suggestions for you to feel that the body is relaxing, that the breath is relaxing, that the mind is relaxing -- then I will remain quiet, the lights will be turned off, and, lying down quietly, you will remain for ten minutes.
You will remain still, in silence, watg whatsoever is going on inside.
Make enough space around you so that in case the body drops, it wont fall on anyone.
Those who wish to lie down should make a space around themselves.
It would be better if you were to lie down on the sand quietly.
Nobody should talk.
.
.
no one should leave in the middle.
Yes, be seated.
Be seated wherever you are or lie down.
Close your eyes.
.
.
close your eyes and relax your body.
Let it be loose.
Then as I give suggestions, begin to feel with me.
As you keep feeling, your body will beore and more relaxed -- then the body will be Lying down, totally relaxed, as if there is no life in it.
Begin to feel.
The body is relaxing.
.
.
keep relaxing it.
.
.
.
Keep relaxing your body ahat it is relaxing.
The body is relaxing.
.
.
feel it.
.
.
relax every part of your body.
And feel inside.
.
.
the body is relaxing.
Your energy is returning inside.
.
.
the energy from your body is withdrawing, turning in.
.
.
the energy is withdrawing.
The body is relaxing.
.
.
the body is relaxing.
.
.
the body is relaxing.
.
.
the body is relaxing.
Let go pletely, as if you are not alive anymore.
Let the body drop as it is.
.
.
let it be totally loose.
The body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
Let go.
.
.
let go.
The body has bee relaxed.
The body has bee totally relaxed, as if there is no life in it.
The entire energy of the body has reached inside.
The body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
Let go, let go pletely, as if the body is no lohere.
We have moved within.
The body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
.
.
the body has bee relaxed.
The breath is quieting down.
.
.
relax your breathing also.
.
.
relax it pletely.
Let it e and go on its own.
.
.
let it be loose.
o stop it or slow it down; just let it be relaxed.
Let the breath e in as much as it .
.
.
let it e out as much as it .
The breathing is being relaxed.
.
.
the breathing is being calm.
.
.
.
Feel it like this: the breathing is being calm.
.
.
the breathing is being calm and relaxed.
.
.
the breathing is relaxing.
.
.
the breath is calming down.
The breath has calmed down.
.
.
the breath has calmed down.
.
.
the breath has calmed down.
Now let the mind be relaxed ahat thoughts are calming down.
.
.
thoughts are calming down.
.
.
the mind has calmed.
.
.
the mind has calmed.
.
.
.
Chapter 2
Seeing Life as a Dream
29 October 1969 am iation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India A few questions have been asked about last nights talk.
Question 1
ONE FRIEND HAS ASKED: ONE DIE FULLY SCIOUS, BUT HOW ONE BE IN FULL SCIOUSNESS AT BIRTH?
Actually, death and birth are not two events, they are two ends of the same phenomenon -- just like two sides of the same .
If a man have one side of a in his hand, the other side will be in his hand automatically.
Its not possible to have one side of a in my hand and then wonder how to get the other side -- the other side bees available automatically.
Death and birth are two sides of the same phenomenon.
If death occurs in a scious state, then birth iably takes pla a scious state.
If death occurs in an unscious state, then birth happens in a state of unsciousoo.
If a person dies fully scious at the time of his death, he will be filled with sciousness at the moment of his birth also.
Since we all die in a state of unsciousness and are born in a state of unsciousness, we remember nothing of our past lives.
However, the memory of our past lives always remains present in some er of our minds, and this memory be revived if we so desire.
With birth we ot do anything directly; whatsoever we do is possible only iion to death.
Nothing be doer death; whatsoever is to be done must be done before death.
A person dying in an unscious state ot do anything until he is bain -- there is no way; he will tio remain unscious.
Hence, if you died before in an unscious state, you will have to be bain in an unscious state.
Whatsoever is to be done must be done before death, because we have lots of opportunities before death, the opportunity of a whole lifetime.
With this opportunity an effort be made towards awakening.
So, it will be a great mistake if someone keeps waiting until the moment of death to awaken.
You t awaken at the time of death.
The sadhana, the jourowards awakening, will have to begin long before death; a preparation will have to be made for it.
Without preparation one is sure to remain unscious ih.
Although, in a way, this unscious state is for your own good if you are not yet ready to be born in a scious state.
Around 1915, the ruler of Kashi had an abdominal operation.
This was the first such operation ever performed in the world without the use of ahesia.
There were three British physis who refused to perform the operation without giving ahesia, saying it was impossible to have a mans stomach open for one-and-a-half to two hours during a major operation without making the patient unscious.
It was dangerous -- the danger was that the patient might scream, move, jump or fall because of the unbearable pain; anything might happen.
Hehe doctors were not ready.
But the ruler maintaihere was no cause for as long as he remained iation and said he could easily remain iation for one-and-a-half to two hours.
He was not willing to take the ahetic; he said he wished to be operated upon in his scious state.
But the physis were relut; they believed it was dangerous to have someone gh such pain in a scious state.
However, seeing no other alternative, the physis first asked him, as an experiment, to go into meditation.
Then they made a cut in his hand -- there was not even a tremor.
Only two hours later did he plain that his hand hurt; he did not feel anything for two hours.
Subsequently, the operation erformed.
That was the first operation to be performed in the world where physis worked on a patients open stomach for an hour-and-a-half without giving ahetic.
And the ruler remained fully scious throughout the operation.
Deep meditation is required to be in such awareness.
The meditation has to be so deep as to make oally aware, without an iota of doubt, that the self and the body are separate.
Even the slightest identification with the body be dangerous.
Death is the biggest surgical operation there is.
No physi has ever performed aion as big as this -- because ih there is a meism to transplant the eal energy, the prana, from one physical body into another physical body.
No one has ever performed such a phenomenal operation, nor it ever be done.
We may sever one part of the body or another, or transplant one part or another, but in the case of death, the eal energy has to be taken from one body aered into another.
Nature has kindly seen to it that we bee fully unscious at the occurrence of this phenomenon.
It is for our own good; we might not be able to bear that much pain.
It is possible that the reason why we bee unscious is because the pain of death is so unbearable.
It is in our own ihat we bee unscious; nature does not allow us to remember passing through death.
In every life we repeat almost the same mistakes we have repeated in our past lives.
If we could only recall what we did in our past lives, we might not fall into the same ditches again.
And if we could only remember what we did throughout our previous lives, we could no longer remain the same as we are now.
It is impossible we could remain the same, because time and time again we have amassed wealth and every time death has made all that wealth meaningless.
If we could recall this, we might not carry, any lohe same craze for money within us as we did before.
We have fallen in love a thousand times, and time and time again it has ultimately proven to be meaningless.
If we could recall this, our craze for falling in love with others and for having others fall in love with us would disappear.
Thousands upon thousands of times we have been ambitious, egoistic; we have attained success, high position, and in the end all of it has turned out to be useless, all of it has turo dust.
If we could recall this, perhaps our ambition would lose its steam, and then we would not remain the same people we are now.
Since we do not remember our past lives, we keep moving in almost the same circle.
Man does not realize that he has gohrough the same circle many times before, and that he is going through it once again in the same hope he carried with him so often before.
Theh ruins all hopes, and once again the cycle begins.
Man moves in circles like an ox on a water-wheel.
One save oneself from this harm, but it requires great awareness and tinuous experimentation.
One ot start waiting for death all at once, because one ot bee suddenly aware during such a big operation, under such a great trauma.
We will have to experiment slowly.
We will have to experiment slowly with small miseries to see how we be aware while going through them.
For example, you have a headache.
At one and the same time you bee aware and begin to feel that you have a headache, not that the head is in pain.
So one will have to experiment otle headache and learn to feel that, "The pain is in the head and I am aware of it.
"
When Swami Ram was in America people had great difficulty following him in the beginning.
When the president of America paid him a visit, he uzzled too.
He asked, "What language is this?" -- because Ram used to speak ihird person.
He would not say, "I am hungry," he would say, "Ram is hungry.
" He would not say, "I have a headache," he would say, "Ram has a severe headache.
"
In the beginning people had great difficulty following him.
For example, he once said, "Last night Ram was freezing.
" When asked who he was referring to, he replied that he was referring to Ram.
When he was asked, "Which Ram?" he said, pointing to himself, "This Ram -- the puy was freezing cold last night.
We kept laughing and asked, Hows the cold Ram?"
He would say, "Ram was walking oreet and some people began swearing at him.
We had a belly laugh and said, How do you like the swearing, Ram? If you seek honor, you are bound to meet with insult.
" When people asked, "Who are you talking about, which Ram?" he would point to himself.
You will have to start experimenting with minor kinds of miseries.
You enter them every day in life; they are present every day -- not only miseries, you will have to include happiness in the experiment also, because it is more difficult to be aware in happihan it is to be in misery.
It is not so difficult to experiehat your head and the pain in it are two separate things, but it is more difficult to experiehat, "The body is separate and the joy of beihy is separate from me too -- I am not even that.
" It is difficult to maintain this distance when we are happy because in happiness we like to be close to it.
While in misery, we obviously want to feel separate, away from it.
Should it bee certain that the pain is separate from us, we want it to stay that way so we be free of it.
You will have to experiment on how to remain aware in misery as well as in happiness.
One who carries out such experiments often brings misery upon himself, of his own free will, in order to experie.
This is basically the secret of all asceticism: it is an experiment to undergo voluntary pain.
For example, a man is on a fast.
By remaining hungry he is trying to find out what effect hunger has on his sciousness.
Ordinarily, a person who is on a fast hasnt the slightest notion of what he is doing -- he only knows that he is hungry and looks forward to having his meal the day.
The fual purpose of fasting is to experiehat, "Hunger is there, but it is far away from me.
The body is hungry, I am not.
" So by indug hunger voluntarily, one is trying to know, from within, if hunger is there.
Ram is hungry -- I am not hungry.
I know hunger is there, and this has to bee a tinuous knowing until I reach a point where a distance occurs between me and the hunger -- where I no longer remain hungry -- even in hunger I no longer remain hungry.
Only the body stays hungry and I know it.
I simply remain a knower.
Then the meaning of fasting bees very profound; then it does not mean merely remaining hungry.
Normally, one who goes on a fast keeps repeating twenty-four hours a day that he is hungry, that he has en any food that day.
His mind tio fantasize about the food he will eat the day and plans for it.
This kind of fasting is meaningless.
Then it is merely abstaining from food.
The distin between abstaining from food and fasting, upvasa, is this: fasting means residing closer and closer.
Closer to what? It means ing closer to the self by creating a distance from the body.
The word upvasa does not imply going without food.
Upvasa means residing closer and closer.
Closer to what? It means closer to the self, residing closer to the self and further away from the body.
Then it is also possible that a man may eat a remain iate of fasting.
If, while eating, he knows from within that eating is taking place elsewhere and the sciousness is totally separate from the act, then it is upvasa.
And it is also possible that a man may not really be fasting even though he may have denied himself food; for he may be too scious of being hungry, that he is dying of hunger.
Upvasa is a psychological awareness of the separation of the self and the physical state of hunger.
Other pains of a similar type also be created voluntarily, but creating such voluntary pain is a very deep experiment.
A man may lie on thorns just to experiehat the thorns only prick the body and not his self.
Thus a misery be invited in order to experiehe disassociation of sciousness from the physical plane.
But there are already enough uninvited miseries in the world -- o invite any more.
Already much misery is available -- one should start experimenting with it.
Miseries e uninvited anyway.
If, during the uninvited misery, one maintain the awarehat "I am separate from my suffering" then the suffering bees a sadhana, a spiritual discipline.
One will have to tihis sadhana even with happiness which has e on its own.
In suffering, it is possible we may succeed in deceiving ourselves because one would like to believe that "I am not pain.
" But when it es to happiness, a man wants to identify himself with it because he already believes that "I am happy.
" Hehe sadhana is even more difficult with happiness.
Nothing, in fact, is more painful than feeling that we are separate from our happiness.
Actually, a man wants to drown himself pletely in happiness and fet that he is separate from it.
Happiness drowns us; misery disects us as us apart from the self.
Somehow, we e to believe that our identification with suffering is only because we have no other choice, but we wele happiness with our whole being.
Be aware in the pain whies your way; be aware in the happiness whies your way -- and occasionally, just as an experiment, be aware in invited pain also, because in it, things are a little different.
We ever fully identify ourselves with anything we invite upon ourselves.
The very knowledge that it is an ihing creates the distance.
The guest who es to your home does not belong there -- he is a guest.
Similarly, when we invite suffering as uest, it is already something separate from us.
While walking barefoot a thets into your foot.
This is an act and its pain will be overwhelming.
This unfortunate act is different from when you purposely take a thorn and press it against your foot -- knowing every moment that you are pierg the foot with the thorn and watg the pain.
I am not asking you to go ahead and torture yourself; as it is, there is enough suffering already -- what I mean is: first be alert in going through both suffering and happiness; then later, one day, invite some misery and see how far away from it you set your sciousness.
Remember, the experiment of inviting misery is of great significe, because everyone wants to invite happiness but no one wants to invite misery.
And the iing thing is that the misery we dont want es on its own, and the happiness we seek never es.
Eve es by ce, it remains outside our door.
The happiness we be to never es, while the happiness we never ask for walks right in.
When a person gathers enough strength to invite misery, it means he is so happy that he invite suffering now.
He is so blissful that now there is no difficulty for him to invite suffering.
Now misery be asked to e and stay.
But this is a very deep experiment.
Until repared to uake su experiment, we must try to bee aware of whatever suffering es our way on its own.
If we go on being more and more aware each time we e aisery, we will gather enough capability to remain scious even wheh arrives.
Then nature will allow us to stay awake ih too.
Nature, as well, will figure that if the man stay scious in pain, he also remain scious ih.
No one stay scious ih all of a sudden, without having had a previous experience of the kind.
A man named P.
D.
Ouspensky died some years ago.
He was a great mathemati from Russia.
He is the only person in this tury who has done such extensive experiments iion to death.
Three months before his death, he became very ill.
The physis advised him to stay in bed, but in spite of this, he made su incredible effort it is beyond imagination.
He would not sleep at night; he traveled, walked, ran, was always on the move.
The physis were aghast; they said he needed plete rest.
Ouspensky called all his close friends near him but did not say anything to them.
The friends who stayed with him for three months, until his death, have said that for the first time they saw, before their eyes, a man acceptih in a scious state.
They asked him why did he not follow the physis advice.
Ouspensky replied, "I want to experience all kinds of paihe pain of death be so great that I might bee unscious.
I want to gh every pain before death; that create such a stamina ihat I be totally scious wheh es.
" So for three months he made an exemplary effort to gh all kinds of pain.
His friends have written that those who were fit ay would get tired, but not Ouspensky.
The physis insisted that he must have plete rest, otherwise it would cause him great harm -- but to no avail.
The night he died, Ouspensky kept walking bad forth in his room.
The physis who examined him declared that his legs had no more strength left to walk -- a he kept walking the whole night.
He said, "I want to die walking, lest I might die sitting and bee unscious, or I might die sleeping and bee unscious.
" As he walked, he told his friends, "Just a little bit longer -- ten more steps and all will be over.
I am sinking, but I shall keep walking until I have taken the last step.
I want to keep on doing something until the very end, otherwise death may catch me unawares.
I may relax and go to sleep -- I dont want this to happen at the moment of death.
"
Ouspensky died while taking his last step.
Very few people on this earth have died walking like this.
He fell down walking; that is, he fell only when his death occurred.
Taking his last step, he said, "Thats it; this is my last step.
Now I am about to fall.
But before departi me tell you I dropped my body long ago.
You will see my body being released now, but I have been seeing for a long time now that the body has dropped and still I exist.
The links with the body have all been broken a, inside, I still exist.
Now only the body will fall -- there is no way for me to fall down.
"
At the time of his death, his friends saw a kind of light in his eyes.
A peace, joy and radiance were visible which shihrough when one is standing ohreshold of the world beyond.
But one o make preparations for this, a tinuous preparation.
If a person prepares himself fully, theh bees a wonderful experience.
There is no other phenomenon more valuable than this, because what is revealed at the time of death ever be known otherwise.
Theh looks like a friend, for only at the occurrence of death we experiehat we are a living anism -- not before that.
Remember, the darker the night, the brighter the stars.
The flash of lightning stands out like a silver strand, the darker the clouds are.
Similarly, when, in its full form, death surrounds us from all sides, at that moment the very ter of life mas in all its glory -- never before that.
Death surrounds us like darkness, and in the middle, that very ter of life -- call it atman, the soul, shines in its full sple９９lib?ndor; the surrounding darkness makes it luminous.
But at that moment we bee unscious.
At the very moment of death, which could otherwise bee the moment to know our being, we bee unscious.
Hene will have to make preparations towards raising ones sciousness.
Meditation is that preparation.
Meditation is an experiment in how oains to a gradual, voluntary death.
It is an experiment in how one moves within and then leaves the body.
If oates throughout his life, he will attain to total meditation at the moment of death.
Wheh happens in full sciousness, the soul of the person takes its birth in full sciousness.
Then the very first day of his new life is not a day of ignora of full knowledge.
Even ihers womb he remains fully scious.
Only one more birth is possible for one who has died in a scious state.
There is no other birth possible for him after that -- because one who has experienced what birth is, what death is and what life is, attains liberation.
One who has taken birth in awareness, we have called him avatara, tirthankara, Buddha, Jesus, Krishna.
And the thing that distinguishes them from the rest of us is awareness.
They are awakened and we are asleep.
Having taken scious birth, this bees their final journey oh.
They have something we dont have, which, painstakingly, they ti to us.
The differeween the awakened ones and us is simply this: their previous death and the birth thereafter happened in a state of awareness -- hehey live their entire life in awareness.
People in Tibet do a little experiment called bardo.
It is a very valuable experiment, carried out only at the time of death.
When someone is about to die, people who know gather around him and make him do Bardo.
But only he who has meditated in his life be made to gh Bardo -- not otherwise.
In the experiment of Bardo, as soon as a person dies, instrus are given from the outside that he should remain fully awake.
He is told to keep watg whatever follows , because in that state, many times things happen which the dying person ever uand.
New phenomena are not so easy to follht away.
If a person stay scious after death, for a while he will not know that he is dead.
When people carry his dead body and start burning it at the cremation ground only then will he e to know for certain that he is dead -- because nothing actually dies inside, just a distance is created.
In life, this distance has never been experienced before.
The experience is so ot be grasped through ventional definition.
The person merely feels that something has separated.
But something has died, and that he only uands when people all around him start weeping and g, falling over his body in grief, getting ready to carry the body away for cremation.
There is a reason why the body is brought for cremation so soon.
The reason for burning or cremating the body as soon as possible is to assure the soul that the body is dead, that it is buro ashes.
But this a man know only if he has died in awareness; a man dying in an unscious state ot know this.
So in order for a man to see his body burning in Bardo, he is prompted, "Take a good look at your burning body.
Dont run or move away in haste.
When people bring your body for cremation, make sure you apany them and be present there.
Watch your body being cremated with perfect attention, so that ime you do not get attached to the physical body.
"
Once you see something burning to ashes, your attat for it disappears.
Others will, of course, see your body being cremated, but if you also see it, you will lose all your attat for it.
Normally, in nine hundred and y-nine cases out of a thousand, the man is unscious at the time of death; he has no knowledge of it.
On the one occasion when he is scious, he moves away from watg his burning body; he escapes from the cremation ground.
So in Bardo he is told, "Look, dont miss this opportunity.
Watch your body being cremated; just watch it ond for all.
Watch that which you have beeifying your self with all along beiroyed totally.
Watch it being reduced to ashes for certain, so that you may remember in your birth who you are.
"
As soon as a person dies he enters into a new world, one we know nothing about.
That world be scary and frightening to us because it is her like nor unlike any of our experiences.
In fact it has no e with life oh whatsoever.
Fag this new world is more frightening than it would be if a mao find himself in a strange try where everyone was a strao him, where he was unacquainted with their language, with their ways of living.
He would obviously be very perturbed and fused .
The world we live in is a world of physical bodies.
As we leave this world the incorporeal world begins -- a world we have never experienced.
It is even more frightening, because in our world, no matter how strahe place, how different its people and their ways of living, there is still a boween us and them: it is a realm of human beings.
Entering into the world of bodiless spirits be an experience frightening beyond imagination.
Ordinarily, we pass through it in an unscious state, and so we dont notice it.
But one who goes through it in a scious state gets into great difficulty.
So in Bardo there is an attempt to explain to the person what kind of a world it will be, what will happen there, what kind of beings he will e across.
Only those who have been through deep meditation be taken through this experiment -- not otherwise.
Lately, I have oftehat those friends ractig meditation be taken into the Bardo experiment in some form or other.
But this is possible only when they have gohrough deep meditation; otherwise, they would not even be able to hear what is being said to them.
They would not be able to hear what is being said at the moment of death, or follow what is being told to them.
In order to follow what is being said, a very silent ay mind is needed.
As the sciousness begins to fade and disappear, and as all earthly ties start being severed, only a very silent mind hear messages given from this world; they ot be heard otherwise.
Remember, it be done only in respect to death, if anything; nothing be doh respect to birth.
But whatsoever we do with death, it sequently affects our birth as well.
We are born in the same state in which we die.
An awakened one exercises his choi seleg the womb.
This shows that he never chooses anything blindly, unsciously.
He chooses his parents just as a rich man chooses his house.
A poor man ot have a house of his choice.
You need a certain capacity to choose.
One needs a capability to buy a house.
A poor man never chooses his house.
One should say that actually the house chooses the poor man; a poor house chooses a poor man.
A millionaire decides where he should reside, what the garden should look like, where the doors and windows should be fixed -- the sunlight should enter from the east or west; how the ventilation should be, how spacious the house should be -- he chooses everything.
An awakened one chooses a womb for himself; that is his choice.
Individuals like Mahavira or Buddha are not born anywhere and everywhere.
They take birth after sidering all possibilities: how the body will be and from which parents it will be ceived; what the energy will be like, how powerful he will be; what kind of facilities will be available to him.
They take birth after looking into all of this.
They have a clear choice of what to choose, where to go; hence, from the very first day of their birth they live the life of their own choice.
The joy of living a life of ones own choice is altogether different, because freedom begins with having a life of ones own choice.
There ot be the same kind of joy in a life which is given to you because then it bees servitude.
In such cases one is merely pushed into life and then whatever happens, happens -- the person has no role to play in it.
If su awakening bees possible then the choice definitely be made.
If the very birth happens out of our choice, then we live the rest of our lives in choice.
Then we live like a jeevan-mukta.
One who dies in an awakeate is born in an awakeate and then he lives his life in a liberated state.
We oftehe word jeevan-mukta, although we may not know what the word means.
Jeevan-mukta means: one who is born in an awakeate.
Only such a person be a jeevan-mukta; otherwise he may work his whole life for liberatio he attain freedom only in his life -- he will not be free in this life.
In order to be a jeevan-mukta in this life a man must have the freedom to choose from the very first day of his birth.
And this is possible only if one has attaio full sciousness in the dying moment of ones previous life.
But at this point that is not the question.
Life is here, death has not arrived yet.
It is sure to e; there is nothing more certain thah.
There be doubt regarding other things, but about death nothing whatsoever is in doubt.
There are people who have doubts about God, there are others who have doubts about the soul, but you may never have e across a man who has doubts about death.
It is iable -- it is sure to e; it is already on its way.
It is approag closer and closer every moment.
We utilize the moments which are available before death for our awakening.
Meditation is a teique to that effect.
My effort ihree days will be to help you uand that meditation is the teique for that very awakening.
Question 2
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: WHAT IS THE RELATIOWEEATION AND JATI-SMARAN, PAST LIFE REMEMBERING?
Jati-smaran means: a method of recalling past lives.
It is a way to remember our previous existences.
It is a form of meditation.
It is a specific application of meditation.
For example, one might ask, "What is a river, and what is a al? Our answer would be that the al is a specific application of the river itself -- well planned, but trolled and systematic.
The river is chaotirestrained; it too will reaewhere, but its destination is not certain.
The destination of the al is assured.
Meditation is like a big river -- it will reach to the o; it is sure to reach.
Meditation will surely bring you to God.
There are, however, other intermediary applications of meditation also.
Like small tributaries these be directed into als of meditation.
Jati-smaran is one such auxiliary method of meditation.
We elize the power of meditation towards our past lives also; meditation simply means the fog of attention.
There be applications where otention is focused on a given object, and one such application is jati-smaran -- fog on the dormant memories of past lives.
Remember, memories are never erased; a memory either remains latent or it arises.
But the latent memory appears to be erased.
If I ask you what you did on January 1, 1950, you will not be able to answer -- which does not mean that you might not have done anything on that day.
But suddenly the day of January 1, 1950 feels like a total blank.
It could not have been blank; as it passed, it was filled with activity.
But today it feels like a blank.
Similarly, today will bee blank tomorrow as well.
Ten years from now there will be no trace left of today.
So it is not that January 1, 1950 did , or that you did on that day -- what is implied is that since you are uo recall that day, how you believe it ever existed? But it did exist and there is a way to know about it.
Meditation be focused in that dire as well.
As soon as the light of meditation falls on that day, to your surprise you will see that it looks more alive than it ever was before.
For example, a persoers a dark room and moves around with a flashlight.
Wheurns the light to the left, the right side bees dark -- but nothing disappears on the right side.
When he moves the light to the right, the right side bees alive again, but the left side remains hidden in the dark.
Meditation has a focus, and if one wants to el it in a particular dire then it has to be used like a flashlight.
If, however, one wants to turn it towards the diviheation has to be applied like a lamp.
Please uand this carefully.
The lamp has no focus of its own; it is unfocused.
A lamp merely burns and its light spreads all around.
A lamp has no i in lighting up one dire or the other; whatsoever falls within the radius of light is lit up.
But the form of a flashlight is like a focused lamp.
In a flashlight we keep all the light and shi in one dire.
So it is possible that under a burning lamp things may bee visible, but hazy, and in order to see them clearly we trate the light on one place -- it bees a flashlight; thehing bees clearly visible.
However, the remaining objects are lost to view.
In fact, if a man wants to see an object clearly he will have to focus his total meditation in one dire only and turn the rest of the area into darkness.
One who wants to know the truth of life directly will develop his meditation like a lamp -- that will be his sole purpose.
And, in fact, the lamps only objective is to see itself; if it shihis much it is enough -- thats the end of it.
But if some special application of the lamp has to be made -- such as remembering past lives -- theation will have to be eled in one dire.
I will share with you two or three clues as to how meditation be elized in that dire.
I wont give you all the clues because, most likely, hardly any of you have any iion of using them, and those who have see me personally.
So I will mention two or three clues which, of course, wont really enable you to experiment with remembering past lives, but will give you just an idea.
I wont discuss the whole thing because its not advisable for everyoo experiment with this idea.
Also, this experiment often put you in danger.
Let me tell you of an i so that what I am saying bees clear to you.
For about two or three years, in respeeditation, a lady professor stayed in touch with me.
She was very insistent on experimenting with jati-smaran, on learning about her past life.
I helped her with the experiment; however, I also advised her that it would be better if she didnt do the experiment until her meditation was fully developed, otherwise it could be dangerous.
As it is, a single lifes memories are difficult to bear -- should the memories of the past three or four lives break the barrier and flood in, a person go mad.
Thats why nature has pla so we go on fetting the past.
Nature has given us a greater ability tet more than you remember, so that your mind does not have a greater burden than it carry.
A heavy burden be borne only after the capacity of your mind has increased, and trouble begins when the weight of these memories falls on you before this capacity has been raised.
But she remained persistent.
She paid o my advid went into the experiment.
When the flood of her past lifes memory finally burst upon her, she came running to me around two oclo the m.
She was a real mess; she was i distress.
She said, "Somehow this has got to stop.
I dont ever want to look at that side of things.
" But it is not so easy to stop the tide of memory o has broken loose.
It is very difficult to shut the door o crashes down -- the door does not simply open, it breaks open.
It took about fifteen days -- only then did the wave of memories stop.
What was the problem?
This lady used to claim that she was very pious, a woman of impeccable character.
When she entered the memory of her past life, when she rostitute, and the ses of her prostitution began to emerge, her whole being was shaken.
Her whole morality of this life was disturbed.
In this sort of revelation, it is not as if the visions belong to someone else -- the same woman who claimed to be chaste now saw herself as a prostitute.
It often happens that someone who rostitute in a past life bees deeply virtuous in the ; it is a rea to the suffering of the past life.
It is the memory of the pain and the hurt of the previous life that turns her into a chaste woman.
It often happens that people who were sinners in past lives bee saints in this life.
Hehere is quite a deep relationship between sinners and saints.
Such a rea often takes place, and the reason is, what we e to know hurts us and so we swing to the opposite extreme.
The pendulum of our minds keeps moving in the opposite dire.
No sooner does the pendulum reach the left than it moves back to the right.
It barely touches the right when it swings back to the left.
When you see the pendulum of a oving towards the left, be assured it is gathering energy to move back to the right -- it will go as far to the right as it has goo the left.
Hence, in life it often happens that a virtuous person bees a sinner, and a sinner bees virtuous.
This is very on; this sort of oscillation occurs in everyones life.
Do not think, therefore, that it is a general rule that one who has bee a holy man in this life must have been a holy man in his past life also.
It is not necessarily so.
What is necessarily so is the exact reverse of it -- he is laden with the pain of what he went through in his past life and has turo the opposite.
I have heard.
.
.
.
A holy man and a prostitute once lived opposite each other.
Both died on the same day.
The soul of the prostitute was to be taken to heaven, and that of the holy man, however, to hell.
The envoys who had e to take them away were very puzzled.
They kept asking each other, "What went wrong? Is this a mistake? Why are we to take the holy man to hell? Wasnt he a holy man?"
The wisest among them said, "He was a holy man all right, but he ehe prostitute.
He always brooded over the parties at her plad the pleasures that went on there.
The notes of music which came drifting to his house would jolt him to his very core.
No admirer of the prostitute, sitting in front of her, was ever moved as much as he -- listening to the sounds ing from her residehe sounds of the small dang bells she wore on her ankles.
His whole attention always remained focused on her place.
Even while worshipping God, his ears were tuo the sounds which came from her house.
"And the prostitute? While she languished i of misery, she always wondered what unknown bliss the holy man was in.
Whenever she saw him carrying flowers for m worship, she wondered, When will I be worthy to take flowers of worship to the temple? I am so impure that I hardly even gather enough ce to ehe temple.
The holy man was never as lost in the inse smoke, in the shining lamps, in the sounds of worship as the prostitute was.
The prostitute always longed for the life of the holy man, and the holy man always craved for the pleasures of the prostitute.
"
Their is and attitudes, so totally opposite each others, so totally different from each others, had pletely ged.
This often happens -- and there are laws at work behind these happenings.
So when the memory of her past life came back to this lady professor, she was very hurt.
She felt hurt because her ego was shattered.
What she learned about her past life shook her, and now she waet it.
I had warned her in the first plaot to recall her past life without suffit preparation.
Since you have asked, I shall tell you a few basic things so that you uand the meaning of jati-smaran.
But they wont help you to experiment with it.
Those who wish to experiment will have to look into it separately.
The first thing is that if the purpose of jati-smaran is simply to know ones past life, then one o turn ones mind away from the future.
Our mind is future-oriented, not past-oriented.
Ordinarily, our mind is tered iure; it moves toward the future.
The stream of our thoughts is future-oriented, and it is in lifes is that the miure-oriented, not past-oriented.
Why be ed with the past? It is go is finished -- so we are ied in that which is about to e.
Thats why we keep asking astrologers what is in store for us iure.
We are ied in finding out what is going to happen iure.
One who wants to remember the past has to give up, absolutely, any i iure.
Because ohe flashlight of the mind is focused oure; ohe stream of thoughts has begun to move towards the future, then it ot be turned back towards the past.
So the first thing one o do is to break oneself pletely away from the future for a few months, for a certain specific period of time.
One should decide that he will not think of the future for the six months.
If a thought of the future does occur, he will simply salute it a go; he will not bee identified with and carried away by any feeling of future.
So the first thing is that, for six months, he will allow that there is no future and will flow towards the past.
And so, as soon as future is dropped, the current of thoughts turns towards the past.
First you will have to go ba this life; it is not possible to return to a past life all at once.
And there are teiques foing ba this life.
For example, as I said earlier, you dont remember now what you did on January 1, 1950.
There is a teique to find out.
If you go into the meditation which I have suggested, after ten minutes -- when the meditation has gone deeper, the body is relaxed, the breathing is relaxed, the mind has bee quiet -- the only ohing remain in your mind: "What took pla January 1, 1950?" Let your entire mind focus on it.
If that remains the only note eg in your mind, in a few days you will all of a sudden find a curtain is raised: the first of January appears and you begin to relive ead every event of that day from dawn to dusk.
And you will see the first of January in far more detail than you may have seen it, in actuality, on that very day -- because on that day, you may not have been this aware.
So, first, you will o experiment by regressing in this life.
It is very easy tress to the age of five; it bees very difficult to go beyond that age.
And so, ordinarily, we ot recall what happened before the age of five; that is the farthest back we go.
A few people might remember up to the third year, but beyond that it bees extremely difficult -- as if a barrier es across the entrand everything bees blocked.
A person who bees capable of recalling will be able to fully awaken the memory of any day up to the age of five.
The memory starts to be pletely revived.
Then one should test it.
For example, note down the events of today on a piece of paper and lock it away.
Two years later recall this day: opee and pare your memory with it.
You will be amazed to find that you have been able to recall more than what was noted on the paper.
The events are certain to return to your memory.
Buddha has called this alaya-vigyan.
There exists a er in our minds which Buddha has named alaya-vigyan.
Alaya-vigyan means the storehouse of sciousness.
As we store all our junk in the basement of a house, similarly, there is a storehouse of scioushat collects memories.
Birth after birth, everything is stored in it.
Nothing is ever removed from there, because a man never knows when he might hose things.
The physical body ges, but, in oiehat storehouse tinues, remains with us.
One never knows when it might be needed.
And whatsoever we have done in our lives, whatsoever we have experienced, known, lived -- everything is stored there.
One who remember to the age of five go beyond that age -- it is not very difficult.
The nature of the experiment will be the same.
Beyond the age of five there is yet another door which will lead you to the point of your birth, to when you appeared oh.
Then one es across another difficulty, because the memories of oay ihers womb never disappear either.
One pee these memories too, reag to the point of ception, to the moment when the genes of the mother and father unite and the soul enters.
A man enter into his past lives only after having reached this point; he ove into them directly.
One has to uake this much of the return journey, only then is it possible to move into ones past life as well.
After haviered the past life, the first memory to e up will be of the last event that took pla that life.
Remember, however, that this will cause some difficulty and will make little sense.
It is as if we run a film from the end or read a novel backwards -- we feel lost.
And so, entering into ones past life for the first time will be quite fusing because the sequence of events will be in the reverse order.
As you go bato your past life, you will e across death first, then old age, youth, childhood, and then birth.
It will be in reverse order, and in that order it will be very difficult to figure out what is what.
So when the memory surfaces for the first time, you feel tremendously restless and troubled, because it is difficult to make se is as if you are looking at a film or reading a novel from the end.
Perhaps you will only make heads or tails of a after rearranging the order several times.
So the greatest effort involved in going back to the memories of ones past life is seeing, in reverse order, events which ordinarily take pla the right order.
But, after all, what is the right or reverse order? It is just a question of how we ehe world and how we departed from it.
We sow a seed in the beginning, and the floears in the end.
However, if oo take a reverse look at this phenomenon, the flower would e first, followed in sequence by the bud, the plant, the leaves, the saplings and in the end the seed.
Since we have no previous knowledge of this reverse order, it takes a lot of time to rearrange memories coherently and to figure out the nature of evebbr>99ｌｉb?nts clearly.
The strahing is that death will e first, followed by old age, illness, and then youth; things will occur in the reverse order.
Or, if you were married and then divorced, while going down memory lahe divorce will e first, followed by the love and then the marriage.
It will be extremely difficult to follow events in this regressive fashion, because normally we uand things in a one-dimensional way.
Our minds are one-dimensional.
To look at things in opposite order is very difficult -- we are not used to su experience; we are aced to moving in a linear dire.
With effort, however, one uand the events of a past life by following, in sequehe reverse order.
Surely, it will be an incredible experience.
Going through memories in this reverse order will be a very amazing experience, because seeing the divorce first and then the love and then the marriage, will make it instantly clear that the divorce was iable -- the divorce was i in the kind of love that happehe divorce was the only ultimate possible oute of the kind of marriage that took place.
But at the time of that past life marriage we hadnt the fai idea it would eventually end in divorce.
And ihe divorce was the result of that marriage.
If we could see this whole thing in its ey, then falling in love today would bee a totally different thing -- because now we could see the divor it beforehand, now we could see the enmity around the er even before making the friendship.
The memory of the past life will pletely turn this life upside-down, because now you wont be able to live the way you lived in your past life.
In your previous life you felt -- and the same feelis even now -- that success and great happiness were to be found by making a fortune.
What you will see first in your previous life is your state of unhappiness before seeing how you made the fortune.
This will clearly show that instead of being a source of happiness, making the fortune led, in fact, to unhappiness -- and friendship led to enmity, what was thought to be love turned into hatred, and what was sidered a unioed in separation.
Then, for the first time, you will see things in their right perspective, with their total import.
And this implication will ge your life, will ge the way you are living now pletely -- it will be airely different situation.
I have heard that a mao a monk and said, "I would be much obliged if you would accept me as your disciple.
" The monk refused.
The man asked why he would not make him his disciple.
The monk replied, "In my previous birth I had disciples who later turned into enemies.
I have seen the whole thing and now I know that to make disciples means to make eo make friends means to sow the seeds of enmity.
Now I dont want to make any enemies, so I dont make any friends.
I have known that to be alone is enough.
Drawing someone close to you is, in a ushing the person away from you.
"
Buddha has said that the meeting with the beloved brings joy and the parting of the unbeloved alss joy, that the parting of the beloved brings sorrow and the meeting with the unbeloved brings sorrow as well.
This is how it erceived; this is how it was uood.
However, later we e to uand that the one we feel is our beloved bee the unbeloved, and the one we sidered the unbeloved bee a beloved.
And so, with the recolle of past memories, the existing situations will ge radically; they will be seen in airely different perspective.
Such recolles are possible, though her necessary nor iable, and sometimes, iation, these memories may strike uedly as well.
If the memories of past lives ever do e all of a sudden -- without being involved in any experiment, but simply keeping on with ones meditation -- dont take muterest in them.
Just look at them; be a wito them -- because ordinarily the mind is incapable of bearing such vast turbulence all at once.
Attempting to cope with it, there is a distinct possibility of going mad.
Once a girl was brought to me.
She was about eleven years old.
Uedly, she had remembered three of her past lives.
She had not experimented with anything; but often, for some reason mistakes do happen all of a sudden.
This was an error on the part of nature, not its grace upon her; in some way nature had erred in her case.
It is the same as if someone had three eyes, or four arms -- this is an error.
Four arms would be much weaker than two arms; four arms couldnt work as effectively as two arms could -- four arms would make the body weaker, not stronger.
So the girl, eleven years old, remembered three past lives, and many inquiries were made into this case.
In her previous life she had lived about eighty miles from my present residence, and in that life she died at the age of sixty.
The people she lived with then are now the residents of my hometown, and she could reize all of them.
Even in a crowd of thousands, she could reize her past relatives -- her own brother, her daughters, and her grandchildren -- from the daughters, from the sons-in-law.
She could reize her distaives and tell many things about them even they had fotten.
Her elder brother is still alive.
On his head there is a scar from a small injury.
I asked the girl if she knew anything about that scar.
The girl laughed and said, "Even my brother doesnt know about it.
Let him tell you how and whe that injury.
" The brother could not recall when the injury occurred; he had no idea at all, he said.
The girl said, "On the day of his wedding, my brother fell while he was mounting the marriage horse.
He was ten years old then.
" The elderly people iown supported her story, admitting that the brother had, indeed, fallen from the horse.
And the man himself had no recolle of this event.
Then, as well, the girl displayed a treasure she had buried in the house she had lived in during her previous life.
In her last birth she died at the age of sixty, and previous to that birth she had been born in a village somewhere in Assam.
Then she had died at the age of seven.
She could not give the village name, nor her address, but she could speak as much of the Assamese language as a seven-year-old child could.
Also, she could dand sing like a seven-year-old girl could.
Many inquiries were made, but her family from that life could not be traced.
The girl has a past-life experience of sixty-seven years plus eleven years of this life.
You see in her eyes the resemblao a seventy-five to seve-year-old woman, although she is actually eleven years old.
She ot play with children of her own age because she feels too old.
Within her she carries the memory of seve years; she sees herself as a seve-year-old woman.
She ot go to school because, although she is eleven, she easily look upoeacher as her son.
So even though her body is eleven years old, her mind and personality are those of a seve-year-old woman.
She ot play and frolic like a child; she is only ied in the kinds of serious things old women talk about.
She is in agony; she is filled with tension.
Her body and mind are not in harmony.
She is in a very sad and painful state.
I advised her parents t the girl to me, and to let me help her fet the memories of her past lives.
Just as there is a method to revive memories, there is also a way tet them.
But her parents were enjoying the whole affair! Crowds of people came to see the girl; they began to worship her.
The parents were not ied in having her fet the past.
I warhem the girl would go mad, but they turned a deaf ear.
Today she is on the verge of insanity, because she ot bear the weight of so many memories.
Another problem is, how to get her married? She finds it difficult to ceive of marriage when, in fact, she feels like an old woman of seve.
There is no harmony of any kind within her; her body is young but the mind is old.
It is a very difficult situation.
But this was an act.
You also break open the passage with an experiment.
But it is not necessary to go in that dire; however, those who still wish to pursue it, experiment.
But before moving into the experiment it is essential they gh deep meditation so their minds bee so silent and strong that when the flood of memories breaks upohey accept it as a witnessing.
When a man grows into being a witness, past lives appear to be no more than dreams to him.
Then he is not tormented by the memories; now they mean nothing more than dreams.
When one succeeds in recalling past lives and they begin to appear like dreams, immediately ones present life begins to look like a dream too.
Those who have called this world maya have not done so just to propound a doe of philosophy.
Jati-smaran -- recalling past lives -- is at the base of it.
Whosoever has remembered his past lives, for him the whole affair has suddenly turned into a dream, an illusion.
Where are his friends of past lives? Where are his relatives, his wife and children, the houses he lived in? Where is that world? Where is everythiook to be so real? Where are those worries that gave him sleepless nights? Where are those pains and sufferings that seemed so insurmountable, that he carried like a dead weight on his back? And what became of the happiness he longed for? What happeo everything he so toiled and suffered for? If you ever remember your past life, and if you lived for seventy years, then whatever you might have seen in those seventy years, would that look like a dream or a reality? Indeed, it would look like a dream which had e and withered away.
I have heard.
.
.
.
Once a kings only son lay on his deathbed.
Fht days he was in a a -- he couldnt be saved nor would death claim him.
On the one hand the king prayed for his life, while oher hand, aware of so much pain and suffering all around, he felt the futility of life at the same time.
The king could not sleep fht nights, but then, around four oclo, sleep overtook him and he began to dream.
We generally dream of those things which we have not fulfilled in life, and so the king, sitting by his only son, his dying son, dreamed that he had twelve strong and handsome sons.
He saw himself as the emperor of a large kingdom, as the ruler of the whole earth, with large aiful palaces.
And he saw himself as extremely happy.
As he was dreaming all this.
.
.
.
Time runs faster in a dream; in a dream timing is totally different from our day-to-day time.
In a moment a dream cover a span of many years, and after waking up you will find it difficult to figure out how so many years were covered in a dream that lasted just a few moments! Time actually moves very fast in a dream; many years be spanned in one moment.
So, just as the king was dreaming about his twelve sons and their beautiful wives, about his palaces and the great kingdom, the ill, twelve-year-old prince died.
The queen screamed, and the kings sleep came to an abrupt end.
He awoke with a shock.
Worriedly, the queen asked, "Why do you look shtened? Why are there no tears in your eyes? Why dont you say something?"
The king said, "No, I am nhtened, I am fused.
I am in a great quandary.
I am w who I should cry for? Should I cry for the twelve sons I had a moment ago, or should I cry for this son I have just lost? The thing thats b me is, who has died? And the strahing is that when I was with those twelve sons, I had no knowledge of this son.
He was nowhere at all; there was no trace of him, or of you.
Now that I am out of the dream, this palace is here, you are here, my son is here -- but those palaces and those sons have disappeared.
Which is true? Is this true, or was that true? I ot figure it out.
"
Once you remember your past lives, you will find it difficult to figure out whether what you are seeing in this life is true or not.
You will realize you have seen the same stuff many times before and none of it has endured forever -- everything is lost.
Then the question will arise: "Is what I am seeing now just as true as what I saw before? .
.
.
Because this will run its course too and fade away like all other previous dreams.
Whech a movie it appears to be real.
After the film has ended, it takes us a few moments to e back to our reality, to aowledge that what we saw iheater was merely an illusion.
In fact, many people who ordinarily are incapable of givio their feelings are moved to tears in a movie.
They feel greatly relieved, because otherwise they would have had to find some other pretext for releasing their feelings.
They let themselves cry or laugh iheater.
When we e out of the movie, the first thing that occurs to us is how deeply we let ourselves bee identified with the happenings on the s.
If the same movie is seen every day the illusion gradually begins to clear.
But then we alset what happeo us during the last movie, and once again, when we go to a new film, we start believing in its events.
If we could regain the memories of our past lives, our present birth would also begin to look like a dream.
How many times before have these winds blown! How many times before have these clouds moved in the sky! They all appeared and then they vanished, and so will the ones here now -- they are already in the process of disappearing! If we e to realize this, we will experience what is known as maya.
Along with this we will also experiehat a}l happenings, all events are quite unreal -- they are never identical, but they are tra.
One dream es, is followed by another dream, and is followed by yet another dream.
The pilgrim starts from one moment aers into the one.
Moment after moment, the moments keep disappearing, but the pilgrim tinues moving on.
So two experiences occur simultaneously: ohe objective world is an illusion, maya -- only the observer is real; sed, pears is false -- only the seer, only the witness of it is true.
Appearances ge every day -- they have always ged -- only the witness, the observer is the same as before, geless.
And remember, as long as appearances seem real, your attention will not focus on the onlooker, oness.
Only when appearaurn out to be unreal does one bee aware of the witness.
Hence, I say, remembering past lives is useful, but only after you have gone deeper into meditation.
Go deep into meditation so you may attain the ability to see life as a dream.
Being a mahatma, a holy man, is as much of a dream as being a thief -- you have good dreams and you have bad dreams.
And the iing thing is that the dream of being a thief is likely to dissolve soon, whereas the dream of being a mahatma takes a little loo disappear because it seems so very enjoyable.
And so the dream of being a mahatma is more dangerous than the dream of being a thief.
We want to prolong our enjoyable dreams, while the painful ones dissolve by themselves.
Thats why it so often happens that a sinner succeeds in attaining to God while a holy man does not.
I have told you a few things about remembering your past lives, but you will have to go into meditation for this.
Let us start to move within from this very day onward; only then we be prepared for what follows .
Without this preparation, it is difficult to enter into past lives.
For example, there is a big house with underground cellars.
If a man, standing outside the house, wants to ehe cellars, he will first have to step ihe house, because the way to the cellar is from ihe house.
Our past lives are like cellars.
Once upon a time we lived there, and then we abahem -- now we are living somewhere else.
heless, we are standing outside the house at this point.
In order to uhe memories of past lives, we shall have to ehe house.
There is nothing difficult, bothersome or dangerous about it.
Question 3
ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: MY FRIEND, WHO IS A YOGI, CLAIMS HE ARROW IN HIS PAST LIFE.
IS THIS POSSIBLE?
It is possible that in the course of his evolution a man may have once been an animal, but he ot be born as an animal again.
In the process of evolution one ot fall back; retrogression is impossible.
It is possible to move ahead from the previous form of birth, but it is not possible, from an advanced form of birth, to fall back.
There is no going ba this world; there is no ce.
There are only two ways -- either we move ahead or stay where we are; we ot go back.
It is just as when a child passes first grade he moves on to the sed grade -- but if he fails he remains in the first grade.
There is no way, however, to pull him below first grade.
Similarly, if he fails in the sed grade we leave him there, but in no way we bring him back to the first grade.
We may either remain in one species for a very long time or move forward into the species, but we ot go back to a species lower than where we are.
It is indeed possible for someoo have previously been an animal or a bird; he must have been.
But how long he remained in those species is a different matter.
If we delve into our past lives, we will be able to recall the species assed through so far.
We may have been an animal, a bird, a little sparrow.
.
.
lower and lower.
Once we must have been at such a point of iness where it is difficult to locate any sign of sciousness.
Mountains are alive as well; however, they tain almost no sciousness.
They tain y-nine pert iness and one pert sciousness.
As life evolves, sciousness keeps on growing and iness keeps on decreasing.
God is one hundred pert sciousness.
The differeween God and matter is of pertage.
The differeween God and matter is of quantity, not of quality.
Thats why matter ultimately bee God.
It is her strange nor difficult to accept that a man may have been an animal in his past life.
What is really amazing is that in spite of being human we behave like animals! It is not at all surprising that in some past life we have all been animals, but even as humans our sciousness be so low that pear like humans only on the physical level.
If we look into our tendencies, it seems that although we are no longer animals we have not yet bee human beiher; it藏书网 seems we are stuewhere iween.
As soon as an opportunity arises, we dont lose much time iing to the animal level once again.
For example, you are walking along the road like a gentleman and some fellow es and punches you, swears at you.
Instantly, the gentleman in you gives way and you find yourself expressing the same animal in you that you must have been in some past life.
Scratch the surface a little and the beast emerges from within -- and it es out so violently that one wonders if the person was ever a human being at all.
Our state of being now tains all we have ever been before.
There is layer upon layer of all the states we have been through in the past.
If we dig inside a little, we reach to the inner layers of our being -- we even reach the state when we were a rock; that too stitutes a layer inside.
Deep down inside we are still rocks; thats why when someone pushes us to that layer we behave like a rock, we act like a rock.
We also behave like animals -- in fact, we do.
What lies ahead of us are merely our potentialities -- they are not layers.
He times, although we take a jump and touch these potentialities, we drop back to earth again.
We be gods some day, but at present were not.
We have the potential to bee divine; however, what we are now sists of what we have been in the past.
So there are these two things: if we dig within we e across our various past states of being; and if we are thrown forward in the of births, we experiehe states which lie ahead of us.
However, just as when someoakes a jump -- for a sed he goes off the ground and into the air, but the very moment he is ba the ground -- at times we jump out of our animal state and bee.. human beings, but then we revert to the same state again.
If you observe carefully, you will find that in a twenty-four-hour period, only on a while, at certain moments, are we truly human beings.
And we all know this only too well.
You must have observed beggars.
They always e to beg in the m.
They never e in the evening, because by evening the possibility of someone remaining a human being is virtually ent.
In the m, when a mas up -- refreshed by a good nights rest, fresh and cheerful -- the beggar hopes he will be a little humane.
He does not expey charity in the evening because he knows what the man has gohrough the whole day -- the office, the marketplace, the riots and protests, the neers and the politis -- all must have created a mess for him.
Everything must have aggravated and activated the animal layers inside him.
By evening the man is tired; he has turned into a beast.
Thats why you see beasts in nightclubs, displayily tendencies.
Man, tired of being a human the whole day, craves for alcohol, for noise, fambling, for dang, for striptease -- he wants to be among other beasts.
The nightclubs cater to the animal in man.
This is the reason why ms are the best for prayer, why the evening is ill-suited for it.
In all the temples the bells toll in the m; at night the doors open to the nightclubs, the os, the bars.
Prostitutes are uo invite anyone in the m, they iheir ers only at night.
After a hard days work, man turns into an animal; hehe world of night is different from the world of the day.
The mosque gives the call to prayer in the m, and the temple rings its bells in the m.
There is some hope that the man, up and refreshed in the m, will turn tod; there is less hope for this to happen from a man who is tired in the evening.
For the same reason, there is much hope that children will turn tod, but there is less hope for old people -- they are iwilight of their lives; life must have takehing away from them by now.
So one should start on the journey as soon as possible, as early in the m as possible.
The evening is sure to desd -- but before it desds, if we have set out on the journey in the m it is possible that in the evening we may find ourselves iemple of the divine as well.
So our friend is right in asking whether it is possible that a man may have been an animal or a bird in his past life.
What we o be aware of, though, is not to tio be a bird or a beast in this life.
Before we move into the meditatio us uand a few things.
First of all, you have to let yourself go pletely.
If you hold yourself back even a tiny bit, it will bee a hurdle iation.
Let yourself go as if you are dead, as if you have really died.
Death has to be accepted as if it has already arrived, as if all else has died and we are sinking deeper and deeper within.
Now only that which always survives will survive.
We will drop everything else which die.
Thats why I have said that this is an experiment with death.
There are three parts to this experiment.
The first is, relaxation of the body; sed, relaxation of breathing; third, relaxation of thought.
Body, breathing and thought -- all these have to be slowly let go of.
Please sit at a distance from each other.
It is possible that somebody may fall, so keep a little distaween yourselves.
Move a little back or e a little forward, but just see to it that you dont sit too close to each other; otherwise the whole time you will be busy saving yourself from falling over somebody.
When the body bees loose, it may fall forwards or backwards; one never knows.
You be sure of it only as long as you have a hold over it.
Once you give up your hold on the body, it automatically drops.
Once you loosen yrip from within, who will hold the body? -- it is bound to fall.
And if you remain preoccupied with preventing it from falling, you will stay where you are -- you wont be able to move into meditation.
So when your body is about to fall, sider it a blessing.
Let go of it at once.
Dont hold it back, because if you do you will keep yourself from moving inward.
And dont be upset if someone falls on you; let it be so.
If someones head lies in your lap for a while, let it be so; dohered by it.
Now close your eyes.
Close them gently.
Relax your body.
Let it be pletely loose, as if there is no life in it.
Draw all the energy from your body; take it inside.
As the energy moves within, the body will bee loose.
Now I will begin my suggestions that the body is being loose, that we are being silent.
.
.
.
Feel the body being loose.
Let go.
Move within just as a person moves inside his house.
Move inside, enter within.
The body is relaxing.
.
.
.
Let go pletely.
.
.
let it be lifeless, as if it is dead.
The body is relaxing, the body has relaxed, the body has pletely relaxed.
.
.
I take it that you have totally relaxed your body, that you have given up your hold over it.
If the body falls, so be it; if it bends forward, let it bend.
Let whatever has to happen, happen -- you relax.
See that you are not holding anything back.
Take a look io be sure that you are not holding your body back.
You ought to be able to say, "I am not holding baything.
I have let myself go pletely.
"
The body is relaxed, the body is loose.
The breath is calming down, the breath is slowing down.
Feel it.
.
.
the breathing has slowed down.
.
.
let it go pletely.
Let your breathing go too, just give up your hold on it pletely.
The breath is slowing down, the breath is calming down.
.
.
.
The breathing has calmed down, the breathing has slowed down.
.
.
.
The breathing has calmed down.
.
.
thoughts are calming down too.
Feel it.
Thoughts are being silent.
.
.
let go.
.
.
.
You have let the body go, you have let the breathing go, now let thoughts go as well.
Move away.
.
.
move within totally, move away from thoughts also.
Everything has bee silent, as if everything outside is dead.
Everything is dead.
.
.
everything has bee silent.
.
.
only sciousness is left within.
.
.
a burning lamp of sciousness -- the rest is all dead.
Let go.
.
.
let go pletely -- as if you are no more.
Let go totally.
.
.
as if your body is dead, as if your body is no more.
Your breathing is still, your thoughts are still -- as if death has occurred.
And move within, move totally within.
Let go.
.
.
let everything go.
Let go totally, dont keep anything.
You are dead.
Feel as if everything is dead, as if all is dead -- only a burning lamp is left ihe rest is all dead.
Everything else is dead, erased.
Be lost iiness for ten minutes.
Be a witness.
Keep watg this death.
Everything else around you has disappeared.
The body is also left, left far behind, far away -- we are just watg it.
Keep watg, remain a witness.
For ten minutes keep looking within.
Keep looking inside.
.
.
everything else will be dead outside.
Let go.
.
.
be totally dead.
Keep watg, remain a witness.
.
.
.
Let everything go as if you are dead and the body oside is dead.
The body is still, thoughts are still, only the lamp of sciousness is left watg, only the seer is left, only the witness is left.
Let go.
.
.
let go.
.
.
let go totally.
.
.
Whatever is happening, let it happen.
Let go pletely, just keep watg inside ahe rest go.
Give up your hold pletely.
.
.
.
The mind has bee silent ay, the mind has bee totally empty.
.
.
.
The mind has bee empty, the mind has bee totally empty.
If you are still holding back a little, let that go also.
Let go totally, disappear -- as if you are no more.
The mind has bee empty.
.
.
the mind has bee silent ay.
.
.
the mind has bee totally empty.
.
.
Keep looking inside, keep looking ih awareness -- everything has bee silent.
The body is left behind, left far away; the mind is left far away, only a lamp is burning, a lamp of sciousness, only the light is left burning.
.
.
.
Now slowly take a few breaths.
Keep watg your breath.
.
.
.
With each breath the silence will go deeper.
Take a few breaths slowly and keep looking within; remain a wito the breathing also.
The mind will bee even more silent.
.
.
.
Take a few breaths slowly, thely open your eyes.
If anyone has fallen, take a deep breath first and the up slowly.
Dont rush if you are uo rise, dont rush if you find it difficult to open your eyes.
.
.
.
First take a deep breath, then open your eyes slowly.
.
.
rise very softly.
Dont do anything with a sudden movement -- her rising nor opening your eyes.
.
.
.
Our m session of meditation is now over.
Chapter3
The Whole Universe is a Temple
29 October 1969 pm iation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: YOU HAVE SHOWN US THE METHOD OF ION FOR REALIZING THE TRUTH OR THE DIVINE BEING -- THE METHOD OF EXCLUDING EVERYTHING ELSE IN ORDER TO KNOW THE SELF.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT BY DOING THE OPPOSITE? WE NOT TRY TO SEE GOD IHING? WE NOT FEEL HIM IN ALL?
It will be helpful to uand this.
One who ot realize God within himself ever realize him in all.
One who has not yet reized God within himself ever reize him in others.
The self means that which is o you; then anyone who is at a little distance from you will have to be sidered as being farther away.
And if you ot see God in yourself, which is you, you ot possibly see him in those far from you.
First you will have to know God in yourself; first the knower will have to know the divine -- that is the door.
But remember, it is very iing that the individual who enters his self suddenly finds the entrao all.
The door to ones self is the door to all.
No sooner does a maer his self than he finds he has entered all, because although we are outwardly different, inwardly we are not.
Outwardly, all leaves are different from each other.
But if a person could pee just one leaf, he would reach to the source of the tree where all the leaves are in unison.
Seen individually, each leaf is different -- but once you have known a leaf in its interiority, you will have reached to the source from which all leaves emanate and into which all leaves dissolve.
One who enters himself simultaneously enters all.
The distin between I and you remains only so long as we have ered within ourselves.
The day we enter our I, the I disappears and so does the you -- what remains then is all.
Actually, all does not mean the sum of I and you.
All means where I and you have both disappeared, and what subsequently remains is all.
If I has not yet dissolved, then one certainly add Is and yous, but the sum will not equal truth.
Even if one adds all the leaves, a tree does not e into being -- even though it has had all the leaves added to it.
A tree is more than the sum of all the leaves.
In fact, it has nothing to do with addition; it is erroneous to add.
Adding oo another, we assume eae is separate.
A tree is not made of separate leaves at all.
So, as soon as we ehe I, it ceases to exist.
The first thing that disappears wheer within is the sense of being a separate entity.
And when that I-ness disappears, you-ness and the other-ness both disappear.
Then what remains is all.
Its not even right to call it all, because all also has the otation of the same old I.
Hehose who know would not even call it all; they would ask, "The sum of what? What are we adding?" Furthermore, they would declare that only one remains.
Although they would perhaps eveate to say that, because the assertion of one gives the impression that there are two -- it gives the idea that alone one has no meaning without the corresponding notion of two.
Os only in the text of two.
Therefore, those who have a deeper uanding do not even say that one remains, they say advaita, nonduality, remains.
Now this is very iing.
These people say that "Two are not left.
" They are not saying "One remains," they are saying "Two are not left.
" Advaita means there are not two.
One might ask, "Why do you talk in such roundabout ways? Simply say there is only one!" The danger in saying one is that it gives rise to the idea of two.
And when we say there are not two, it follows that there are not three either; it implies that there is her one, nor many, nor all.
Actually, this divisioed from the perception based on the existence of I.
So with the cessation of I, that which is whole, the indivisible, remains.
But to realize this, we do what our friend is suggesting -- we not visualize God in everyoo do so would be nothing more than fantasizing and fantasizing is not the same as perceiving the truth.
Long ago some people brought a holy man to me.
They told me this man saw God everywhere, that for the last thirty years he had been seeing God ihing -- in flowers, plants, rocks, ihing.
I asked the man if he had been seeing God ihing through practice because if that were so then his visions were false.
He couldnt follow me.
I asked him again, "Did you ever fantasize about or desire to see God ihing?" He replied, "Yes indeed.
Thirty years ago I started this sadhana in which I would attempt to see God in rocks, plants, mountains, ihing.
And I began to see God everywhere.
" I asked him to stay with me for three days and, during that period, to stop seeing God everywhere.
He agreed.
But the very day he told me, "You have done me great harm.
Only twelve hours have passed since I gave up my usual practid I have already begun to see a rock as a rod a mountain as a mountain.
You have snatched my God away from me! What sort of a person are you?"
I said, "If God be lost by not practig for just twelve hours, then what you saw was not God -- it was merely a sequence of yular exercise.
" It is similar to when a persos something incessantly and creates an illusion.
No, God has not to be seen in a rock; rather, one o reach a state in which there is nothio be seen in a rock except God.
These are two different things.
Through your efforts to see him there, you will begin to see God in a rock, but that God will be no more than a mental proje.
That will be a God superimposed by you on the rock; it will be the work of your imagination.
That God will be purely your creation; he will be a plete figment of your imagination.
Such a God is nothing more than your dream -- a dream which you have solidated by reinf it again and again.
There is no problem seeing God like this, but it is living in an illusion, it is ering truth.
One day, of course, it happens that the individual himself disappears and, sequently, he sees nothing but God.
Then one doeshat God is in the rock, then the feeling is "Where is the rock? Only God is!" Do you follow the distin I am making? Then one doeshat God exists in the plant or that he exists in the rock; that the plas and, in the plant, so does God -- no, nothing of the kind.
What one es to feel is "Where is the plant? Where is the rock? Where is the mountain?".
.
.
because all around, whatever is seen, whatever exists is only God.
Then seeing God does not depend upon your exercise, it depends upon your experience.
The greatest danger in the realm of sadhana, of spiritual practice, is the danger of imagination.
We fantasize truths which must otherwise bee our own experience.
There is a differeween experieng and fantasizing.
A person who has been hungry the whole day eats at night in his dream and feels greatly satisfied.
Perhaps he does not find as much joy iing when he is awake as he does when he is dreaming -- in the dream he eat any dish he wants.
heless, his stomach still remaiy in the m, and the food he has ed in his dream gives him no nourishment.
If a man decides to stay alive on the food he eats in dreams, then he is sure to die sooner or later.
No matter how satisfying the food eaten in the dream may be, iy it is not food.
It either bee part of your blood, nor your flesh, nor your bones or marrow.
A dream only cause deception.
Not only are meals made of dreams, God is also made of dreams.
And so is moksha, liberation, made of dreams.
There is a silence made of dreams, and there are truths made of dreams.
The greatest capacity of the human mind is the capacity to deceive itself.
However, by falling into this kind of deception, no one attain joy and liberation.
So I am not asking you to start seeing God ihing.
I am only asking you to start looking within and seeing what is there.
When, to see what is there, you begin to look ihe first person to disappear will be you -- you will cease to exist inside.
You will find for the first time that your I was an illusion, and that it has disappeared, vanished.
As soon as you take a look inside, first the I, the ego, goes.
In fact, the sehat "I am" only persists until we have looked inside ourselves.
And the reason we dont look inside is perhaps because of the fear that, if we did, we might be lost.
You may have seen a man holding a burning tord swinging it round and round until it forms a circle of fire.
Iy there is no such circle, it is just that wheorch is swinging round with great speed, it gives the appearance of a circle from a distance.
If you see it close up, you will find that it is just a fast-moving torch, that the circle of fire is false.
similarly, if we go within and look carefully, we will find that the I is absolutely false.
Just as the fast-moving tives the illusion of a circle of fire, the fast-moving sciousness gives the illusion of I.
This is a stific truth and it o be uood.
You may not have noticed, but all lifes illusions are caused by things revolving at great speed.
The wall looks very solid; the roder your feet feels clearly solid, but acc to stists there is nothing like a solid rock.
It is now a well-known fact that the closer stists observed matter, the more it disappeared.
As long as the stist was distant from matter, he believed in it.
Mostly it was the stist who used to declare that matter alone is truth, but now that very stist is saying there is nothing like matter.
Stists say that the fast movement of particles of electricity creates the illusion of density.
Density, as such, exists nowhere.
For example, when ari moves with speed, we ot see the three moving blades; one ot actually t how many there are.
If it moves even faster, it will appear as if a piece of circular metal is moving.
It be moved so fast that even if you sat on top of it, you wouldhe gap between the blades; you would feel as if you were sitting on top of solid metal.
The particles in matter are moving with similar speed -- and the particles are not matter, they are fast-moviriergy.
Matter appears dense because of fast-moving particles of electricity.
The whole of matter is a product of fast-moving energy -- even though it appears to exist, it is actually ent.
Similarly, the energy of sciousness is moving so fast that, because of it, the illusion of I is created.
There are two kinds of illusions in this world: ohe illusion of matter; sed, the illusion of I, the ego.
Both are basically false, but only by ing closer to them does one bee aware they do.
As sce draws closer to matter, matter disappears; as religion draws nearer I the I disappears.
Religion has discovered that the I is ent, and sce has discovered that matter is ent.
The closer we e, the more we bee disillusioned.
Thats why I say: go within; look closely -- is there any I inside? I am not asking you to believe that you are not the I.
If you do, it will turn into a false belief.
If you take my word for it and think, "I am not; the ego is false.
I am atman, I am brahman; the ego is false," you will throw yourself into fusion.
If this merely bees a repetitive thing, then you will only be repeating the false.
I am not asking you for this sort of repetition.
I am saying: go within, lonize who you are.
One who looks within and reizes himself discovers that "I am not.
" Then who is within? If I am not, then someone else must be there.
Just because "I am not," doesnt mean no one is there, because even the illusion, someone has to be there.
If I am not, then who is there? The experience of what remains after the disappearance of I is the experience of God.
The experience bees at once expansive -- dropping I, you also drops, he also drops, and only an o of sciousness remains.
In that state you will see that only God is.
Then it may seem erroneous to say that God is, because it sounds redundant.
It is redundant to say "Go.d is," because God is the other name of "that which is.
" Is-ness is God -- heo say "God is" is a tautology; it isnt correct.
What does it mean to say "God is"? We identify something as "is" which also bee "is not".
We say "the table is," because it is quite possible the table may tomorrow, or that the table did yesterday.
Something which did before may bee ent again; then what is the sense in saying "it is"? God is not something which did before, nor is it possible that he will never be again; therefore, to say "God is" is meaningless.
He is.
In fact, another name fod is "that which is.
" God meaence.
In my view, if we impose od on "that which is," ushing ourselves into falsehood aion.
And remember, the Gods we have created are made differently; each has his respective trademark.
A Hindu has made his own God, a Mohammedan has his own.
The Christian, the Jaina, the Buddhist -- each has his own God.
All have ed their own respective words; all have created their own respective Gods.
A whole great God-manufacturing industry abounds! In their respective homes people manufacture their God; they produce their own God.
And then these God-manufacturers fight among themselves in the marketplace the same way the people who manufacture goods at home do.
Everyones God is different from the others.
Actually, as long as "I am," whatsoever I create will be different from yours.
As long as "I am," my religion, my God will be different from other peoples because they will be the creation of I, of the ego.
Since we sider ourselves separate entities, whatever we create will have a separate character.
If, to create religion, the appropriate freedom could be grahere would be as many religions in the world as there are people -- not less than that.
It is because of the lack of the right kind of freedom that there are so few religions in the world.
A Hindu father takes certain care to make his son a Hindu before he bees indepe.
A Mohammedan father makes his son a Mohammedan before he bees intelligent, because oelligence is attained, a person wont want to bee either a Hindu or a Mohammedan.
And so there is the o fill a child with all these stupidities before he achieves intelligence.
All parents are anxious to teach their children religiht from childhood, because once a child grows up he will start to think and to cause trouble.
He will raise all sorts of questions -- and not finding any satisfactory answers, will do things difficult for the parents to face.
This is why parents are keen to teach their children religiht from infancy -- when the child is unaware of many things, when he is vulnerable to learning any kind of stupidity.
This is how people beohammedans, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians -- whatsoever you teach them to bee.
And so, those we call religious people are often found to be unintelligent.
They latelligence, because what we call religion is something which has poisoned us before intelligence has arisen -- and even afterwards it tis inner hold.
No wonder Hindus and Mohammedans fight with each other in the name of God, in the name of their temples and their mosques.
Does God e in many varieties? Is the God Hindus worship of one kind, and the God the Mohammedans worship of another? Is that why Hindus feel their God is desecrated if an idol is destroyed.
Or Mohammedaheir God is dishonored if a mosque is destroyed or burned?
Actually, God is "that which is.
" He exists as mu a mosque as he does in a temple.
He exists as mu a slaughterhouse as he does in a place of worship.
He exists as mu a tavern as he does in a mosque.
He is as present in a thief as he is in a holy man -- not oa less; that ever be.
Who else is dwelling in a thief if not the divine? He is as present in Rama as he is in Ravana -- he is not oa less in Ravana.
He exists as much within a Hindu as he does within a Mohammedan.
But the problem is: if we e to believe that the same divinity exists in everyone, od-manufacturing industry will suffer heavily.
So in order to prevent this from happening, we keep on imposing our respective Gods.
If a Hindu looks at a flower he will project his own God on it, see his God in it, whereas a Mohammedan will project, visualize his God.
They even pick a fight over this, although perhaps such a Hindu-Mohammedan flict is a little far-fetched.
Their establishments are at a little distance from each other -- but there are even quarrels between the closely related "divinity shops.
" For example, there is quite a distaween Benares and Mecca, but there is not much distan Benares betweeemples of Rama and Krishna.
Ahe same degree of trouble exists there.
I have heard about a great saint.
.
.
I am calling him great because people used to call him great, and I am calling him a saint only because people used to call him a saint.
He was a devotee of Rama.
Once he was taken to the temple of Krishna.
When he saw the idol of Krishna holding a flute in his hands, he refused to bow down to the image.
Standing before the image, he said, "If you would take up the bow and arrow, only then could I bow down to you, for then you would be my Lord.
" How strange! We place ditions on God also -- how and in which manner or position he should present himself.
We prescribe the setting; we make our requirements -- only then are we prepared to worship.
It is se we determine what od should be like.
But thats how it has been all along.
What, up to now, we have beeifying as God, is a product based on our own specifications.
As long as this man-made God is standing in the way, we will not be able to know that God who is not determined by us.
We will never be able to know the one who determines us.
And so we o get rid of the man-made God if we wish to know the God which is.
But thats tough; its difficult even for the most kied person.
Even for someoherwise sider a man of uanding, its hard to get rid of this man-made God.
He too gs firmly to the ..basic foolishness as much as a stupid man does.
A stupid man be fiven, but it is difficult tive a man of uanding.
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan arrived in India retly.
He is preag Hindu-Mohammedan unity all over the try, but he himself is a staunedan; about this, there is not the slightest doubt.
It doesnt bother him that he prays in the mosque like a loyal Mohammeda he is going about preag Hindu-Mohammedan unity.
Gandhi was a staunch Hindu, and he also used to preach Hindu-Mohammedan unity.
As the guru, so is the disciple: the guru was a firmed Hindu; the disciple is a firmed Mohammedan.
And so long as there are firmed Hindus and firmed Mohammedans in the world, how suity e about? They o relax a little, only then unity is possible.
These zealous Hindus and Mohammedans are at the root of all the trouble betweewions, although the roots of these troubles are not really visible.
Those who preach Hindu-Mohammedan unity do not have the vaguest idea how t it about.
As long as God is different things to different people, as long as there are different places of worship for different people, as long as prayers are different and scriptures are different -- Koran being father for some and Gita being mother for others -- the vexing troubles between religions will never e to an end.
We g to the Koran and the Gita.
We say, "Read the Koran and teach people to drop enmity and to bee one.
Read the Gita and teach people to drop enmity and to bee one.
" We dont realize, however, that the very words of Koran and Gita are the root cause of all the trouble.
If a cows tail gets cut off, a Hindu-Mohammedan riot will break out, and we will blame ruffians for causing the fight.
And the funny thing is that no hoodlum has ever preached that the cow is our sacred mother.
This is actually taught by our mahatmas, our holy men, who put the blame for creating riots on hoodlums.
.
.
.
Because wheail does get cut off, then for the mahatmas purpose, it is not the tail of the cow, it is the tail of the holy mother! When they bring this to peoples attention, the riots begin, in which the hoodlums get involved and are later blamed for starting them.
So the people we call mahatmas are in fact at the root of all such troubles.
Were they to step aside, the hoodlums would be harmless, they would have no power to fight.
They get strength from the mahatmas.
But the mahatmas remain so well hidden underground that we never ever realize they could be at the root of the problem.
What is the root of the problem, really? The root cause of all the trouble is yod -- the God manufactured in your homes.
Try to save yourselves from the gods you create in your respective homes.
You anufacture God in your homes; the existence of such a God will be pure deception.
I am not asking you to project God.
After all, in the name of God, what will you project? A devotee of Krishna will say he sees God hiding behind a bush holding a flute in his hand, while a devotee of Rama will see God holding a bow and arrow.
Everyone will see God differently.
This kind of seeing is nothing but projeg our desires and cepts.
God is not like this.
We ot find him by projeg our desires and our cepts -- to find him we will have to disappear altogether.
We will have to disappear -- along with all our cepts and all our projes.
Both things ot go hand in hand.
As long as you exist as an ego, the experience of God is absolutely impossible.
You as an ego will have to go; only then is it possible to experience him.
I ot ehe door of the divine as long as my I, my ego, exists.
I have heard a story that a man renounced everything and reached the door of the divine.
He had renounced wealth, wife, house, children, society, everything, and having renounced all, he approached the door of the divine.
But the guard stopped him and said, "You ot enter yet.
First go and leave everything behind.
"
"But I have left everything," pleaded the man.
"You have obviously brought your I along with you.
We are not ied in the rest; we are only ed with your I.
We dont care about whatever you say you have left behind, we are ed with your I," The guard explained.
"Go, drop it, and then e back.
"
The man said, "I have nothing.
My bag is empty -- it tains no money, no wife, no children.
I possess nothing.
"
"Your I is still in the bag -- go and drop it.
These doors are closed to those wh their I along; for them the doors have always been closed," said the guard.
But how do we drop the I? The I will never drop by our attempts to do so.
How I drop the very I itself? This is impossible.
It will be like someorying to lift himself up by his shoelaces.
How do I drop the I? Even after dropping everything, I will still remain.
At the most one might say, "I have dropped the ego," ahis shows he is still carrying his I.
One bees egoistic even about dropping the ego.
Then what should a man do? Its quite a difficult situation.
I say to you: there is nothing difficult about it -- because I dont ask you to drop anything.
In fact, I dont ask you to do anything.
The I, the ego, bees stronger because of all the doing.
I am merely asking you to go within and look for the I.
If you find it, then there is no way to drop it.
If it always exists there, what is there left to be dropped? And if you dont find it, then too, there is no way to drop it.
How you drop something which does?
So go within and see if the I is there or not.
I am simply saying that one who looks inside himself begins to laugh uproariously, because he ot find his I anywhere within himself.
Then what does remain? What remains then is God.
That which remains with the disappearance of the I -- could that ever be separate from you? When the I itself ceases to exist, who is going to create the separation? It is the I alone which separates me from you and you from me.
Here is the wall of this house.
Uhe illusion that they divide spato two, walls stand -- although spaever bees divided in half; space is indivisible.
No matter how thick a wall you erect, the spaside the house and the space outside are not two different things; they are one.
No matter how tall you raise the wall, the spaside and outside the house is never divided.
The man living ihe house, however, feels that he has divided the spato two -- one spaside his house and another outside it.
But if the wall were to fall, how would the man differentiate the space within the house from the space without? How would he figure it out? Then, only space would remain.
In the same way, we have divided sciousness intments by raising the walls of I.
When this wall of I falls, then it is not that I will begin to see God in you.
No, then I wont be seeing you, Ill only be seeing God.
Please uand this subtle distin carefully.
It will be wrong to say I would begin to see God in you -- I wont be seeing you any more, I will only be seeing the divine.
Its not that I would see God in a tree -- I would no longer see a tree, only the divine.
When somebody says God exists in ead every atom he is absolutely wrong, because he is seeing both the atom and God.
Both ot be seen simultaneously.
The truth of the matter is that ead every atom is God, not that God exists in ead every atom.
It is not that some God is sitting enclosed inside an atom -- whatever is, is God.
God is the name given out of love to "that which is.
" "That which is," is truth -- in love we call it God.
But it makes no difference by whiame we call it.
I do not ask, therefore, that you begin to see God in everyone, I am saying: start looking inside.
As soon as you look within, you will disappear.
And with your disappearance what youll see is God.
Question 2
ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: IF MEDITATION LEADS TO SAMADHI AND SAMADHI LEADS TO GOD, THEN WHAT NEED IS THERE TO GO TO THE TEMPLES? SHOULDNT WE DO AWAY WITH THEM?
It is useless to go to temples, but it is equally useless to do away with them.
Why should oher to do away with something in which God does anyway? Let temples be where they are.
What question is there of getting rid of them? But every so often this trouble es up.
For example, Mohammed said that God is not to be found in idols, so the Mohammedans thought it meant idols should be destroyed.
And then a very funny thing started happening in the world: there were already people crazy about making idols; now another bunch of crazy people cropped up to destroy the idols.
Now the idol-makers are zealously busy making idols, while the idol-destroyers are occupied day and night figuring out ways to destroy the idols.
Someone should ask when Mohammed said that God is to be found iroying idols? God may not be present in an idol, but who said God is present iroying idols? And if God is present iroying idols, then whats the problem with God being present in the idol? God be present in the idol too.
And if he is not present in the idol, how he be present in its destru?
I am not saying we should do away with temples.
What I am saying is that we must realize the truth that God is everywhere.
Once we have realized this truth, everything bees his temple -- then its difficult to distinguish between a temple and a non-temple.
Then wherever we stand, that will be his temple; whatever we look at, that will be his temple; wherever we sit, that will be his temple.
Then there will no longer be any sacred places of pilgrimage -- the entire world will be a holy place.
Then it will be meanio create separate idols, because then whatever is will be his image.
I am not advog that you should get involved in doing away with temples, or that you should dissuade people from going to temples.
I have never said that God is not present iemple.
What I am simply saying is that one who sees God only in a temple and nowhere else, has no knowledge whatsoever of God.
One who has realized God will feel Gods presence everywhere -- in a temple as well as in a place which is not a temple.
Then how will he distinguish what is a temple and what is not a temple? We identify a temple as a place which has Gods presen it, but if one feels his presence everywhere then every place is his temple.
Then there will no longer be ao build separate temples, or, by the same token, to do away with temples either.
I have observed that instead of making se of what I am saying, people very often make the mistake of uanding something totally opposite to what I may have said.
People bee ied more in what is to be done away with, what is to be destroyed, what is to be eliminated -- they dont try to uand what is.
Such mistakes happen tinuously.
One of the fual errors itted by man is that he hears something totally different from what is unicated to him.
Now, some of you may take me as an enemy of temples, but you will rarely find a person more in love with temples than me.
Why do I mention this? For the simple reason that I would like the whole earth to be seen as a temple; my is that everythiurned into a temple.
But after listening to me, someone may e to uand that things would be better if we did away with temples.
No purpose will be served by getting rid of these temples.
Things will only work out well when the whole of life is made into a temple.
Those who see God in temples and those who destroy temples -- both are wrong.
One who only sees God iemple is mistaken.
His mistake is: who else does he see outside the temple? Obviously, his mistake is that he does not see God except iemple.
Your temple is very puny; God is very vast -- you ot fine God to your puny little temples.
The other persons error is: he wants to get into doing away with temples, into destroying them -- only thehinks, he see God.
Your temples are too small to serve as dwelling places of God or to prevent anyone from seeing God.
Remember, your temples are so ridiculously small they ot bee Gods residenor they bee his prison, which, wheroyed, would supposedly make him free.
You o ualy what I am saying.
What I am saying is: only when we have entered meditation do we ever enter a temple.
Meditation is the only temple with no walls; meditation is the only temple where, as soon as you enter, you really enter a temple.
And one who begins to live iation begins living iemple twenty-four hours a day.
Whats the point in a man visiting the temple if he does not live iation? Whats the sense in his going to someplace we generally identify as a temple? Its not so easy that, while sitting in your shop, you may suddenly find your way to the temple.
Of course, its easy to carry your body to the temple; the body is such a poor thing you bring it along with you anywhere you like.
The mind is not that simple.
A shopkeeper ting money in his shop in fact get up suddenly, if he wants to, and bring his body to the temple.
Just because his body is iemple, the man may foolishly think that he is iemple.
However, if he ever looked into his mind a little, he would find, to his astonishment, that he was still sitting in his shop ting money.
I have heard.
.
.
.
A man was terribly harassed by his wife.
All men are, but he was harassed a little too much.
He was a religious man, but the wife was not at all religious.
Ordinarily the opposite is the case -- the wife is religious, the husband is not -- but then, everything is possible! My uanding is that only one of the two bee religious.
Both husband and wife ever bee religious together; one will always be opposite the other.
In this case the husband had bee religious first, while the wife did not care to; however, every day the husband tried to make her religious.
A religious person carries a fual weakness: he wants to make others like himself.
This is very dangerous; this is being violent.
It is ugly to try to make others like oneself.
It is enough to state our point of view to others, but to get on their case and force them to believe what we believe amounts to what we might call a kind of spiritual violence.
All gurus indulge in this kind of activity.
You rarely find a person more violent than a guru.
With his hands around the disciples neck, a guru attempts to dictate what clothes to wear, how to keep his hair, what to eat, what to drink, when to sleep, when to get up -- this, that, and all kinds of things are thrust upon him.
With impositions like these, the gurus just about kill peopl?e.
So the husband was very keen to make his wife religious.
Actually, people find great pleasure in making other people religious.
To bee religious, as such, is a matter of great revolution, but people find tremendous satisfa iering others to bee religious, because in doing so they have already assumed they are religious people.
But the wife would not listen to her husband.
In despair, the husband approached his guru and begged him to e to his house and persuade his wife.
Early one m, at about five oclock, the guru arrived.
The husband was already in the room of worship.
The wife was sweeping the courtyard.
The guru stopped her right then and there and said, "I have heard from your husband that you are not a religious person.
You never worship God, you never pray, you never ehe temple your husband has made in your house.
Look at your husband -- it is five oclod already he is iemple.
"
The wife replied, "I dont recall my husband ever going to the temple.
"
The husband, sitting in his temple, overheard what his wife said and grew red with rage.
A religious persos angry very easily, and this is true beyond ones imaginings about one who is sitting in a temple.
Heaven knows whether people sit iemple to hide the flames of their anger or for something else.
If one person bees religious, he creates hell for the rest of the household.
The husband was totally ed.
He was halfway through his prayers when he overheard his wife.
He couldnt believe his ears; what she said was total rubbish.
Here he is, sitting iemple, and she is telling his guru she doesnt know if he ever goes in there! He hurried to finish his prayer so he could e out and repair such a lie.
The guru began scolding the wife, "What are you talking about? Your husband goes to the temple regularly.
" Hearing this, the husband begaing his prayer even more loudly.
The guru said, "See how vigorously he is praying!"
Laughing, the wife said, "I hardly believe you are taken in by this loud recitation too! Of course he is ting Gods name loudly, but as far as I see he is not iemple, he is at the shoemakers, haggling over the price.
"
Now this was too much! The husband could hold himself bao longer.
He dropped his worship and came running out of the temple.
"What are all these lies? Didnt you see I raying iemple?" he shouted.
The wife said, "Look within yourself a little more closely.
Were you really praying? Were you not bargaining with the shoemaker? And didnt you get into a fight with him?" The husband was taken aback, because what she was saying was true.
"But how did you know this?" he asked.
"Last night, befoing to bed, you told me the first thing you would do this m was go and buy a pair of shoes you badly needed.
You also said you felt the shoemaker was asking too much for the shoes.
Its my experiehat the last thought befoing to bed at night bees the first thought the m.
So I merely guessed you must be at the shoestore," the wife answered.
The husband said, "There is nothi for me to say, because you are right.
I was i the shoemakers and we fought over the price of the shoes.
And the more heated the argument became, the louder I repeated the name of God.
I may have been ting Gods wardly, but inside I was involved in a fight with the shoemaker.
You are right; perhaps I have never really been iemple.
"
Entering a temple is not so easy -- it is not that you enter any plad say that you are in a temple.
Your body may have ehe temple, but what about your mind? How you trust where your mind will be the moment? And onind has ehe temple, why bother if the body is iemple or not? The mind which has found the entrao the temple suddenly discovers that it is surrounded on all sides by the vast temple, that now it is impossible to step out of the temple.
Wherever you go, you will still be within his temple.
You may go to the moon.
.
.
.
Retly Armstrong landed on it.
Does that mean he left Gods temple? There is no way you step out of Gods temple.
Do you imagihere is any place left where one be outside his temple?
So those who think the temple they have made is the only temple of God, and that no temple of God exists outside of it, they are wrong.
And those who think that this temple should be destroyed because God is not present here -- they are equally wrong as well.
Why blame the poor temples? If we could step out of our illusion that God exists only in temples, our temples could bee very beautiful, very loving, very blissful.
A village, in fact, looks inplete without a temple.
It be a very joyful thing to have a temple.
But a Hindu temple ever be a source of joy, nor, for that matter, a Mohammedan or a Christian temple be a source of joy.
Only Gods temple be a source of joy.
But Hindu, Mohammedan and Christian politics are so deep that they never allow a temple to represent the divine being.
Thats the reason Hindu shrines and Mohammedan mosques look so ugly.
An ho maates to even look on them.
They have turned into hotbeds of sdrels; all kinds of mischief is plahere.
And those who plan this mischief do not necessarily know what they are doing.
It is my uanding that no one plans mischief with muderstanding; mischief is allanned in unawareness.
And the whole earth is caught up in this mess.
If temples ever do disappear from the face of the earth, it will not be because of the atheists, but because of the so-called theists.
Temples are already disappearing; they have almost disappeared.
If we want to save temples on this earth, first we will have to see the vast temple around us -- existeself.
Then the smaller temples will automatically be saved; then they will survive as symbols of the divine presence.
Its as if I gave you a handkerchief as a gift.
.
.
the gift may be worth a few paisa, but you preserve it safely in a treasure chest.
Once I visited a village.
People came to see me off at the railway station and someo a garland around my neck.
I took it off and ha to a girl standing nearby.
I visited the same village after six years, and the same girl came up to me and said, "I have saved the garland you gave me last time.
Although the flowers have faded and people say there is nrance left in them, yet they are as fresh and fragrant as they were the first day.
After all, you gave them to me.
"
I visited her house and she brought out a lovely wooden box in which the garland was carefully placed.
The flowers had withered and were all dry; they had lost their fragrance.
Anyone seeing it might have asked, "Why have you left this rubbish in such a beautiful box? Whats the he box is valuable and the rubbish is worthless.
" The girl could throw the box away but not the rubbish.
She could see something else in the rubbish -- for her it was a symbol; it tained someones loving memory.
It might be rubbish to the rest of the world, but not to her.
If the temples, the mosques, the churches could just remain the reminders of mans longing to asd tod.
.
.
.
And this is the truth.
Take a look at the rising steeple of a church, the rising mi of a mosque, the sky-high dome of a temple.
They are nothing but symbols of mans desire to rise, symbols of his journey in search of God.
They are symbols of the fact that man is not happy with only a house, he wants to build a temple as well.
Man is not happy only being on the earth, he wants to asd towards the sky as well.
Have you ever noticed the earthen lamps burning iemples? Have you ever wondered why these lamps, taining ghee, taining purified butter, are kept burning iemple? Have you ever realized that these lamps are the only things oh whose flame never goes downwards? -- it always moves upwards.
Even if you turn the lamp upside down, the flame still moves upwards.
The flame, which always moves upwards, is a symbol of human aspirations.
We may be living on the earth, but we would also like to make our abode in the sky.
We may remaio the earth below, but we also long to move freely in the open skies.
And have you ever noticed how fast a flame rises and disappears? Also, have you ever observed that ohe flame has risen and disappeared, you ever find a trace of it? This is symbolic too -- of the fact that the one who asds, disappears.
The earthen lamp is solid matter, while the flame is very fluid -- no sooner does it rise than it disappears.
So the flame of the lamp tains the message.
It is a symbol of the fact that whosoever rises above the gross will disappear.
It is purely out of love that a man chooses thee in his lamp.
Although there is nothing wrong in using kerosene oil in a lamp -- God is not going to prevent you from doing so -- we feel that only one who has bee pure like ghee move upwards.
The flame of a kerosene lamp will move upwards too -- kerosene is han ghee -- but ghee is a symbol of our feeling that one who has bee pure will be able to rise higher.
Temples, mosques, and churches are also symbols of a similar type.
They be very lovely.
They are beautiful symbols -- incredible illustrations created by man.
But they have bee ugly because so muonsense has ehem.
Now a temple no longer remains a temple -- it has bee the temple of the Hindus.
And not only of the Hindus but of the vaishnavas.
And not only of the Vaishnavas but the temple of sud such a person.
And so, with such tinuous disiion, all temples have turned into hotbeds of politics.
They nurture the groupism and bigotry that lead everyoo disaster.
By and by, they have all turned iablishments which tio exploit and maintain their vested is.
I am not asking you to do away with temples, I am asking you to get rid of all that is worthless and has bee part of the temples.
Their vested is have to be destroyed.
Temples have to be saved from turning iablishments; they have to be saved from groupism and bigotry.
A temple is a very beautiful place if it remains just a reminder of God, if it remains his symbol, if it reflects a phenomenon rising towards the sky.
What I am saying is that as long as temples remain the mainspring of politics, they will tio cause misfortune.
And, indeed, now the temples are nothing but the mainsprings of politics.
When a temple is built for the Hindus, it automatically bees a hotbed of politics, because politics means groupism.
And religion is something which has absolutely nothing to do with groupism.
Religion means a sadhana, an individual itment to spirituality, and politics means groupism.
Always be aware that religion be related to a sadhana, but it have ion to groupism.
Politics survives on groupism, groupism survives on hatred, and hatred survives on blood -- and the whole mischief goes on.
.
.
.
As a symbol of God the temple has bee impure.
That impurity has to be removed; then it will be a symbol of great beauty.
If a village has a temple which belongs her to the Hindus nor to the Mohammedans nor to the Christians, the village will look beautiful.
The temple will bee an ador of the village.
The temple will bee a reminder of the infinite.
Then those who ehe temple will not feel that, by doing so, they have e near God, that outside they were away from him; people will simply feel that the temple is a place which makes it easy to enter within themselves, that the temple is only meant to be a place where one experiences beauty, pead solitude.
Theemple will simply be an appropriate plaeditation.
Aation is the path leading to God.
Everyone ot find it easy to make his house so peaceful that it be used for meditation, but together a whole village certainly build such a peaceful house.
Everyone ot afford to hire a tutor for his children and provide them with a separate school building, garden and playground.
If ead every person started doing this, it would create a problem -- only a limited number of children would get educated -- so we build a school in the village and provide all that is necessary for the children of the entire village.
Similarly, each village should have a place for sadhana, for meditation.
That is all a temple and a mosque mean, nothing more.
At present, they are no longer places for sadhana, they have bee ters for spreading trouble and mischief.
So we doo do away with the temples.
We must, however, take care that a temple does not tio be a ter for causing trouble.
We must also take care that the temple returns to the hands ion, and does not remain in the hands of Hindus or Mohammedans.
If the children of a town go as freely to the mosque as they to the temple, as freely to the church as they to the temple of Shiva, then such a town is truly a religious town.
Then the people of this town are good people.
Then the parents of this tow the enemies of their children.
One see that the parents of this town love their children, and are laying a foundation so that their children do not fight amongst themselves.
The parents of this town would tell their children, "A mosque is your house as much as a temple is.
Go wherever you find peace.
Sit there, seek God there.
All houses are Gods, but to have a glimpse of him is what matters.
And for this, go within yourself.
o wherever you feel.
" The day this will bee a reality, the right kind of temple will be created in the world.
We have not been able to build it as yet.
I am not among those who wish to get rid of temples.
On the trary, I am saying that our temples have already beeroyed by the very people who claim to be their guardians.
But when we will be able to see this is hard to say.
And then people misuand, they get the idea that I am among the destroyers of temples.
What would I gain by destroying a temple? Whatsoever is uemple, which has gathered around the temple, must, of course, be eliminated.
It is quite all right to involve oneself in an effort to do so.
One last question, and we will begin our meditation.
One friend has asked after the m discussion:
Question 3
DO SOULS SOMETIMES WANDER AFTER LEAVING THE BODY?
Some souls do find it difficult to take on a new bht after death.
There is a reason for this, and perhaps you may not have thought that this could be the reason.
All souls, if divided, would fall into three categories.
One is the lowest -- people with the most inferior type of sciousness; another is of the very highest kind, very superior, the purest kind of sciousness; and the third sists of people iween -- a bination of something of both.
Lets take the example of a damroo, a small drum.
It is broad at the ends and thin in the ter.
Were we to reverse it so that it was broad in the ter and narrow at the ends, we would uand the situation of disembodied souls.
At the narrow ends there are very few souls.
The most lowly souls find it as difficult to take a new body as the superior ones do.
Those iween do not face the slightest delay -- they attain a new body as soon as they leave the previous one.
The reason is that for the mediocre souls, the middle ones, a suitable womb is always available.
As soon as a persohe soul sees hundreds of people, hundreds of couples, copulating -- and whichever couple it bees attracted to, it ehe womb.
Many superior souls, however, ot enter ordinary wombs; they require extraordinary wombs.
The superior soul requires the union of a couple with an exceptionally high level of sciousness so that the highest degree of possibilities bees available for their birth.
And so, a superior soul has to wait for the right womb.
Similarly, inferior souls have to wait also, because they ot easily find a couple either, they ot easily find a womb of an inferior type.
Thus, both the highest and the lowest types are not easily born, while the mediocre types have no difficulty.
There are wombs tinuously available to receive them -- the mediocre soul is immediately attracted to any one of them.
I talked about Bardo in the m.
In this method the dying man is told, "You will see hundreds of couples copulating.
Dont be in a hurry.
Think a little, take a little time, remain there for a while before you enter a womb.
Dont immediately enter whichever womb attracts you.
It is as if a person goes downtown and buys whatsoever catches his fan a showroom.
Whichever shop es into view first, he is pulled to it; he ehe shop immediately.
But an intelligent er goes to several shops, checks and rechecks the items, makes enquiries, firms the prices, and then decides.
So in the Bardo method the dying man is warned, "Beware! Dont rush, dont hurry, keep searg; give it thought, take everything into sideration.
" This is told to him because, tinuously, hundreds of people are copulating.
The person clearly sees hundreds of couples making love, and among them he is only attracted to that couple capable of giving him a suitable womb.
Both superior and inferior souls have to wait until they find a suitable womb.
The inferior souls do not easily find a womb of su inferior character that through it they attain their possibilities.
Also, superior souls do not readily find a womb of a superior character.
The inferior souls, stranded without bodies, are what we call evil spirits, and the superior souls waiting to take birth, we call them devatas, gods.
Superior souls waiting for the right womb are gods.
Ghosts and evil spirits are the lowest kind of souls -- stranded because of their inferior quality.
For the ordinary soul a womb is always available.
No sooner does death occur than the soul instantly enters a womb.
Question 4
THE SAME FRIEND HAS ALSO ASKED: THESE SOULS WHO ARE WAITING TO BE BORER INTO SOMEONES BODY AND HARASS THAT PERSON?
This, too, is possible -- because the inferior souls, those who have not yet found a body, remaiormented; while, without bodies, the superior souls are happy.
You should keep this distin in mind.
Higher souls always look upon the body as a kind of bondage of one sort or another.
They wish to remain so light they even prefer not to carry the weight of a body.
And, ultimately, they want to be free from the body, because they find even the body is nothing but a prison.
Eventually, they feel the body makes them do certain things which are not worth doing.
And so these souls are not very attracted to the body.
The inferior souls ot live for a moment without a body; their i, their happiness is tethered to the body.
Certain pleasures be attained without being in a body.
For example, there is the soul of a thinker.
Now, one have the pleasure of thinking without being in a body, because thought has nothing to do with the body.
So if the soul of a thinker begins to wander and does not attain a body, it never shows any hurry to be in the body again because it enjoy the pleasure of thinking even iate it is in.
But, lets say someone enjoys food with a passion.
That pleasure is not possible without being in a body, so in such a case, the soul bees tremendously restless to find a way to enter a body.
And if it fails to find a suitable womb, then it enter a body which has a weak soul.
A weak soul means one which is not the master of its body.
And this happens when the weak soul is in a state of fear.
Remember, fear has a very deep meaning.
Fear means that which causes you to shrink.
When you are in fear you shrink; when you are happy you expand.
When a person is in a state of fear his soul shrinks, and sequently a large space is left vat in his body for another soul to enter and occupy.
Not only one, many souls enter and occupy that space at once.
So when a man is in a state of fear, a soul enter his body.
And the only reason a soul would do that is because all its cravings are tethered to the body; it attempts to satisfy its cravings by entering someones body.
This is totally possible.
plete facts are available to support it; it is totally based oy.
What this means is that a fearful person is always in danger; he is always in a shruate.
He lives, as it were, in one room of his house, while the rest of the rooms remain vat and be occupied by uests.
Occasionally higher souls also enter a human body, but they do so for very different reasons.
There are some acts of passion which ot be carried out without being in a body.
Say, for example, that a house catches fire and no oeps forward to save it from burning down.
The crowd stands there, powerless; no one dares ehe burning house.
Suddenly a man steps forward, puts out the fire and mao save somebody trapped inside.
Later on, whehing is over, the man himself wonders how he did it.
He feels quite sure he moved and acted uhe influence of some unknown power -- that it was not his doing, that someone else did it.
In sustances, where man is uo muster the ce for some good cause, some higher soul enter a human body and aplish the task.
But these are rare happenings.
Si is difficult for superior souls to find suitable wombs, they sometimes have to wait for hundreds of years before their birth.
And surprisingly enough, these souls appear on the earth almost at the same time.
For example, Buddha and Mahavira were both born in India 2,500 years ago.
Both were born in Bihar, and during the same period six other enlightened beings were present in the same state, in Bihar.
Their names are not known to us because they did not initiate any disciples, because they had no followings -- that is the only reason -- but they were of the same caliber as Buddha and Mahavira.
And they ducted a very daring experiment: none of them initiated any followers.
One of these people rabuddha Katyayana, another was Ajit Keshkambal, a another was Sanjay Vilethiputra.
Then there was Makhali Gosal, and there were others.
In that period of time, eight people of the same genius and the same potential were born simultaneously, in that very state of Bihar.
With all the world available, these eight souls waited for a long time to be born in that small area of Bihar.
And when the opportunity came, it came all at once.
Often it happens, as well as for evil souls, that a of births es to pass for the good.
At the same time as Buddha and Mahavira, Socrates was born in Greece, followed after a time by Plato and Aristotle.
At about the same time in a, fucius, Lao Tzu, g Tzu and Mencius, Meng Tzu, were born.
Some incredible people took birth all at on different parts of the world at approximately the same time.
The whole world was filled with some fasating people.
It seems as if the souls of all these people were waiting for some time.
Then an opportunity came their way; wombs became available to them.
When, by ce, wombs do bee available, many wombs bee available all at once.
It is just like the blooming of a flower.
When the season arrives, you find one flower has blossomed, and then you see the sed flower, and thehird.
The flowers were just waiting to bloom.
Dawn arrives, and it is just a question of the sun rising above the horizon and the flowers begin to bloom.
The buds burst open and the flower blooms.
The flowers were waiting the entire night, and as the sun arose, they bloomed.
Exactly the same thing happens with inferior souls.
When a suitable enviro develops oh, they take birth in a .
For example, in our time, people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all born during the same period.
Such horrible people must have waited for thousands of years to take birth; they t find wombs that easily.
Stalin alone killed about six million people in the Soviet Union, and Hitler killed about ten million people all by himself.
The death traptions devised by Hitler were unique in the history of mankind.
He carried out mass murder in a way no one had ever done before; o him, Tamerla?
ne and Genghis Khan seem novices.
Hitler devised gas chambers for mass murder.
He found it too cumbersome and costly to kill people one by one and then dispose of their bodies, so he devised ingenious methods of mass murder.
There are other means of mass murder too -- for example, as happened in the ret unal riots at Ahmedabad, or at other places -- but these are all very expehods.
Also, it is su effort to kill people one by one -- and it takes a lot of time as well.
Killing people one by one doesnt work: you kill one here, and another is born somewhere else.
So Hitler would have five thousand people put in a gas chamber together, and with the flick of a button these five thousand people were virtually turned into vapor; they would simply evaporate.
The chamber would be empty; no sign of them would be left.
Not a drop of blood illed, not a single grave was dug.
It was all very .
No one accuse Hitler of bloodshed.
If God is still dispensing justice by the old standards, he will find Hitler totally i.
He did not spill a drop of blood; he piero breast with his sword, he simply devised an ingenious method of killing, a means beyond description.
He placed people in a gas chamber, switched on a high-voltage button and the people simply evaporated.
Not a sign was left to prove they had ever existed.
Hitler, for the first time, got rid of people as one boils water and turns it into vapor.
He turen million people into gas!
It is very difficult for a soul like Hitlers to find a new body quickly.
And it is good it is so difficult, otherwise the earth would be irouble.
Hitler will have to wait for a very long time, because it is extremely difficult for a ception of such a low quality to take place again.
What does it mean to be born through an inferior ception? It means that geions of the parents aors have a long of evil deeds to their credit.
In a single lifetime one ot accumulate enough evil to at for the ception of a person like Hitler.
To produce a son like Hitler, how much evil, how many murders an it in one lifetime? For a son like Hitler to choose his parents, a long of evil deeds is required, deeds performed by the parents for hundreds, thousands, millions of years.
This means that if a persoo work in a slaughterhouse tinuously for thousands of years, only then could his genes, his breed, bee capable of attrag a soul like Hitlers.
The same holds true food soul.
For an average, ordinary soul there is no difficulty taking birth; there are wombs all over ready to receive such souls.
And besides, its demands are very ordinary.
There are the same cravings: eating, drinking, making money, enjoying sex, seeking honor and position -- such ordinary longings.
Everyone longs for these things, and so the soul has no problem finding a womb.
All parents give any soul the opportunity to achieve all these ordinary things.
However, if, in a human body, a soul wants to live a life so pure that he will eveate to press the earth with his feet, he will live in such total love that he wont want ao be troubled by his love or his love to bee a burden on ahen we will have to wait a long time for such souls to take birth.
Now lets get ready for the eveniation.
Let me first make a few things clear.
I have observed that you sit very close to each other, and this doesnt allow you to sit without w you might fall on somebody else.
This situation wont allow you to go deep.
So the first thing you o do is: be at a distance from each other.
Those who feel like lying down may do so.
Even later, during the meditation, if you feel your body is going to fall on the ground, then dont hold yourself back.
Let go pletely; allow the body to drop.
Now, turn off the lights.
The first thing: close your eyes.
Relax your body.
.
.
.
Relax your body totally, as if there is no body left any more.
Feel that all the energy of your body is moving in.
.
.
feel that you are moving ihe body.
You have to withdraw all your energy inside.
For three minutes I will give suggestions that your body is relaxing, and you have to feel it.
You have to keep feeling your body and relaxing it.
Slowly you will feel that you have lost your hold over the body -- then if the body begins to fall, let it fall; dont hold it.
If it falls forward, let it fall; if it falls backwards, let it fall.
From your side, dont maintain any hold on the body.
Let your hold over the body go.
This is the first stage.
Now I will give suggestions for three minutes.
Similarly, I will give suggestions for your breathing, and then for your thoughts.
At the end, for ten minutes, we will be lost in silence.
Your body is relaxing.
Feel it: your body is relaxing.
.
.
your body is relaxing.
.
.
your body is relaxing.
.
.
.
Let go, as if the body is no more.
Give up your hold.
Your body is relaxing.
.
.
drop all trol over the body, as if your body is dead.
You have moved ihe energy has been sucked inside -- now the body is left behind like a shell.
The body is relaxing.
.
.
the body is totally relaxed.
.
.
.
Let go.
You will feel that it has gone, gone, gone.
Let it fall if it will.
The body is relaxed, as if you are dead now, as if the body is no more, as if the body has disappeared.
.
.
.
Relax your breathing also.
Your breathing is relaxing.
.
.
feel that your breathing is relaxing.
.
.
your breathing has totally relaxed.
.
.
.
Let go.
.
.
let the body go; let the breathing go too.
Your breathing has relaxed.
Your thoughts are also being silent.
.
.
thoughts are being silent.
.
.
.
Feel your thoughts being totally silent.
.
.
feel ihoughts are calming down.
The body is relaxed, the breathing is relaxed, thoughts are silent.
.
.
.
Everything is silent within you.
We are sinking into this silence; we are sinking, we are falling deeper and deeper as one falls into a well, keeps on falling deeper and deeper.
.
.
just like this, we are falling deeper and deeper iiness, into shunya.
Let go, let go your hold pletely.
.
.
.
Keep drowning iiness, keep drowning.
.
.
.
Inside, only sciousness will remain, burning like a flame, watg, just a witness.
Just remain a witness.
Keep watg inside.
.
.
.
Outside everything is dead; the body has bee totally i.
Breathing has slowed down, thoughts have slowed down; inside, we are falling into silence.
Keep watg, keep watg, watg tinuously -- a much deeper silence, a much more profound silence will grow.
In that watg state, I will also disappear -- only a shining light, a burning flame will remain.
Now I will be still for ten minutes, and you keep on disappearing within, deeper and deeper.
Give up your hold, let go.
Just keep watg.
For ten minutes, just be an onlooker, be a witness.
Everything is silent.
.
.
.
Look within, keep looking within.
.
.
.
Inside, let there be just watg.
The mind is being more and more silent.
.
.
.
At a distance you will see your body lying -- as if it is someone elses body.
You will move away from the body, as if you have left the body.
It seems someone else is breathing.
.
.
.
Go even further within, go deeper inside.
.
.
.
Keep watg, keep looking inside, and the mind will totally sink into nothingness.
Go deeper, go deeper down within.
.
.
keep watg.
.
.
the mind has bee totally silent.
The body is left behind, the body is as if dead.
We have moved away from the body.
Let go, let go totally; do not hold back at all, as if you are dead inside.
The mind is being even more silent.
.
.
the body is lying far away; we have moved far away from the body.
.
.
.
The mind has bee totally silent.
.
.
.
Look inside.
The I has disappeared totally, only sciousness is left, only knowing is left.
Everything else has disappeared.
.
.
.
Slowly, take a few deep breaths.
The mind is now totally silent.
Watch ead every breath, and you will feel the mind being even more silent.
Your breathing will also seem separate from you, far away from you.
Breathe softly and slowly.
Watch how far away the breath is.
.
.
watch how distant it is from you.
Slowly, take a few deep breaths.
Then open your eyes slowly.
There is o hurry to get up.
If you are uo open your eyes, there is o hurry.
Open your eyes slowly and softly, and then look outside for a moment.
.
.
.
Our eveniation is now over.
Chapter 4
Returning to the Source
30 October 1969 am iation Camp at Dwarka, Gurujat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: ACC TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, ONE TRIUMPH OVER DEATH THROUGH MEDITATION OR SADHANA.
BUT THEN, DOESNT THE SAME STATE EXIST WHEN WE ARE IN SLEEP? AND IF IT DOES, THEN WHY T DEATH BE QUERED THROUGH SLEEP?
The first thing that o be uood is that triumph over death does not mean there is something like death to quer.
To triumph over death simply means you will e to know there is h.
To know that death is not is to quer it.
There is nothing like death to be quered.
As soon as one knows there is h, oing and losing battle with death ceases.
Some enemies exist, and there are others that iy do but only seem to exist.
Death is one of those enemies with no real existe only seems to exist.
And so, do not take the triumph to mean that somewhere death exists and that we shall quer it.
This would be like a man going crazy fighting with his shadow, until someone points out to him, "Look closely, the shadow has no substance.
It is merely an appearance.
" If the man looked at the shadow and realized what he was doing, he would laugh at himself; only then could he know he has quered the shadow.
quering the shadow simply means there was not evei shadow to be fought with; aempting to do so would go crazy.
One who fights with death will lose; one who knows death will triumph over it.
This also means that if death is not, then iy we never ever die -- whether we are aware of it or not.
The world does not sist of those people who die and those who do not die -- no, its not like that.
In this world no one ever dies.
There are two kinds of people, however: those who know this as a fact, and those who dont -- this is the only difference.
In sleep we reach the same place we do iation.
The only difference is that in sleep we are unscious, while iation we are fully scious.
If someoo bee fully aware, even in his sleep, he would have the same experience as iation.
For example, if we were to put a person under ahetid in his unscious state bring him on a stretcher to a garden where flowers are in full bloom, where fragrance is in the air, where the sun is shining and the birds are singing, the man would be pletely unaware of all this.
After we brought him bad he was out of the ahesia, if we asked him how he liked the garden, he would not be able to tell us anything.
Then, if you were to take him to the same garden when he was fully scious, he would experience everything present there when he had been brought in before.
In both cases, although the man was brought to the same place, he was unaware of the beautiful surroundings in the first instance, while in the sed instance he would be fully aware of the flowers, the fragrahe song of the birds, the rising sun.
So although you will undoubtedly reach as far in an unscious state as you will rea a scious state, to reae pla an unscious state is as good as not reag there at all.
In sleep we reach the same paradise we rea meditation, but we are unaware of it.
Eaight we travel to this paradise, and then we e back -- unaware.
Although the fresh breeze and the lovely fragrance of the place touch us, and the songs of the birds ring in our ears, we are never aware of it.
A, in spite of returning from this paradise totally unaware of it, one might say, "I feel very good this m.
I feel very peaceful.
I slept well last night.
"
What do you feel so good about? Having slept well, what good happened? It ot be only because you slept -- surely you must have been somewhere; something must have happeo you.
But in the m you have no knowledge of it, except for a vague idea of feeling good.
One who has had a deep sleep at night gets up refreshed in the m.
This shows the person has reached a rejuvenating sour sleep -- but in an unscious state.
One who is uo sleep well at night finds himself more tired in the m than he was the previous evening.
And if a person does not sleep well for a few days it bees difficult for him to survive, because his e with the source of life is broken.
He is uo reach the place it is essential he should.
The worst punishment in the world is not death -- as a punishmeh is easy; it occurs in a few moments.
The worst punishment ever devised oh is not letting a person go to sleep.
Even to this day, there are tries like a and Russia where prisoners are made to go without sleep.
The torture a prisoes through, if he is not allowed to sleep for fifteen days, is beyond our imagination -- he almost goes mad.
He begins to divulge all the informatioherwise would not have let the enemy know.
He begins to blabber, totally unaware of its implications.
In a, systematic methods have been devised.
For six months prisoners are not allowed to sleep.
sequently, they bee totally insane.
They pletely fet who they are, what their names are, what their religion is, which town or city they e from, what their try is -- they fet everything.
Lack of sleep throws their sciousness into plete disorder, into chaos.
In that dition they be made to learn anything.
When the Ameri soldiers captured in Korea returned from the prison camps of Russia and a, denial of sleep had left them in such terrible shape that when they came out they were openly antagonistierid in favor of unism.
First these soldiers were not allowed to sleep, and when their sciousnesses became disordered, they were indoated into unism.
Oheir identities were thrown into chaos, through repeated suggestions they were told they were unists.
So before their release they were pletely brainwashed.
Looking at these soldiers, Ameri psychologists were dumbfounded.
If a person is denied sleep, he bees cut off from the very source of life.
Atheism will tio grow in the world in the same ratio as sleep tio get lighter.
In tries where people have lighter sleep, atheism will be more on the increase there.
And in tries where people have deeper sleep, the more theism will be on the increase.
But this theism and atheism are a totally strahing for man, because they grow out of an unscious state.
A person who has a deep sleep spends the day in peace, while the one who does not have a deep sleep remailess and troubled the following day.
How in the world a restless and troubled mind be receptive to God? A mind which is disturbed, dissatisfied, tense and angry, refuses to accept God, denies his existence.
Sce is not at the bottom of the increasing atheism in the West; the disorderly, chaotidition of sleep is at the root of it.
In New York, at least thirty pert of the people ot sleep without tranquilizers.
Psychologists believe that if this dition prevails for the hundred years, not a single person will be able to sleep without medication.
People have pletely lost sleep.
If a man who has lost sleep were to ask you how you go to sleep, and your answer were, "All I do is put my head on the pillow and fall asleep," he will not believe you.
He will find this impossible and suspect there must be some trick he doesnt know to it -- because he lays his head on the pillow too, and nothing happens.
God forbid, but a time may e, after a thousand or two thousand years, when everyone will have lost natural sleep, and people will refuse to believe that a thousand or two thousand years before their time, people simply rested their heads on their pillows and fell asleep.
They will take this as fi, a mythical story from the Puranas.
They will not believe it to be true.
They will say, "This is not possible, because if that isnt true about us, how it be true about anyone else?"
I am drawing your attention to all of this because three or four thousand years ago people would close their eyes and go into meditation as easily as you go to sleep today.
Two thousand years from now it will be difficult to sleep in New York -- it is difficult even today.
It is being difficult to sleep in Bombay, and soon it will bee difficult in Dwarka as well -- it is just a matter of time.
Today it is hard to believe there was a time when a man could close his eyes and go into meditation -- because now, when you sit with your eyes closed, you reaowhere; ihoughts keep h around and you remain where you are.
In the past, meditation was as easy for those who were close to nature as sleep is for those who live close to nature.
First meditation disappeared; now sleep is on its way out.
Those things are first lost which are scious; after that, those things are lost which are unscious.
With the disappearaneditation the world has almost bee irreligious, and when sleep disappears the world will bee totally irreligious.
There is no hope fion in a sleepless world.
You will not believe how closely, how deeply, we are ected to sleep.
Hoerson will live his life depends totally on how he sleeps.
If he does not sleep well, his entire life will be a chaos: all his relationships will bee entangled, everything will bee poisonous, filled with rage.
If, on the trary, a person sleeps deeply, there will be freshness in his life -- pead joy will tinuously flow in his life.
Underlying his relationships, his love, everything else, there will be serenity.
But if he loses sleep, all his relationships will go haywire.
He will have a messed-up life with his family, his wife, his son, his mother, his father, his teacher, his students -- all of them.
Sleep brings us to a point in our unscious where we are immersed in God -- although not for too long.
Even the healthiest person only reaches to his deeper level for ten minutes of his nightly eight hours sleep.
For these ten minutes he is so pletely lost, drowned in sleep, that not even a dream exists.
Sleep is not total as long as one is dreaming -- one keeps moviweeates of sleep and wakefulness.
Dreaming is a state in whie is half-asleep and half-awake.
To be in a dream means that even though your eyes are closed, you are not asleep; external influences are still affeg you.
The people you met during the day, you are still with them at night in your dreams.
Dreams occupy the middle state between sleep and wakefulness.
And there are many people who have lost sleep -- they merely remain in the dreaming state, without ever reag the state of sleep.
And that you dont remember in the m that you dreamt all night is beside the point.
Much resear sleep is being carried out in America.
Some ten big laboratories have been experimenting on thousands of people for about eight to ten years.
Ameris are showing i iation because they have lost sleep.
They think that perhaps meditation may bring their sleep back, that it may bring some peato their lives.
Thats why they look upoation as nothing more than a tranquilizer.
When Vivekananda first introduced meditation in America, a physi came to him and said, "I enjoyed your meditation immensely.
It is absolutely a non-medial tranquilizer.
Its not a medie a puts oo sleep -- its great.
" Yogis are not the reason their influence is growing so mu America -- the lack of sleep is the real cause.
Their sleep is in a mess, and sequently life in America is filled with heaviness, depression, tension.
So in America we see the growing need for tranquilizers -- somehow, t sleep to people.
Every year, millions of dollars are being spent on tranquilizers in America.
Ten big laboratories are dug resear thousands of people who are being paid to undergo nights of rather.. unfortable, painful sleep.
All kinds of electrodes and thousands of wires are attached to peoples bodies, and they are examined from all ao find out what is happening ihem.
One incredible discovery these experiments have revealed is that man dreams almost the whole night.
Waking up, some people said they didnt dream, while some said they did.
But in fact, all of them dreamt.
The only difference was that those with better memories remembered dreaming, while those with weaker memories could not recall dreaming.
It was found, however, that a pletely healthy person was able to slip into a deep, dreamless sleep for ten minutes.
Dreams be sed through maes.
Nerves in the brain remain active during our dreaming state, but as the dream stops, the nerves cease to be active as well, and the mae indicates a gap has occurred.
The gap shows that at that time the man was her dreaming nor thinking -- he was lost somewhere.
It is iing that the maes keep rec movement ihe man while he is in the dreaming state, but as soon as he falls into dreamless sleep, the mae sho.
They dont know where the man disappeared in that gap.
So dreamless sleep means the man has reached a place beyond the maes range.
It is in this gap that maers the divine.
The mae is uo detect this spa between, this gap.
The mae records the internal activity as long as the man is dreaming -- then es the gap and the man disappears somewhere.
And then, after ten mihe mae starts rec again.
It is difficult to say where the man was during that ten-mierval.
Ameri psychologists are very intrigued by this gap; hehey sider sleep the biggest mystery.
The fact is that o God, sleep is the only mystery.
There is no other mystery.
You sleep every day, yet you have no idea what sleep is.
A man sleeps all through his life, a nothing ges -- he knows nothing about sleep.
The reason you dont know anything about sleep is that when sleep is there, you are not.
Remember, you are only as long as sleep is not.
And so, you e to know only as much as the mae knows.
Just as in the face of the gap the mae stops and is uo reach where the man has been transported, you ot reach there either -- because you are no more than a mae as well.
Since you do not e across that gap either, sleep remains a mystery; it remains beyond your reach.
This is so because a man falls into wakeless sleep only when he ceases to exist in his "I-am-ness.
" And therefore, as the ego keeps growing, sleep bees less and less.
An egoistic person loses his capacity to sleep because his ego, the I, keeps asserting itself twenty-four hours a day.
It is the I that wakes up, the same I that walks oreet.
The I remains so present the ewenty-four hours that at the moment of falling asleep, wheime approaches to drop the I, one is uo get rid of it.
Obviously, it bees difficult to fall asleep.
As long as the I exists, sleep is impossible.
And, as I told you yesterday, as long as the I exists, entering into God is impossible.
Entering into sleep aering into God are exactly one and the same thing; the only difference is that through sleep oers into God in an unscious state, while through meditatioers into God in a scious state.
But this is a very big difference.
You may enter God through sleep for thousands of lives, yet you will never e to know God.
But if, even for a moment, you enter meditation you will have reached the same place you have reached in deep sleep for thousands and millions of lives -- although always in an unscious state -- and it will transform your life totally.
The iing thing is that once a persoers meditatioers that emptiness where deep sleep takes him, he never remains unscious -- even when he is asleep.
When Krishna says ia that the yogi stays awake when everyone else is asleep, he does not mean the yogi never sleeps at all.
In fao one sleeps as beautifully as a yogi does.
But even in his deepest sleep, that element in him which has entered into meditation remains awake.
And every night the yogi enters sleep in this awakeate.
Then for him meditation and sleep bee one and the same thing -- no differeweewo remains.
Then he always enters sleep in full sciousness.
Once a person moves within himself through meditation, he ever be in an unscious state in his sleep.
Ananda lived with Buddha for many years.
For years he slept near Buddha.
One m he asked Buddha, "For years I have been watg you sleep.
Not once do you ever ge sides; you sleep the whole night in the same position.
Your limbs stay where they were when you lay down at night; there is not the slightest movement.
Many times I have got up at night to check whether you have moved.
I have stayed up nights watg you -- your hands, your feet, rest in the same position; you never ever ge sides.
Do you keep some kind of a record of your sleep the whole night?"
"I doo keep any record," Buddha replied.
"I sleep in a scious state, so I find o ge sides.
I if I want to.
Turning from one side to another is not a requirement of sleep, its a requirement of your restless mind.
" A restless mind ot eve in one place for a single night, let alone during the day.
Even sleeping at night, the whole time the body shows its restlessness.
If you watch a person asleep at night, you will see he is tinuously restless the whole time.
You will find him moving his hands in much the same way he does when he is awake during the day.
In his dream at night, you will find him running and panting in much the same way it happens with someone during the day -- he feels out of breath, tired.
At night, in dreams, he fights in much the same way he fights during the day.
He is as angry at night as he is during the day.
He is filled with passion during the day; at night as well.
There is no fual differeween the day and the night of such a person, except that at night he lies down exhausted, unscious; everything else tio fun as usual.
So Buddha said, "I ge sides if I want to, but there is no need.
"
But we dont realize
A man sitting in a chair keeps jiggling his legs.
Ask him: "Why are ys jiggling like that? Its uandable if they move when you walk, but why are they moving when you are sitting in a chair?" No sooner do you say this than the man will stop immediately.
Then he wont even move for a sed, but he will have no explanation as to why he was doing it.
It shows how the restlessness within causes agitation iire body.
Inside is the restless mind; it ot be still, in one position, even for a moment.
It will keep the whole body fidgeting -- the legs will move, the head will shake; even sitting, the body will ge sides.
Thats why, even for ten minutes, you find it so difficult to sit still iation.
And from a thousand different spots the body urges you to twitd turn.
We do not notice this until we sit with awareness iation.
We realize then what sort of a body this is; it doesnt want to remain still in one position even for a sed.
The fusion, the tension, and the excitement of the mind stir up the entire body.
For about ten minutes everything disappears in wakeless sleep -- although these ten minutes are available only to one who is pletely healthy and peaceful, not to everyone.
et this kind of sleep anywhere from oo five minutes; most people get only two, or one minute of deep sleep.
The little juice we receive in that one minute of reag to the source of life, ly to making our wenty-four hours work.
Whatever little amount of oil the lamp receives in that short period, we utilize it to carry on our lives for a full twenty-four hours.
The lamp of ones life burns on whatsoever amount of oil it receives then.
This is the reason the lamp burns so slow: not enough oil is collected to make the lamp of life burn brightly so it bee a flaming torch.
Meditatis you slowly to the source of life.
Then it is not that you keep taking a handful of nourishment out of it, you are simply in the source itself.
Then it is not that you refill your lamp with more oil -- theire o of oil bees available to you.
Then you begin to live in that very o.
With that kind of living, sleep disappears -- not in the sehat one doesnt sleep any more, but in the sehat even when one is asleep, someohin remains wide awake.
Then dreams exist no more.
A yogi stays awake; he sleeps, but he never dreams -- his dreams disappear totally.
And when dreams disappear, thoughts disappear.
What we know as thoughts in the wakeful state are called dreams in the sleeping state.
There is only a slight differeween thoughts and dreams: thoughts are slightly more civilized dreams, while dreams are a little primitive in nature.
Of the two, one is the inal thought.
In fact, children, or the abinal tribes, think only in pictures, not in words.
Mans first thoughts are always in pictures.
For example, when a child is hungry he does not think in words, "I am hungry.
" A child visualize the mothers breast; he imagine himself sug the breast.
He be filled with the desire to go to the breast, but he ot form the words.
The word formation starts much later; pictures appear first.
When we dont knoarticular language, we use pictures to express ourselves as well.
If you happen to go to a fn try and you dont know the language, and you want to drink water, you cup your palms to your mouth and the stranger will uand that you are thirsty -- because when words are not at hand, the need for pictures arises.
And the iing thing is that languages of words are different in different places, but the language of pictures is universal -- because every mans picture language is the same.
We have ied different words, but pictures are not our iion.
Pictures are the universal language of the human mind.
A painting, therefore, is uood anywhere in the world.
There is o ge your language to uand a sculpture at Khajuraho or a painting by Leonardo.
A sculpture at Khajuraho will be as uood by a ese, a Fren and a German, as it is by you.
And if you visit the museum of the Louvre in France, you will have no difficulty in following the paintiher.
You may not uand the titles, because they are in French, but you will have no problem following the painting.
The language of pictures is everyones language.
The language of words is useful during the day, but it is not useful at night.
We again bee primitive at night.
We disappear in sleep as we are.
We lose rees, our uy educations, everything.
We are transported to a point where the inal man oood.
Thats why pictures emerge at night in sleep, and words appear during the day.
If we want to make love during the day, we think in terms of words, but at night there is no way to express love except through images.
Thoughts do not seem as alive as dreams.
In dreams the whole image appears before you.
Thats why we enjoy watg a movie based on a novel more than reading the self.
The only reason for this is that the novel is in the language of words while the movie is in the language of images.
In the same manner, you feel greater joy being here and listening to me live.
You would not feel the same joy listening to this talk on a tape, because here the image is present, on tape there are only words.
The language of images is o us, more natural.
At night words turn into pictures; thats all the differehere is.
The day dreams disappear, thoughts disappear too; the day thoughts disappear, dreams disappear as well.
If the day is empty of thoughts, the night will be empty of dreams.
And remember, dreams dont allow you to sleep, and thoughts dont allow you to awaken.
Make sure you uand both things: dreams do not let you sleep, and thoughts do not let you awaken.
If dreams disappear, sleep will be total; if thoughts disappear, awakening will be total.
If the awakening is total and the sleep is total, then not much differes betweewo.
The only difference is in keeping the eyes open or closed, and in the body being at work or at rest.
One who is totally awakened sleeps totally, but in both states his sciousness remaily the same.
sciousness is one, ungeable; only the body ges.
Awake, the body is at work; asleep, the body is at rest.
To the friend who has asked why God is not attained in sleep, my answer is: he be attained if you remain awake even in your sleep.
So my method of meditation is a sleepihod -- sleeping in awareness, entering into sleep with awareness.
Thats why I ask you to relax your body, to relax your breathing, to calm down your thoughts.
All this is a preparation for sleep.
Therefore, it often happens that some friends go to sleep duriation -- obviously; this is a preparation for sleep.
And, while preparing for it, they dont know when they go to sleep.
Thats why I repeat the third suggestion: stay awake inside, remain scious withihe body be totally relaxed, let the breathially relaxed, more relaxed than it normally is while sleeping.
But stay awake within.
Withi your awareness burn like a lamp so you dont fall asleep.
The initial ditions of meditation and sleep are the same, but there is a differen the final dition.
The first dition is that the body should be relaxed.
If you suffer from insomnia, the first thing a doctor will teach you is relaxation.
He will ask you to do the same thing I am asking: relax your body, do any ?９9ｌｉb.ension remain in your body; let your body be totally loose, just like a fluff of cotton.
Have you ever noticed how a dog or a cat sleeps? They sleep as if they are not.
Have you ever noticed a baby sleeping? There is no tension anywhere -- its arms and legs remain unbelievably loose.
Watch a youth and an old man -- you will find everything tense in them.
So the doctor would ask you to relax totally.
The same dition applies to sleep: the breathing should be relaxed, deep and slow.
You must have noticed that jogging, the breathing bees faster.
Similarly, when the body exerts itself at work, the breathing bees faster and the blood circulation increases.
For sleeping, the blood circulation should slow down -- the situation should be just the opposite to jogging -- and then the breathing will relax.
So the sed dition is: relax your breathing.
When thoughts run faster, the blood has to circulate rapidly in the brain -- and when this happens, sleep bees impossible.
The dition of sleep requires a slower flow of blood to the brain.
Thats why we use pillows -- to reduce the flow of blood to the brain.
Without a pillow, the head lies at the same level as the body, and sequently, the blood flows at the same rate from head to toe.
When the head is raised, the blood has difficulty moving upwards; its flow is reduced in the brain and moves throughout the rest of the body.
So the greater the difficulty one has in falling asleep, the more pillows he will o put under his head to raise it.
As the flow of blood is reduced, the brain relaxes and one finds it easy to fall asleep.
With fast-moving thoughts, the blood has to run faster too -- because for its movement a thought has to rely on blood as the vehicle.
The veins in the brain begin to work faster.
You must have noticed that when a person is angry his veins swell.
This is so because the veins have to make more space to let extra blood run through them.
When the head cools down, the blood pressure also decreases.
In ahe fad the eyes turn red.
This is due to the extra blood that runs through the veins.
In that state, thoughts move so fast that the blood has to flow faster.
And breathing also bees faster.
Wheakes hold of the mind, the breathing bees very heavy and the blood flows faster -- because thoughts move so rapidly, the mind begins to fun so fast, that all the veins in the brain start rushing with blood at great speed.
So the ditions for meditation are primarily the same as those applicable to sleep: relax your body, relax your breathing, let go of thoughts.
And so, for sleep as well as for meditation, the initial ditions are equally true.
The difference is in the final dition.
In the former you remain deep in sleep; iation you remain fully awake, thats all.
So this friend is right in asking the question.
There is a deep relationship between sleep aatioween samadhi and sushupti, deep sleep.
However, there is one very signifit differeweewo: the differeween a scious and an unscious state.
Sleep is unawareness, meditation is awakening.
Question 2
ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: WHAT IS THE DIFFEREWEEN WHAT YOU CALL MEDITATION, AND AUTOHYPNOSIS?
The difference is the same as that which exists between sleep aation.
This also o be uood.
Sleep is that whies naturally, while the sleep ihrough effort is self-hypnosis This is the only difference.
The word hypnos also means sleep.
Hypnosis means tandra, sleepiness.
One is the kind of sleep whies on its own, the other kind is cultivated, induced.
If someone has difficulty sleeping, then he will have to do something about it.
If a man lies down and begins to think tinuously that he is falling asleep, and should this thought enter his being and take hold of his mind, the body will begin to respond accly too.
The body will begin to relax, the breathing will begin to slow down, the mind will begin to quiet down.
If an enviro for sleep is created within the body, the body will start funing accly.
The body is not ed with facts, the body is very obedient.
If you feel hungry every day at eleven oclock, and if your clock stopped at eleven oclock the previous night, one look at the clod your stomach would say, "Time to eat" -- even though it might be o oclo the m.
It is not eleven oclock yet -- there are still three more hours before eleven -- but if the clock shows eleven oclock the stomach will plain of hunger because the stomach works meically.
If you are used to going to bed at midnight, and if by ce your clock is two hours ahead, you will begin to feel drowsy as soon as the clock strikes twelve, even though it may be only ten oclock.
The body will immediately say, "It is twelve oclock.
Time to go to bed!"
The body is very obedient.
The healthier the body, the more obedient it is.
A healthy body means an obedient body.
A sick body is one which has stopped obeying: you feel sleepy and the body refuses to sleep; you feel hungry and the body doesnt want to eat.
A body which stops obeying is an ill body, and the body which is obedient is a healthy body -- because the body follows us like a shadow.
Difficulty arises when the body stops being obedient.
So hypnosis simply means that the body has to be ordered, that it has to be made to follow ands.
Most of our illnesses are just pseudo.
Almost fifty pert of our ailments are false.
The reason behind the growing illness in the world is not that there is an increase in disease, it is because mans pretense is on the increase.
Make sure you uand this well.
With increased knowledge aer eiditions there should be a dee in the number of diseases.
But that has not happened, because mans capacity to lie has kept on growing.
Man not only lies to others, he lies to himself too.
He creates new diseases as well.
For example, if a man has suffered heavily in business and is on the verge of bankruptcy, he may not want to accept that he is bankrupt and so he is afraid to go into the marketplace; he knows he will have to face his creditors.
All of a sudden he finds he has been overpowered by an illhat has made him bedridden.
This is an illness created by his mind.
It has a double advantage.
Now he tell others his illness prevents him from attending to his business -- he has already vinced himself about this and now he vihers as well -- and now this illness is incurable.
In the first place, it is not an illness at all, and the more treatment he is given, the sicker he will bee.
If medie fails to cure you, know well your illness is not curable through medication -- the cause of the illness lies somewhere else; it has nothing to do with medication.
You may curse the medie and call the doctors stupid for not finding the right treatment for you; you may try ayurvedic medie or naturopathic treatment; you may turn to allopathy or homeopathy -- nothing will work.
No doctor be of any use to you, simply because a doctor only treat an authentic illness -- he has no trol over something pseudo.
And the iing thing is that you keep busy creating illnesses like that, and you want them to remain.
More than fifty pert of female siesses are false.
Women have learned a formula from childhood: they get love only when they are sick, otherwise not.
Whehe wife is ill, the husband takes time off work, pulls up a chair and sits by her bedside.
He may curse himself for doing so, but he does it.
So whenever a woman wants attention from her man, she promptly falls ill.
Thats why we find women sick almost all the time.
They know that by being ill they hold sway over the entire household.
An ill person bees a dictator, a tyrant.
If the person says, "Turn off the radio!" it is immediately turned off.
If the person says, "Put off the lights and go to sleep," or "Everyoays home; no one is to go out," the members of the household do as he says.
The more there is a dictatorial tenden a person, the more he will get sick -- because who wants to hurt the feelings of someone ill? But this is dangerous.
This way, we actually tribute to his siess.
It is good if a husband sits beside his wife when she is well; it is uandable.
But absolutely he should not stop going to the office when she is sid thus tribute to her siess.
It is too costly a bargain.
A mother should not pay too much attention when her child gets sick; otherwise, whehe child wants attention, he will fall ill.
When a child gets ill, be less worried about him so that no associatioween illness and love bees established in his mind.
The child should not get the impression that whenever he is ill the mother will pat his head and tell him stories.
Instead, the mother should pamper the child when he is happy, so that love bees associated with joy and happiness.
We have associated love with misery, and that is very dangerous because it means that whenever one needs love, he will invite misery so love follow.
And so whosoever longs for love will fall sick, because he knows siess brings love.
But love is o be found through siess.
Remember, illness brings pity, not love, and to be an object of pity is insulting, very degrading.
Love is a totally different thing.
But we have no awareness of love.
What I am saying is that the body follows gestions -- if we want to be ill, the poor body gets ill.
Hypnosis is useful in g such illnesses.
What this means is that for a fake illness, fake medie will work -- not real medie.
If we make ourselves believe we are ill, we also make ourselves believe we are not ill and rid ourselves of the illness.
To this end, hypnosis is of great value.
Today, there is hardly a hospital in a developed try without a hypnotist on its staff.
In the West, the physi is apanied by the hypnotist, because there are a number of illnesses for which a doctor is totally useless, for whily a hypnotist is of use.
He puts the patient under hypnosis and then gives suggestions that he is feeling well.
Do you know that only three pert of all snakes are poisonous? But generally, a man dies even from the bite of a non-poisonous snake if he believes a se kill a man.
This is the reason why mantras and exorcism are also able to work on a se.
Mantra ting and exorcism are in other words pseudo-teiques.
A man is bitten by a poisonous snake.
All that is needed now is to vince him that the poison of the snake has been nullified.
This will be enough: the poison will not now have any effect.
It is as though the poison was here.
And if he were to be fully vihat a snake had actually bitten him, he would die.
He would die not because of the se, but because of the belief that a snake had bitten him.
I have heard
O happehat a man stayed ht in an inn.
He ate di night a early the m.
A year later he returo the same inn.
The innkeeper was shocked to see him.
"Are you all right?" he asked the traveler.
"I am all right.
Why, whats the matter?"
"We were quite frightened," said the innkeeper.
"You see, the last night you stayed here, a snake fell into the pot and was cooked with the food served to you.
Four other people who ate the food died soon after.
We couldnt figure out what happeo you because you left quite early.
We were so worried about you.
"
Wheraveler heard this, he said, "What? A snake in my food?" and dropped dead.
A year later! He died of fear.
For such ailments, hypnosis is very useful.
Hypnosis only means that the falsehood we have created around ourselves be ralized by another falsehood.
Remember, if an imaginary thorn has pricked your foot, dont try to remove it with the help of a real thorn; it would be dangerous.
First of all, the imaginary one will never be removed, and furthermore, the real one will hurt your foot.
A false thorn has to be pulled out with the help of a false thorn.
So, what is the relatioweeation and hypnosis? Only this: hypnosis is required to pull out the false thorns stu your body.
An example of hypnosis is when I tell you to feel that the body is relaxing.
This is hypnosis.
Actually you yourself have assumed that the body ot relax.
In order to nullify this assumption, hypnosis is necessary -- otherwise not.
Were it not for your false assumption, feeling just ohat the body is relaxed, it will relax.
The suggestions I give you are not really to relax your bodies, but to take away your belief that the body ever relax.
This ot be dohout creating a ter-belief in you that the body is relaxing.
Your false cept will be ralized by this false cept, and when your body relaxes, you will know it is relaxed.
Relaxation is a very natural quality of the body, but you have filled yourselves with so much tension that now you have to do something to get rid of it.
This is as far as hypnosis goes.
When you begin to feel the body is relaxing, the breathing is relaxing, the mind is calming down -- this is hypnosis.
But only up to this point.
What follows afterwards is meditation -- up to this point there is ation.
Meditation begins after this, when you are iate of awareness.
When you bee aware within, when you begin to withat the body is relaxed, that the breathing is relaxed, that thoughts have either ceased or are still moving -- when you begin to watch, just watch -- this watg, this state of witnessing is meditation.
Whatever is before that is only hypnosis.
So hypnosis means a cultivated sleep.
When we are not sleepy, we induce sleep; we make an effort, we invite sleep.
Sleep also be invited if we prepare for it and move into a state of let-go.
But meditation and hypnosis are not one and the same thing.
Please uand this.
As long as you are feeling acc to my suggestions, that is hypnosis.
Once you feel my suggestions stopping and awareness beginning, that is the start of meditation.
Meditation begins with the advent of the state of witnessing.
Hypnosis is needed because you have got yourselves into a reverse kind of hypnosis.
In stific terms, this is not hypnosis, it is dehypnosis.
We are already hypnotized, although we are not aware how we became hypnotized and what kind of tricks we have used to create this hypnosis.
We have lived the major part of our lives uhe influence of hypnosis.
And when we want to be hypnotized, we dont realize what we are doing.
We live throughout our lives like this.
If this bees clear, the hypnotic spell will break -- and ohis hypnosis breaks, entering within will bee possible, because hypnosis, basically, is a world of noy.
For example, a man is learning to ride a bicycle.
To practice, he starts out on a wide road.
The road is sixty feet wide, and there is a milestone on the edge.
Even if the man decided to ride blindfolded on that wide road, there is very little ce of his hitting the milestone.
But the ma yet know how to ride a bicycle.
He never looks at the road; his eyes spot the milestone first and the fear that he might hit the milestone grips him.
Thats it.
As soon as this fear of hitting the stone grips him, he is hypnotized.
To say he bees hypnotized means he no longer sees the road, he begins to see the stone alone.
He bees afraid, and the handle of his bicycle starts turning toward the stone.
The more the haurns, the more afraid he gets.
The handle, of course, will turn where his attention is, and his attention is oone because he is afraid to hit it.
So the road disappears from his vision and only the stone remains.
Hypnotized by the stone, he is pulled towards it.
The more pulled he is, the more he is scared; the more he is scared, the more he is pulled.
Finally he hits the milestone.
Watg this, any intelligent person might wonder how, on such a wide road, the man hit the milestone.
How e he couldnt keep himself away from it? Obviously, he was hypnotized.
He trated oone in order to save himself from landing on top of it, and this made him see nothing but the stone.
When his mind became fixed oone, his hands automatically turhe bicycle in that dire, because the body follows your attention.
The more scared he grew, the more he had to trate oone.
He became hypnotized by the stone; his fear drew him toward the stone, and he finally crashed into it.
In life, we often make those very mistakes we would rather avoid.
We bee hypnotized by them.
For example, a man is afraid he may lose his peaind a angry.
In this situation, he will find himself getting angry twenty-four times iy-four hours.
The more afraid he is of getting angry, the more he will be hypnotized by anger.
Then he will look for excuses to be angry the whole twenty-four hours.
Another man who is afraid to look at beautiful women because they might excite him sexually, will see beautiful women the whole twenty-four hours.
By and by, even ugly women will appear beautiful to him; even men will begin to look like women to him.
If from behind he sees a sadhu with long hair, he will make sure which it is, a man or a woman.
Eventually women in pictures and on posters will begin to attract him, to hypnotize him.
He will hide pictures of nude women ia and the Koran, and will look at them without even w how he be so hypnotized by mere lines and colors.
He has always wao save himself from women and now he is afraid of them; now he sees women everywhere.
Whether he goes to a temple or to a mosque, or anywhere else, he sees nothing but women.
This is hypnosis too.
A society which is against sex eventually bees sexual.
A society which is anti-sex, which denounces sex -- its whole mind will bee sexual, because it will be hypnotized by the very thing it criticizes; all its attention will be trated on it.
The more a society talks of celibacy, the more dirty-minded and lecherous the people will be who are born into it.
The reason is that too much talk of celibacy focuses the mind on sexuality.
All this is hypnosis -- created by us -- and we are living in it.
The whole world is entangled in this hypnosis.
And it is difficult to break, because the hypnosis grht along with whatsoever attempts we make to break it.
In this fashion, God knows how many kinds of hypnoses we have already created, and are still tinuing to create for ourselves.
And then we live with them.
They o be broken so we wake up.
But to cut through this false web, we o discover false means.
In a way, all sadhana, all spiritual practice, is meant to remove the falsehood from around us.
And so, all sadhana is false.
Methods devised all over the world to help us reach God are false, because we have never been away from him.
Only in thought have we been away from him.
It is just as if a mao sleep in Dwarka and dream that he is in Calcutta.
Now, in his dream he begins to worry: his wife is ill and here he is in Calcutta; he must get back to Dwarka.
He goes around asking people, cheg the railway timetable, inquiring about plane flights, to get back to Dwarka as soon as he .
But any suggestion he might take on how to reach Dwarka will be wrong, will get him into trouble, because he is not in Calcutta in the first place.
He never went to Calcutta -- it was only a dream, a hypnosis.
Whatever way someone might show him for returning to Dwarka will only put him into trouble.
No path has any meaning; all paths are false.
Even if the maurns to Dwarka, the route he would take would be false.
He ot find the right way back because there ever be one: he never went to Calcutta in the first place.
What does it mean for him to find a way back? The train he will ride to Dwarka will be as false as Calcutta was.
If he goes to Howrah Station, buys a ticket and catches a train to Dwarka -- all of this will be false.
All the stations he will pass on his way back will be false.
Then he would arrive in Dwarka and wake up happy.
But he would be surprised to find that he had never gone anywhere, that he had been in his bed all along.
Then how did he e back? His going was false and so was his return.
No one has ever goside God.
One ot, because, all over, only he is -- there is no way one step out of him.
And so, all going is false, all returning is false.
However, since we have already left on an imaginary journey, we will have to return; there is no other way.
We will have to find the means to return.
But once you have returned, you will find that all methods were false, all sadhana was false.
The sadhana was necessary t us back from the dream.
Once we have uood this, perhaps nothing will have to be dohen, and you will suddenly find that you have returned.
But this is difficult to uand because you are already in Calcutta.
You may say, "What you are saying is right but I am already in Calcutta.
Show me the way back!"
Question 3
ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: HAVE YOU FOUND GOD?
This is just the kind of questioraveler to Calcutta would ask.
I would like to ask this friend, "Did you ever lose God?" -- because, if I say I have found God, it means I had assumed him lost.
He is already found.
Even when we feel we have lost him, he is still with us.
It is simply that we are under hypnosis and therefore feel we have lost him.
So, if a man says, "Yes, I have found God", he is mistaken.
He still doesnt uand that he had never lost him in the first place.
Therefore, those who e to know God will never say they have found God.
They will say, "He was never lost.
"
The day Buddha became enlightened, people gathered around him and asked, "What have you attained?"
Buddha replied, "I have attained nothing.
I have simply e to see that which I had never lost.
I have found what I already had.
"
So, in sympathy, the people of the village said, "Too bad.
You labored in vain.
"
"Yes," said Buddha, "in that se is true I labored in vain.
But now there is no need for me to labor any more -- this much advantage I have gained.
Now I wont go out seeking, now I wont wao attain anything, now I wo out on any journey -- that is my gain.
Now I know that I am where I already was.
"
We only go away in our dreams.
We never actually reach the places we feel we have.
Hence, in a sense, all religions are false; all sadhanas, all yogas are false.
They are false in the sehat they are all methods of returning.
Ahey are very useful.
A village shaman who shakes off snake poison with the help of mantras is very useful for those who are bitten by a snake -- even if they are bitten by a false snake.
Otherwise, without him people would die of the bite from a snake which was not there.
Such a man once lived in my neighborhood.
He is now dead.
People came to him from far and wide to draw snake venom out.
He was a very clever man; he had tamed a few snakes.
When a person bitten by a snake came to him he would use his shaman skills and ask what kind of s was, where it had bitten, whether the snake was dead or alive.
After obtaining all the information, he would apply his trid call the snake.
He had everything worked out -- whiake was to be set loose, on which signal, etcetera.
Within an hour or so, a shat matched the description would e through the door, hissing.
The whole thing would create a sensation; the bitten man would feel dumbfounded.
Someoten by a snake rarely see ure anything ht: What bit him? What did it look like? Where was it? -- he is so overwhelmed by being bitten that the snake disappears in the meantime.
If the snake had been killed, the shaman would call its soul to apany his snake.
Then he would scold and rebuke the snake for biting this man.
The snake would then hit its head on the ground and beg fiveness.
In the meahe poison in the man would start wearing off.
Then the snake would be told to draw out the poison.
The snake would promptly go up to the man who had been bitten and put its mouth to the wound, and the man would recover.
Unfortunately, it once happened a s this mans son.
He got into trouble because none of his treatments worked.
He came running to me and said, "Please help.
I am in trouble.
Please tell me what I should do.
A snake has bitten my son and he knows about my pet snakes.
I am so unfortunate, please tell me what shall I do? I am helpless.
My son wont survive!"
I was surprised.
I asked, "But what about your treatment? People e to you from afar for this cure!"
"Thats all fine," he said, "but even I would be in trouble if a snake were to bite me; I wouldnt even be able to save myself.
I know the tricks of the trade; I wouldnt trust anybody to treat me the way I do.
" The boy died.
He could not save his son.
False means are o remove the falsehood.
And they have their own meaningfulness.
They are meaningful because we have goo falsehoods.
So never bother to ask; in the beginning it is indeed hypnosis.
The initial stages are of hypnosis, of sleep; only the final stage is of meditation -- and that is the precious one.
Before you attain to that stage, this background is quite necessary -- necessary so you e out of the falsehood you have strayed into.
Never ask, "Have you or have you not found God?" This is all wrong.
Who is going to find? What is going to be found? That which is, is.
The day you e to know this, you will see that you have never lost anything, nor have you ever gone anywhere; nothing has ever beeroyed, nothing has ever died.
What is, is.
That day, all journeys, all going anywhere, will stop.
Question 4
AND NOW THIS QUESTION: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIBERATION FROM THE CYCLE OF BIRTH AH?
Liberation from the cycle of birth ah does not mean that you will not be born here again.
It means that now there is her ing noing -- nowhere, not on any plane.
Then you remain rooted where you are.
The day this happens, the springs of joy burst forth on all sides.
We ot experience joy being in an imaginary place, we only find joy being where we really are.
We only be happy being what we are, we ever be happy being what we are not.
So moving through the cycle of birth ah means we are wandering through illusory places -- we are lost somewhere we have never ever been.
We are wandering through some place where we are never ever supposed to be, while the place where we actually are, we have lost sight of it.
So freedom from birth ah means ing back to where we are, ing bae.
Moving into God means beily what we actually are.
It is not as if someday you will e across God standing somewhere and you will salute him and say, "Thank heaven I met you!" There is no such God as this, and if you happen to e across one, know well it is all hypnosis.
Such a God will be your owion, aing him will be as false as losing him was.
This is not the way you will ever find God.
Our language often proves misleading, because the expression "to find God" or "to attain God" gives the impression one will be able to see God face-to-face.
Such words are very misleading.
Listening to them ohe idea that somebody will reveal himself, that one will have ao-eye tact with him, that one will be able to embrace him.
This is all wrong.
If you ever do e across such a God, beware! Such a God will be totally a creation of your mind -- it will be hypnosis.
We have to get out of all hypnosis arace our steps back to the point where there is no sleep, no hypnosis, where we are fully aware, rooted in our own beings.
The experiene will have then will be the experience of the unity of life; it will be the experience of existence being one, indivisible.
The name of that experience is God.
Now let us prepare for the m meditation.
I will discuss some more during ht meditation.
Move to a little distance from each other.
And do not talk, quietly move to a distance.
Make some empty space around you.
Those who want to lie down, do so; they should create spaough for lying down.
And even in the middle, if someone es to the point of falling down, one should fall down, one should not stop oneself from it.
Yes, go to the verandah upstairs, but make room for yourself.
.
Because later if you fall over somebody you will feel bad, and the other will get distracted too.
Therefore, move apart.
Yes, e down here.
Close the eyes
No children will talk, they will sit quietly for ten minutes.
Close the eyes
.
leave the body relaxed
.
leave the body relaxed.
Leave the body pletely relaxed, as if there is no life in the body.
Let the whole energy move inside.
The whole energy of the body is moving inwards
.
flowing inwards
.
we are getting shrunken inside, and the body will remain like a shell hanging outside.
Whether it falls down, or remaihered, it will remaiernal like clothing.
Slip within
.
and leave the body relaxed.
Now, I will give suggestions.
Experiehem along with me.
Experiehat the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing.
Feel it and leave the body totally relaxed.
The body is very obedient.
When you feel it wholeheartedly it will bee almost a corpse.
Feel that the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is going on relaxing.
Let go, let go of all grip
.
do not keep holding on to the body from inside, let go pletely
.
take away all trol over it, as if the body is not ones own; now whatever will happen to it will happen.
If it fallls down it falls down, if one loses it one loses it.
Move back away from it petely
.
remove your feelings from it.
The body is relaxing.
The body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing.
The body has relaxed.
Drop, drop all grip over the body
.
if it falls, let it fall.
The body has relaxed
.
as if it has pletely bee a corpse
.
as if the body is gone
.
the body is no more
.
we have bee separate from it
.
we have moved away from it.
The breathing is relaxing.
Feel that the breathing is going on relaxing
.
the breathing is relaxing
.
the breathing is relaxing
.
the breathing is relaxing
.
the breathing is relaxing
.
the breathing is relaxing
.
the breathing is going on relaxing
.
the breathing is going on relaxing.
Let go
.
let go of the breathing as well
.
move further within.
The breathing has relaxed
.
the breathing has relaxed
.
the breathing has relaxed
.
the breathing has relaxed.
You have moved even further behind the breathing
.
the breathing has relaxed.
The thoughts are also relaxing.
The thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing.
Move away from the thoughts also
.
let go of the thoughts also.
The thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing
.
the thoughts are also relaxing.
Let go of the thoughts also.
Thoughts are relaxing
.
thoughts are relaxing
.
thoughts are relaxing
.
thoughts are relaxing.
The body has relaxed, the thoughts have relaxed, for ten minutes now just remain awake inside
.
for ten minutes now just remain awake inside.
For ten minutes everything has died; inside we have remained awake like a flame.
The body is lying far away
.
the breathing is heard in the far distance
.
the thoughts have quietened
.
inside our sciousness is awake watg it all.
Do not fall asleep, remain awake inside.
Keep awake within
.
keep watg within
.
keep watg
.
bee a watcher and a suddeh will begin
.
a quietness will begin
.
a void will begin.
Now for ten minutes just go on watg within quietly.
Mind has bee silent
.
mind has bee pletely silent.
Drown deeper into the depths
.
as if falling into a deep well.
Go on falling
.
go on falling.
Stay awake inside and go on being ainess.
Remain scious inside, remain awake and keep watg.
And everything has died.
the body has remained far away, the breathing is left far behind, the thoughts have disappeared -- only we have remained.
Just keep watg wakefully.
keep watg.
the mind will go on beiier.
Slowly take a few deep breaths and e back from the meditation.
Open your eyes slowly and very gently.
Our m session is now over.
Chapter 5
Find Your Own Way
30 October 1969 pm iation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: YOU MENTIONED OHAT THERE IS NO OTHER TRUTH GREATER THAH.
YOU HAVE ALSO SAID SOMEWHERE THAT THERE IS NOTHING LIKE DEATH.
WHICH OF THE TWO STATEMENTS IS TRUE?
Both are true.
When I say there is no other truth greater thah, I am drawing your attention to the fact that the phenomenon of death is an enormous reality in this life -- in what we call life and uand as life; in terms of ones personality, which sists of what I describe as I.
This personality will die; what we call life will die too.
Death is iable.
Certainly, you will die and I will die, and this life will also be destroyed, turned into dust, erased.
When I say there is no reater truth thah, I want to remind you of the fact that we are all going to die.
And when I say that death is totally false, I want to remind you that within this I, within you, there is someone else who will never die.
And there is also a life that is different from what you believe to be life, a life without death.
Both these things are true; they are simultaneously true.
If you take only one of them to be true, you will not be able to prehend the whole truth.
If someone says that the shadow is a reality, that darkness is a reality, he is right.
Darkness exists and so does the shadow.
And if someone else says there is no darkness, he is right too.
What he is saying is that darkness does not have a positive existence.
If I ask you t me a couple of bags of darkness, you wont be able to.
A room is filled with darkness, and if you are asked to throw the darkness out, you wont be able to.
Or, if I say, "If darkness is in there, then please bring it out," you will be uo.
Why? It is because darkness has a ive existence; darkness is merely the absence of light.
Although darkness exists, heless it is only the absence of light.
And so if someoo say there is no darkness, he is right.
There is the presence of light and there is the absence of light, but there is nothing like darkness as such.
Thats why we do whatsoever we want with light, but with darkness we do nothing.
If you want to remove darkness, you will have t in light; if you want t in darkness, you will have to put out the light.
With darkness, nothing be done directly.
You are jogging along the road.
Your shadoears behind you; it also runs with you.
Everyone see the shadow; no one deny it.
A be said that there is no shadow because it has y of its own.
The shadow exists because your body obstructs the sunlight.
When the light is covered by your body, a shadow is formed; when the sun es above your head, no shadow is formed because the sunrays are not obstructed.
If we were to make a human figure of glass, no shadow would ever appear because the rays would pass through the glass.
When light is hindered, a shadow is formed; a shadow is merely an absence of light.
So if a person says the shadow exists, he is n.
But this is a half-truth.
He should further add that the shadow does .
Theruth bees plete.
This means a shadow is something which exists a does .
But with our way of thinking, we ot see anything unless it is divided into two indepe parts.
Once a man was tried for murder.
He had killed a man, and those who had seen the crime being itted had e forward as witnesses.
Oness said, "The crime was itted in the open and there were stars shining in the sky.
I saw the stars as well as the murder.
" He was followed by another eyewitness who said, "The crime was itted ihe house, he door, close to a wall.
There are bloodstains on the wall, and since I was standing beside the wall, my clothes were also stained with blood.
This murder took plaside the house.
"
The judge uzzled.
How could both be telling the truth? Obviously, one of them was lying.
The murderer began to laugh.
The judge asked what was so funny.
The man said, "Let me tell you that both of them are right.
The house was inplete; the roof had not yet been laid -- the stars could be seen above.
The murder took plader the open sky, but close to the door, close to the wall which bears the bloodstains.
The house was almost ready; the walls had been raised, only the roofing was not yet done.
So both are right.
"
Life is so plicated that evehings we find tradictory in it turn out to be right.
Life is highly plex.
Life is not the way we think it is -- it tains many tradis; it is very vast.
In one sense, death is the greatest truth -- because the way we are living will e to an end; we will die the way we are, and the framework we have created will also be destroyed.
Those we see as stituting our whole world -- wife, husband, son, father, friend -- they will all die.
A death is a falsehood, because there is someone who dwells ihe son who is not the son and who will never die.
There is someone who dwells ihe father who is not the father and who will never die.
The father, of course, will die, but there is someohin him besides -- different from the father, separate, more than aive -- who will never die.
The body will die but there is someohin the body who never dies.
Both these things are simultaneously true.
So both these things o be kept in mind to uand the nature of death.
Question 2
ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: THE THINGS WE WANT TO DESTROY -- SUCH AS THE S OF BLIND FAITH OR SUPERSTITION -- FIND EVEN MORE FIRMATION IN YOUR TALKS.
IT SEEMS, ACC TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THAT THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH, THAT THERE ARE GODS AND THERE ARE GHOSTS, THAT THERE IS TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL.
IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET RID OF SUPERSTITIONS, WONT THEY BEE EVEN STRONGER?
Two things o be uood here.
One is: if something is accepted as a superstition without researg and iigating it properly, then that is tantamount to creating an eveer superstition; it shows a highly superstitious mind.
One man believes there are ghosts and evil spirits and you call him superstitious; you believe there are none and that makes you feel that you are very knowledgeable.
But the question is: what is superstition? If someone believes there are ghosts and evil spirits without any iigation, that is superstition; and if someone else believes there are no such things, without iigation, then that is superstition too.
Superstition means believing something without knowing it to be true.
Just because someone holds beliefs trary to yours does not mean he is superstitious.
A believer in God be as gullible as a nonbeliever.
We must uand the definition of superstition.
It means to believe in something blindly without verification.
The Russians are superstitious atheists; the Indians are superstitious theists -- both suffer from blind faith.
The Russians have never cared to discover there is no God and then believed it to be so, nor have the Indians tried to ascertain that God is before believing it to be so.
So do not be mistaken in thinking that theists alone are superstitious; atheists have their own superstitions too.
And the strahing is that there is also a stific superstition.
It sounds tradictory: how there be a stific superstition?
If you have studied geometry, you must have e across Euclids definition where he says a line has length but no breadth.
Now, what be more superstitious than this? There has never been a lih no breadth.
Childreaught that a point has her length nor breadth, and even the greatest stist works on the assumption that a point has h or breadth.
a poi without length and breadth?
We are all used to the digits ohrough nine.
One may well ask: is this ahan superstition? Why nine digits? No stist explain why nine digits.
Why not seven? Whats wrong with seven? Why not three? There are mathematis -- Liebnitz was one of them -- who got along with three digits.
He said: owo, three is followed by ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen; they, twenty-owenty-two, twenty-three.
His numbering system was such; he got along very well with it, and he challehose who disagreed with him to prove him wrong.
He questiohe need for nine digits.
Later oein said that even three digits are also unnecessary, that one eve along with two; it will be difficult with only one digit, but one mah two.
That there should be nine digits in mathematics is a stific superstition.
But the mathemati is not ready to give up either.
He says, "How you work with less than nine digits?" So this is just a belief too; it has no more significe than that.
From a stific point of view we believe thousands of things to be right, but they are actually superstitions.
Stists are also superstitious, and in this age religious superstitions are fading while stific superstitions are growing.
The differeweewo is simply that if you ask a religious person how he came to know about God he will say it is written ia, and if you ask him how he came to know there are nine digits in arithmetic, he will say it is written in sud-such a mathematis book.
What is the differeweewo? One kind of answer is found ia, in the Koran; another kind of answer is found in a book of mathematics.
What is the differehis shows we have to uand what is really meant by superstition.
Superstition means that which we believe in without having knowledge of it.
t many things and we reject many things without knowing anything about them -- this is superstitious too.
Suppose a man in a village is possessed by a ghost.
Educated people will say it is superstition.
Let us assume the uneducated people are superstitious; we have already brahem as superstitious because, being uneducated, these simple people are uo offer any argument in favor of their belief.
So all the educated people of the village maintain that the story of this man being possessed by an evil spirit is fake, but they dont know that at a uy like Harvard, in America, there is a department dug researto ghosts and spirits.
The department has even circulated photographs of them.
They have no idea that, currently, some highly reized stists are deeply involved in researto ghosts and spirits, and have attained so mas that sooner or later they will e to see that it was they, the educated men, who were superstitious, and that those they called superstitious may not have known anything about what they believed in, although what they were saying was right.
If you read Ryon or Oliver Lodge, you will be amazed.
Oliver Lodge was a Nobel prizewinning stist.
Throughout his life he was involved in iigating ghosts and spirits.
Before his death, he left a dot in which he said, "All the truths of sce I have discovered are not half as true as ghosts and spirits.
But we have no knowledge of them because the superstitious educated do not care to find out about the discoveries happening in the world.
"
If one man says he read anothers mind, we will call it superstition.
In Russia, where there are what we may call rigorous stists, there is a man by the name of Fiodev.
He is a great Russian stist.
Sitting in Moscow, he has unicated his thoughts, without any visible means, to the mind of a person sitting a thousand miles away in Tiflis.
This was examined stifically and found to be correct.
Stists are engaged in this kind of research because sooner or later it will be useful in space travel.
In the event of a meical failure in a spaceship, which is alossible, through these means stists establish tact with the travelers.
Otherwise the spaceship may be lost forever.
It is out of this that Russian stists are dug intensive researto telepathy and have achieved some astoundis.
Fiodev carried out his research with the help of a friend.
A thousand miles away in Tiflis, his friend hid himself behind a bush in a garden with a wireless set in his hand, and he and Fiodev stayed in touch with each other.
After a while he informed Fiodev that a man had arrived and sat on benumber ten.
He asked Fiodev to send this man a message to go to sleep within three minutes.
The man was wide awake; he was smoking and humming away to himself.
Fiodev began sending him suggestions -- the same as I do -- that "You are relaxing, you are relaxing.
" From a distance of a thousand miles, for three minutes Fiodev suggested intensely, "Go to sleep, go to sleep," and, trating on benumber ten, he tinued suggesting the same thought, "Go to sleep, go to sleep.
" Ily three mihe man sitting on the bench was asleep, the cigarette fallen from his hands.
But this could have been a ce.
Perhaps the man sitting on the bench was tired and so he had fallen asleep.
And so the friend told Fiodev that the man had indeed fallen asleep, but that it could be a ce, so he asked Fiodev to wake him up ily seven minutes.
Fiodev kept suggesting to that man to wake up, and in seven minutes precisely the man opened his eyes and got up.
The man on the bench was a total stranger; he had no idea what was happening, and Fiodevs friend approached him and asked if hed felt anything unusual.
The man said, "Yes, I certainly did.
I was very puzzled.
I came here to wait for somebody, and suddenly I felt that my body was about to fall asleep.
I lost trol ao sleep.
And then I felt strongly as if someone was telli up, get up.
Get up in seven minutes! I t figure any of this out.
" The man had no idea what had happened.
unication of thought without any medium has bee a stific truth, but an educated man would call it superstition.
It is possible that a sick man iown be cured from a faraway town; its not too difficult.
Its also possible that a se be healed from a distance of thousands of miles; theres not much difficulty to it.
But there are many different kinds of superstitions.
And remember, the superstition of an educated man is always more dangerous than that of an uneducated man, because the educated man does not sider his superstition to be superstition.
For him it is a result arrived at after great deliberation.
Now this friend says we have to break the s of superstition.
First make sure there are any s, otherwise you may break somebodys arms and legs in the process.
s only be broken if there are any.
What if there are none? You must also make sure that what you believe is a that o be broken does not happen to be an or you may have to remake.
All these things require very careful sideration.
I am absolutely against superstition; all kinds of superstitions must be destroyed -- but this does not mean that I am superstitious about this destru.
It does not mean one should go about destroying them without a clear uanding of them, that without due sideration one should simply be bent upon breaking them.
Then such arbitrary destru will also bee superstition.
Every age has its own superstitions.
Remember, superstitions have their fashion too.
In every age superstitions take on a new form.
Man drops old superstitions and takes on new ones, but he never gets rid of them forever; he alters them and he ges them.
But we never realize this.
For example, once upon a time there erstition that the man lied tilak, the forehead mark, was sidered religious.
What has applying tilak to do with being religious? But thats the way it was uood.
And someone who didnt apply the tilak was looked down upon as irreligious.
This old superstition is no longer in vogue.
Now we have new superstitions, equally as foolish.
If a man wears a tie he is sidered distinguished; otherwise he is sidered ordinary.
It is the same thing, there is no differe all.
The tie has replaced the tilak, while the man has remaihe same.
Where is there any difference?
The tie is er thailak.
Perhaps its even worse, because at least there was a meaning to applying the tilak.
The tie has absolutely no meaning in this try, although it may have a meaning in some other try.
A tie is useful in cold tries where it helps protect the throat against cold.
In those tries, a man who ot afford to cover his throat against the ust obviously be a poor man.
A man of means is able to cover his throat with the help of a ie; however, when somebody puts a tie around his ne a hot try such as this, then it seems a little scary -- one wonders whether such a man is affluent or insane!
To be affluent does not mean one has to suffer from heat or wear this noose around his neck.
A tie means a noose; a tie means a knot.
Using it in a cold try makes sense, but in a hot try it is totally meaningless.
A, a man who has an idea of dignity -- the magistrate, the attorhe politi -- is out there with this noose around his neck! And these very people denouhe tilak wearers as superstitious! One well ask them, "Isnt wearing a ie a superstition too? Which stific system are you applying, that you have tied this tie around your neck?" But sihe tie is a superstition of this age it is acceptable, and sihe tilak is a superstition of the past, it is uable.
As I said earlier, as the tie has some meaning for people in cold tries, applying a tilak also have meaning, but without first looking into it, it is utterly dangerous and wrong to call it a superstitiht away -- you may not have given any thought as to why a tilak is applied.
People mostly apply it out of superstition; however, there was some stific reason when people applied it for the first time.
Actually, tilak is applied on the forehead at the spot betweewo eyes where the agya chakra, the third-eye chakra, is located.
Even with a little meditation this spot gets hot; however, it cools down with the application of sandalwood.
The application of sandalwood is a highly stific teique, but now it is lost; people are not ed with that symore.
Now anybody goes on applying sandalwood whether he has any knowledge of the agya chakra or has ever done aation or not.
It is strao find people wearing ties in hot tries.
Wearing a tie have a stific basis in cold tries, and similarly, a tilak has a stific meaning for one who meditates on the agya chakra because sandalwood cools that spot.
Meditating on the agya chakra, stimulation occurs a is created in that area -- and it needs cooling down or else it will harm the brain.
But were we determio remove the tilak altogether, we would of course take it away from those who are wearing it pointlessly, but we would also be removing it from the forehead of the puy who may have applied it for his own reason.
And if he wont remove it, we will call him superstitious.
What I am saying is that there is no way you determine what is superstitious and what is not.
Actually, the same thing be a superstition under one dition and stifider different ditions.
Something which might appear to be stifider a certain dition may appear uifider a differe of ditions.
For example, in Tibet there is a practice of taking a bath once a year -- which is quite stific, because there is no dust in Tibet and, being in a cold climate, people do not sweat.
So they doo bathe.
Taking a bath every day would simply harm their bodies; it would cause them to lose much body heat.
And how are they going to replace that heat? It could prove very costly to stay uncovered in Tibet.
If mao keep his body uncovered for a whole day, he would need forty pert more food to replace the calories lost.
In a place like India, if a man goes about without clothes he is revered as a renunciate.
Mahavira was sensible: he remained naked -- and in a hot try like this, the more the heat leaves the body, the cooler it feels inside.
But if a follower of Mahavira were to arrive in Tibet naked, he would deserve to be admitted to a mental asylum.
To appear in Tibet like this would be absolutely uific, stupid.
But thats how it always happens.
When a Tibetan lama es to India, he never bathes.
Once I stayed with Tibetan lamas in Bodh Gaya.
They were stinking so badly it was a torture to sit hem.
When I asked why they were like that, they replied, "We follow the rule of bathing only once a year.
" This is where I make the distin between superstition and sce.
That which is a s Tibet is a superstition in India.
Here, these lamas are stinking without realizing their bodies are perspiring heavily and that there is much dust all around.
We have no idea, but there are some tries where there is no dust at all.
When Khrushchev first came to India he was taken to Agra to see the Taj Mahal, and on the way he saw a whirlwind of dust taking shape.
He had the car stopped, got out and stht in the middle of the whirlwind.
He was so happy.
He said, "I am so lucky, I have never had su experience before.
" We wouldnt feel lucky to be caught in so much dust.
But where he es from there are piles of snow, not dust.
It was a fasating experience for him, as it is for us when we are in snow.
How excited we feel when we walk on snow in the Himalayas.
So do into breaking things simply believing them to be s, without first taking into sideration the age, the ditions, and their usefulness.
A stifid is that which always hesitates.
A man with a stifid never makes a decision in haste,99liｂ? saying, "This is right and that is wrong.
" Rather he always says, "Perhaps this may be right, but let me search more and more.
" Even at the end of his search he never es to a decision and says with finality, "Okay, this is wrong, so destroy it.
" Life is so mysterious that nothing be said in such defierms.
All we say is, "So far, we have known this much, and based upon this knowledge sud-such a thing appears to be wrong" -- thats all.
A man with a stific attitude will say, "Based on the information available so far, sud-such a thing does not seem to be right today; however, with added information it may appear right tomorrow.
Something which is right today may prove to be wrong tomorrow.
" Such a man never makes a hasty decision about what is right and what is wrong.
He always keeps on searg with an inquiring and humble mind.
There is fun in holding on to a superstition, and there is also fun in breaking it.
The fun in holding on to a superstition is that it spares us the trouble of thinking -- we believe what everyone else believes.
We dont even want to ask the reason behind it, or why its so.
Who wants to bother? One simply follows the crowd.
Its veo have superstitions.
And then there are people who are out to crack superstitions -- that too is very ve.
The man who cracks them appears to be rational, without actually being rational.
Its not easy to be rational; to see things rationally is to strain every nerve.
This man looks into things so closely it bees difficult for him to make any categorical statement.
And so his statements are always ditional.
He will say, "Under such ditions it is valid not to bathe in Tibet, while uher ditions it is utterly superstitious not to bathe in India.
" The man who thinks rationally will speak this kind of language.
Oher hand, a social reformer shows no for what he is saying: he is ed with destroying things; he wants to destroy certain things.
I say: go ahead aroy -- there are many things which have to be destroyed -- but the first thing that has to be destroyed, however, is thoughtlessness.
The tendency to act without first giving something rational thought is the primary thing that o be destroyed.
So what it means is: if you destroy something without first giving it proper thought, then such destru has no value.
The tendency to think rationally has to be created, and the tendency to believe thoughtlessly has to be destroyed.
This will lead us to see different texts, deeper meanings.
Then we will make an intensive search; we will think and reason.
Then we will sider all the possibilities.
Psyalysis is very popular in the West, and the iing thing is that psyalysis is doily the same kind of work as the good old witch doctor did in the villages.
Nowadays, in Frahere is an active sect created by Cuvier.
Cuvier works on the same principles as the witch doctor did, except that Cuvier is a stist and he uses stific terminology -- other than that everything is the same; there is no difference.
You will be amazed to know that when a sadhu, a mendit, an ordinary man of the village, with no knowledge of medie, gives a pinch of ash to a sick man in the name of God, we call it superstition.
A, it works as effectively, and people are cured in the same proportion as with allopathic treatment.
It is very iing -- the same ratio.
Many experiments are being carried out in this area.
A unique experiment was ducted in a London hospital.
A hundred patients with the same illness were divided into two groups.
Fifty were given the regular iion, while the other fifty were ied with water.
And the amazing thing is that the ratio of cured patients in both cases was the same.
So the question was raised: whats going on?
In view of this experiment, it became necessary to examihe issue more closely.
And what became clear was that the idea, the feeling that medie is being given, works more than the medie itself.
Also, even the medie, the dispensing of the medie itself, does not work so much as does the idea of how expehe medie is and how well known the doctor is.
A lesser known doctor fails in his treatment not because he does not know his profession, but only because he is not very well known.
A well reized dopresses a patient at once.
With his impressive attire, the overbeari up, his fees, his big car, the long wait for an appoi, the crowd, the standing in line -- you are already so impressed that whether he knows what he is giving you or not has very little effect.
The truth is that to be a good doctor you dont need a first class knowledge of medie, what you need is an excellent knowledge of advertising.
The question is how well you publicize yourself.
Publicity pays more, not the medie.
Retly, a medical survey revealed that in Frahere are about eighty thousand physis and about one hundred and sixty thousand quacks.
Wheieired of the practig physis, he is cured by those who have no knowledge of medie.
But they know the trick of how to treat a patient.
Thats why you see so many kinds of pathies prevalent.
you imagine -- all these different kinds of pathies abounding in this age of sce? Even naturopathy works -- a bandaging of mud oomach works; an enema with water works; the witch doctors charms work.
Even homeopathy, which sists of nothing but tiny sugar pills, works.
These all work, and so does allopathy.
So the question arises: how does a patie well? If a village quack prescribes a little dust and cures his patients, then we will have to think carefully; we will have to be ed about whether to break such superstitions or not.
The man with a stethoscope around his ned a big car is also able to cure patients through his stific means.
But a magic is w there too -- the magic of the car, of the stethoscope.
I know one quack.
He has no degree from any uy, a he has cured many patients I sent to him, patients who had otherwise been pronounced incurable by other doctors.
The man is smart; he has a remarkable uanding of human nature.
Actually, thats how one happens to be a professional physi! So if you go to his ic for treatment, your diagnosis will be ducted in such a way that half your illness will go away while you are still being diagnosed.
He is aremely clever doctor; all other doctors feel quite intimidated by him.
He has a large, impressive and serious-looking sulting room with a big table on which he makes the patient lie down.
Above the patients chest hangs a thing which looks like a stethoscope.
This traption is ected to two transparent tubes taining colored water.
When he applies the stethoscope-like traption to the patients chest, the heartbeat causes the water iube to jump.
The patient looks at the jumping water and is vinced he has e to a great doctor indeed; he has never seen such a doctor before.
The thing he uses is a sort of stethoscope, except that he doesnt ect it to his ears, he watches the rising and falling of the water iubes, and this assures the patient that he is no ordinary doctor.
Do you know why an allopathic doctor writes prescriptions in such illegible handwriting? The reason is that if you could read it, you would find it is su ordinary thing that you could even go and buy it in the market -- and so it is deliberately written with such skill that you are uo read it.
The truth is, if you were to take this same prescription back to the doctor, he himself wouldnt be able to figure out what hed written.
Another iing thing is that the names of all medies have to be written in Latin and Greek.
The reason is simple: if he were to write in English, Hindi ujarati, you would never pay him ten or fifteen rupees for an iion; you would know it is nothing but a co of caraway seeds.
These are all magical tricks.
It is the same as the villager who gives his patients a pinch of ash.
But this will not be effective either if he looks like an ordinary man.
If he is dressed, however, in an ochre robe, it will have more effect.
And if the man is known to be ho, virtuous, kind and truthful, the pinch of ash will be far more effective.
If it is known that he does not charge mohat he does not even touch mohe ash will have arifying effect.
So it is not the ash that works, it is the other factors which are at work.
It needs careful sideratioher or not such cures be allowed to tinue, because, if you ban this type of cure, others equally as false will have to be found to replace them.
It never ends.
Man must be made to think so that he does not fall sick out of ignorance, so that he does n pseudo illnesses upon himself.
As long as fake illnesses keep happening, fake doctors will keep on appearing as well.
If you remove the old, pseudo methods, new ones will crop up -- and if you then remove these, new ones will be born.
There are so many types of treatment in the world, but there is no way to decide whie is right; they all claim to be successful in g illnesses.
And their claims are valid -- they do cure illnesses.
The more we probe into the human psyche, the more it bees clear that the disease exists somewhere in the human mind.
As long as the disease exists in the human mind, the pseudo treatments will also tio exist.
Hence, I am not so much ed with doing away with pseudo methods, I am more ed with putting ao the disease in the human mind.
If the disease in the human mind disappears, if mans sciousness awakens, if he bees discriminating, he will not be surrounded by annoying troubles.
It is not that you go and collect ash because a man distributes it in a village -- no, it is because you are eager to collect the ash; thats why someone has to distribute it.
No one bees your leader on his own -- but you ot live for a sed without ohats why somebody has to bee the leader.
If you remove one leader, you will find another -- and if he is removed you will find a third.
And, in fact, while you are removing one leader you will have first made sure who you want for your .
And so leaders all over the world know very well the need for leading opposition parties.
They know, with fidehat when the people get fed up with one leader they will automatically elect the sed, and when they get tired of the sed they will replace him with the first.
Thats why two-party politics goes on all over the world.
Everywhere, people are the same.
I was in Raipur during the last eles.
A friend of mine, an old resident of Raipur, had been successively elected several times as a member of parliament, but this time he was defeated.
Another friend of mine who was totally unknown and had retly settled in Raipur was elected in his place.
I asked my friend how this happened.
How did he lose and a total newer win the ele?
He said, "Its very clear.
People have bee too used to me.
This man is a new face; people dont know him yet.
Dont worry, let him bee a familiar figure and he will be defeated too.
I will have to bide my time until then.
By then I will be unfamiliar once again, and then I will have the upper hand.
"
Deep down, it is not a question of whether to remove this leader or that leader, whether to do away with this superstition or that superstition -- that is not the issue.
The question is t about a fual ge in man.
A stifid will not care much about superstition, but superstition will tio exist as long as man is tent with his blindness.
If a man is not ready to open his eyes, then blindness is bound to exist.
A me ask: who among us is really willing to open his eyes? None of us is willing to see with our eyes open, because with our eyes open we may see truths we dont want to see.
Thats why we close our eyes and see whatsoever we fancy.
Have you ever opened your eyes and observed closely what life is like? Have you ever seen yourself with your eyes open? That you never want to do, because then you will see horrifying things.
Everyone siders himself to be absolutely pious, a mahatma.
If he were to open his eyes and look closely, he would find, to his horror, the greatest sinner of all hidden within himself.
He doesnt want to see that, of course, because then it will be difficult for him to be a mahatma.
And so he shuts his eyes to himself.
And not only that, in doing so he uses those people who help him shut his eyes -- around him he gathers all those people who e and tell him what a great mahatma he is.
Thus he goes on gathering followers.
Around him, he gathers all those people who cooperate in keeping him blind.
And there are many wonderful tricks for colleg people; incredible deceptions are practiced in this respect.
One of the tricks fathering people is to keep on shouting, "Dont e near me! I dont want anyone around me!" People are terribly impressed with this trick.
They flock to such a man.
The more he drives them away, the greater the mahatma they think he is.
An ordinary mahatma would wele people, but this one swings his staff and sends them away.
He shows no for anyone.
I have heard about a man who had wandered a bea California for years.
He had bee a kind of attra.
The story that went around about him was that he was such a simple man that if you offered him a ten-dollar bill and a dime, he would pick up the dime c99ｌib?heerfully.
Thats how i he was.
Out of curiosity, a man visited him five or six times and always found him surrounded by a crowd.
People would ask, "Baba, what do you want -- this or that?" and he would pick up the dime at once, saying he liked it, he liked the shine of it.
People found him su i man.
The an found it hard to believe that even after so many years this fellow could nen-dollar bill! That was too munoce! One evening, after the crowd had disappeared, this an approached the fellow and said, "I have been watg you for the last twenty years, and I am astoo find this game going on for so long.
Do you still nen-dollar bill?"
The fellow laughed, and said, "I k was a ten-dollar bill from the very first day, but if I had shown I reized it the game would have stopped right then and there.
By nnizing the bill, I have collected dimes from thousands of spectators.
If I reize it ohen that will be the only bill Ill ever have in my hand -- no other bill will e from these people afterwards.
So if I really want to make mohen I must spurn riches -- and the bills will start piling up on their own.
I have a good uanding of the whole thing; my job is going very well.
During the day, I collect up to five hundred dollars from the crowd.
The game will tinue for sure.
"
The so-called mahatma also knows the value of money, although if you talk to him about money, he will say he never even touches it.
But his disciple, sitting nearby, will pick up the s and put them in the safe -- because the mahatma ouches money!
What anyone do if a man wants to remain blind? Who will be stupid enough to do anything about it? That fellow on the beach is not the cause of mischief.
The mischief-mongers are those people roach him.
It is because of their mischief the poor fellow has to put o.
Let me tell you that if he had not do, somebody else would have dohe same thing.
And people are stupid: wherever they , they will tio do what they did with this fellow; they want somebody to snatch their money away from them.
Hence, such acts will tinue.
They only be brought to an end when we begin to destroy the stupidity of man.
So dont worry too much about breaking the s of superstition, because if the man who is wearing the remains the same he will make new ones.
He ot live without s.
The kind of man he is, he will create new s.
All religions strive to break these s, and every religioes a new -- so things remain the same.
The world has seen so many religions.
They were all fou about reforms; they all proclaimed their io eradicate all prevailing superstitions, but in the process of destroying superstitions nothing ever really gets destroyed.
Of course, those who are fed up with the old superstitions replace them with new ones and are very happy, feeling they have brought about ge.
In fact, an intelligent man never holds on to anything -- not even to any belief, let aloo superstition.
He lives intelligently; he doesnt hang on to anything.
He never creates any because he knows there is immense joy in living in freedom.
Dont create any s.
So the real question is to awaken enough sciousness in eadividual that will create a desire in him to bee free, to bee intelligent, to bee self-realized, to be filled with awareness.
If the tendency to live blindly -- to bee a follower, a pursuer, a believer in somebody -- could be reduced, all superstitions would crumble.
But in that case it would not be that one kind of superstition would break down and another would survive -- all would collapse; they would leave all at once.
Otherwise, they will remain forever.
Actually, what o be uood is that nothing happens by merely ging clothes.
Let anyone wear whatsoever he pleases.
If someone wants to wear ochre-colored clothes, let him do so, why stop him? If someone wants to wear black clothes, let him do so.
What one o realize is that a ge in clothes does not equal a ge in ones life.
Ohis is realized, then there is o ge clothes, because the man who will make you ge your clothes will immediately replace them with clothes of a new kind.
A sannyasin, wearing ochre clothes, went to see Gandhi and told him he was very impressed with his ideas and would also like to serve the try.
What Gandhi told him was highly signifit.
He said, "Thats fine, but first you will have to give up your ochre clothes, because they will e in the way of your service.
Generally, people serve those who wear ochre clothes rather than being served by them.
" This was very true.
But then Gandhi, having made him drop the ochre clothes, made him wear clothes of khadi, of handspun cotton.
Now those who are wearing khadi are doing things even the people wearing ochre clothes never did before.
What difference has it made? Now the khadi people are accepting service.
The poor ochre people never accepted as much service as those who are wearing khadi are doing now.
So khadi has proven to be very costly for this try.
The sannyasin was very happy that his superstition about ochre clothing had dropped -- but now he wears khadi; now he is holding on to the superstition of khadi.
Whats the difference?
The real question is not of letting people drop ohing and making them take on another.
The question is to e to uand that very mentality which holds on to things.
Gandhi did not sharpen that mans intelligence; he remained as stupid as ever.
He simply made him ge his clothes, and the ma very happy to do so.
But what difference did it make? This is how it has always been.
For the last five thousand years the story of humanity has been one of great misfortune.
By an effort to break doerstition we never ge the man, we simply do away with the superstition -- but then he creates a new superstition.
Whatever we offer, he seizes upon it.
"All right," he says, "let it be this.
Ill drop the other superstition and hold on to this one!" And we feel very happy because he has accepted our superstition.
A young mao visit me.
Day and night he used to talk about the scriptures.
He khe Upanishads, the Gita, the Vedas, by heart.
I told him, "Stop all this nonsense.
You will gain nothing from it!" He became very angry with me, but heless he tio visit me.
Someone who gets angry with you ops visiting you, because anger alss you into a relationship.
He was certainly angry at me, yet he still kept ing.
As the days went by and as he heard me more and more, something touched him.
One day he came to me and said, "I bundled up the Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas, and threw them all in a well.
"
"When did I tell you to throw them away?" I asked.
"I had to empty my shelf in order to make room for your books.
Now I fully agree with your books," he said.
I said, "But this has made things more difficult.
Nothing has ged.
I was merely telling you not to agree with a book.
I never asked you to throw that book away and grab on to my book.
What difference has your doing so made?"
The so-called gurus feel very happy if their kind of superstition is held by people.
This is how, even though superstitions keep ging, man himself tio remain superstitious.
So I told the young man to throw my books into the same well too.
He said, "How that be possible?" He could never do that, he asserted.
So I said, "Then the whole thing has remained as it was.
Now my book has bee yita.
What was wrong with poor Krishnas Gita? If you o carry something, his Gita was suffit -- it served your purpose; it was much thicker than my book; it added enough weight to you.
How are things different now? When did I ever blame Krishna? When did I ever say that Krishna was at fault?
This is how it has always been -- and still is.
What simply happens is that man remains the same, only his toys ge.
I feel very happy if someoakes my toy; I feel delighted that at last someone has taken my idea.
My ego finds satisfa in seeing that someone has started to believe more ihan in Krishna.
But this does n about a ge in humanity; humanity ever be beed by this.
What we o be ed about is how to break, from within, this humaality that grabs on to things.
How man overe his blindness?
I suggest to this friend: do about breaking down superstitions; instead, ge the superstitious mind.
ge that mind which breeds superstition, so that a new man take birth.
But it is an arduous task; it will require a great deal of effort.
It is not an easy job.
To be aplished, it will require very stific thought.
Dont be in such a hurry to deny the existence of ghosts and evil spirits.
They are far more real than you.
There is no falsity about their existence, but you will have to explore.
And it so often happens that those who are scared of ghosts also begin to deny their existence.
They say so, not because they have bee very knowledgeable, the only reason is wish-fulfillment -- they dont want ghosts to exist, because if there are ghosts it will be difficult to walk down a dark alley.
So in a loud voice they keep repeating, "There are no ghosts.
Absolutely! It is all superstition; we will destroy the superstition!" What they are saying is they are very scared of ghosts.
If there really are ghosts it will cause a lot of trouble, so they should in the first place -- thats the wish.
Such a mind ever make ghosts ent.
If ghosts are, then they are.
Whether you believe it or not, it makes no difference.
What is, is, and its better we iigate it -- because whatever exists is related to us in one way or another; it is bound to be so.
He is more appropriate to uand them, them, and to find ways to establish tact with them, to figure out how to i with them.
Its not an easy matter.
The empty space you see between you and someone else may not necessarily be empty.
There may be someoting there.
You may not be able to see him; thats a different matter.
But the idea that somebody might be sitting there frighten you, so we dont leave ay space, we stick together.
We are always afraid of ay space; thats why we fill our room with furniture, dars, pictures of gods and goddesses, anything.
Being in ay space, being in ay house, we are frightened.
We fill them with people, with furnishings, so y space is left.
Evehere is plenty of empty space which is not altogether empty.
And it has its own sce.
If one wants to work in this dire, it be done.
One systematically work on this -- it is an indepe sce; it has its own laws ahods.
However, before you begin w in this area, never say whether these thi or do .
It is better to suspend your judgment, to keep your clusions in abeyance for a while -- just say you dont know.
If asked whether there are ghosts or not, it will be characteristic of the stifid to answer, "I dont know, because I havent looked into it yet.
Also, I havent even looked into myself yet.
How I find out whether or not there are ghosts? I am not even able to find myself as yet!" So never be in a hurry to answer yes or no.
Someone who gives a quiswer is superstitious.
Keep thinking, keep searg.
An intelligent man, in fact, will answer with great reluce.
Onebody asked Einstein how he differentiated between a stist and a superstitious man.
Einstein replied, "If you ask one hundred questions to a man of superstition, he will be prepared to offer a hundred and one answers.
And if you ask one hundred questions to a stist, he will claim absolute ignorance about y-eight of them.
About the remaining two he will say, I know a little, but that knowledge is not ultimate; it ge tomorrow.
"
Remember, a stifid is the only artless mind.
A superstitious mind is not.
But in appeara looks the opposite.
It looks as if a superstitious mind is very simple, but it is not; it is very plex and ing.
The greatest ing of the superstitious mind is that it affirms things it has no knowledge of.
A person with such a mind doesnt even know anything about a rock lying at his doorstep, but in his frenzy to prove his God is right and yod is wrong, he will go out and kill people.
If, as yet, he ot even explain what a rock is
And when he ot prove that a rock is Mohammedan or Hindu, how will he be able to easily prove that God is Hindu or Mohammedan? But he will go ahead and kill people! And remember, res to violence shows that those things such acts are itted for must all be rooted in superstition.
People never e to blows over matters pertaining to knowledge; it is impossible.
Wherever there is flict, rest assured superstition is there -- because a superstitious man wants to prove through flict that he is right; he has no other means.
If a mao jump on me and put a sword to my throat saying, "Tell me I am right or Ill chop your head off" -- he y head off, of course, but that doesnt prove him right.
No one has ever been proven right by chopping off somebodys head.
Even if all the Mohammedaogether and massacre all the Hindus, they will never be proven right -- just as the Hindus will never be proven right if they all join together to slaughter all the Mohammedans.
They will merely prove themselves stupid, nothing else.
Has the sword ever proven anything right? But thats the only means available to the superstitious man.
With what other means he say that sud such a thing is right? He has no cept, he has never probed; he has no proof, he has no dire.
He knows only ohing: might is right.
All over the world everyone is doing this.
I am not saying that only religious leaders are involved in such acts of violehe politis are no different.
Whether Russia or America is right will be settled through the use of hydrogen bombs -- obviously; there is no other means.
It is exactly the same sort of foolishness.
Is this how it be resolved as to which of the two is right? How it be determined whether Marx is right ? Will it be by the use of the sword? Or by dropping the hydrogen bomb? Which will it be? It will have to be determihrough the application of thought -- but man is not yet free to think; he is still beset by superstition.
So remember, my emphasis is not on breaking the s, my emphasis is on doing away with the superstitious mind that creates these s.
If that mind persists, then no matter how many s you break it will create new ones.
And remember, new fetters are far more attractive, more lovable, more worth holding on to.
And remember this too: the new is always strohan the old one, because by now our knowledge of how to make s is also more developed, more advanced.
It often occurs to me that those in the business of breaking down superstitions only succeed in providing much tougher superstitions as substitutes for the worn-out ones -- they do nothing more than that.
The superstitious mind has to be discarded, or else it will keep on breeding superstition.
Be cogitative, and make others cogitative also.
"Be cogitative" means: think, search, be inquisitive.
Speak only after you have the right experience, and still admit readily that your experience is not necessarily right.
People may have other experieomorrow.
You may even have to gh different experiences, and it is not certain that what you experienced was not an halluation.
So until that experience has been verified by scores of experiences more, it is better not to say anything about it.
Thats why a stist ducts an experiment, repeats it a thousand times, makes a thousand other people do it, and only then does he arrive at some kind of a clusion.
And even then he never reaches a final clusion.
One who wants to reach a clusion in a hurry ever think.
A man in a hurry to reach a final clusioably fills himself with superstition.
And we are all in a great hurry.
A friend, in his question, has asked everything the whole of humanity is searg for and has not yet been able to find! He asks:
Question 3
DOES GOD EXIST OR NOT? WHAT IS JEEVATMAN, THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL? WHERE IS MOKSHA? WHO CREATED HEAVEN? IS THERE A HELL? WHY HAS MAN APPEARED ON THE EARTH? WHAT IS THE GOAL OF LIFE?
He is in such a hurry he wants to know about all of this instantly.
A man in such a hurry will undoubtedly bee superstitious.
Search requires great patieremendous patie doesnt matter if we dont find what we are looking for in one lifetime, but we will tio search.
In fact, for one who is cogitative, attaining is not important -- searg is.
For a man of superstition, attaining is important, seeking is totally unimportant.
A superstitious man is anxious to know how he attain.
"Where is God?" he asks.
He is not much ed with first finding out whether there is a God or not.
He is not ied in the pursuit of God; that is not his cup of tea.
He says, "You seek him and then show me.
" Thats why he is out looking furu.
Whosoever is looking furu is bound to end up being superstitious -- he t stop short of that.
In fact, looking furu implies, "You have found, now please show us.
Since you have already found, what is the point in our searg now? We bow down to your feet.
Please give us what you have attained.
" The idea is for someone else to place his hand on your head and have you realize God.
So people are wandering around accepting mantras, being initiates, paying fees, massagi, serving, in the hope that what someone has already attained bee their own.
This ever happen.
This shows clearly the hold of the superstitious mind.
Someone elses achievement ever bee yours.
That poor fellow went in seard found, and you want to have it free? And remember, if he has searched, then while searg he must also have realized that oains through seeking, not by asking.
And so he will not evee any disciples.
Only those are after disciples who have themselves not yet attained.
They are hanging on to some uru above them.
There is a long series of gurus, all hoping to gain from the other.
Many gurus are already dead, a people hang on to them in the hope they will give them something.
There is a long of dead gurus, going back thousands and millions of years, and they are all hanging on to each other hoping someone may give something.
This is the mark of a superstitious mind.
The characteristic of a searg mind, the indication of a reflective mind is, "If there is God, then I will search for him.
If I succeed in finding him, then it will be because of my merit, my birthright.
If I ever find him, then it will be because of my lifelong dediy sacrifice, my meditation.
It will be the fruit of my effort.
"
And remember, if God does bee available free, a cogitative individual will turn him down.
He will say, "It is nht to accept something that has not e out of my own effort.
I will attain through my own effort.
" And bear in mind there are certain things which only be attaihrough ones own effort.
God is not one of those things sold in the market, a pieerdise available anywhere.
Truth is not one of those articles sold in a department store where you go and purchase it.
But such stores are open.
There are stores, there are bazaars, where a signboard hangs, saying "Real Truth Available Here.
" Even truth is of the real and artificial kind! On every shop the sign says, "The real Master lives here.
The rest are all fake masters; they live somewhere else.
This is the only authentic shop.
Buy from us! Give us the ce to serve you!" And once you have entered one of these shops, the owner wont want you to leave that easily.
All this mischief is the creation of the superstitious mind.
I would like to say to you: have faith in seeking, not in begging.
You will attain to God not by begging but by knowing.
Also, never believe what others say.
Someone may have attained -- it is possible of course -- so dont disbelieve either, because that is superstition too.
her believe nor disbelieve.
If someone es along and says he has attained God, say, "gratulations.
God has been very passioo you, allowing you to find him.
But kindly dont show me.
Let me find him also; otherwise I will remain a cripple.
"
If you are carried to a destination someone has already walked to, you will arrive as a cripple.
Feet grow stronger by walking.
Reag a destination is not so important, the really important thing is that the traveler bees stronger in the pursuit.
Attaining something is not as important as the transformation of the one who attained.
God, knowledge, or moksha are not readymade things.
They are the fruit of the of ones life, of a lifetime of effort and sadhana.
It is like the ultimate flower whies on its own.
But if you go to the market you will find plastic flowers.
They last longer.
You just o dust them -- they last longer and create deception too.
But whom do they deceive? Plastic flowers deceive others -- those walking oreet be fooled; they may think the flowers in your window are real -- but you t be deceived because you bought them yourself.
For real flowers one has to sow the seeds, one has to put in effort, one has to raise the plants.
Then, on their own, flowers bloom -- they are nht in.
The experience of God is like the flower, ones sadhana is like the plant.
Care for the plant and the flower will e by itself.
But we are in a hurry.
We say, "Fet the plant; just give us the flower!"
Sometimes when children go to school for an examination, they dont solve the arithmeti, they look up the answer in the back of the arithmetic book and write it down.
Even though the answer given is absolutely right, it is totally wrong.
How the answer of one who has not followed the method be right? His answer is absolutely right -- he has written five -- and those who followed the method have also written five.
But do you see the differen the answer given by those who followed the method and those who stole it from the back of the book? And what difference does it make whether they have stolen it from the back of the Gita or the Koran?
Even though the answer given by both is the same, it is not the same; there is a fual difference.
The real question is not finding the ahe real question is not arriving at five, the real question is learning how to arrive at the sum.
And the one who looked in the back of the book didnt learn that.
He didnt learn the arithmetic, he only got the answer.
And so, if you have learned something from somewhere, if you have received something from somebody, if you have heard something from someone and grabbed on to it -- then such a God is stolen from the back of the book.
Then such a God is lifeless, dead, useless, good for nothing, not alive.
An alive religion es into being by living it, not by stealing answers from the back of some book.
But we are all thieves.
We scold little children and warn them not to steal.
The teacher also makes it clear that his students must not look for answers in the back of the book, that they should not steal their answers from somewhere -- but if he were to ask himself whether all his answers were stolen or not, it would seem all his answers were stolen as well.
The guru is a thief, the disciple is a thief, the teacher is a thief.
All lifes answers are stolen.
From stolen answers one ever find peace or joy.
Joy is attained by going through the same process by which flowers of answers bloom on their own.
They are not borrowed.
Chapter 6
Love is Dangerous
31 October 1969 am iation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: WHY SHOULD WE THINK OF DEATH AT ALL? WE HAVE LIFE, LET US LIVE IT.
LET US LIVE IN THE PRESENT.
WHY DO WE BRING IHOUGHT OF DEATH?
He has asked the right thing.
But his very asking, "Why bring in the idea of death?" or "Lets just live and not even think of death" shows in itself that even he ot escape thinking about death.
Death is su enormous fact it ot be ignored; although throughout our lives we try not to think of death -- not because death is not worth thinking about, but because the very thought of it is terrifying.
The very idea that "I will die" sends chills up our spines.
Of course, it will shake you up while dying; but even before that, if this idea takes hold of your mind, it will shake you to your very roots.
Man has always tried tet about death, he has tried not to think about it.
We have managed our entire system of life in such a way that death should not bee visible.
All mans efforts and plans towards falsifyih seem to be succeeding, but they never are successful -- because death is there.
How will you escape from it? Where will you escape? Even running away from it, you are ultimately going to run into it.
No matter where you escape, no matter which dire you take, eventually yoing to end up there.
Every day it approaches nearer -- whether you think about it or not, whether you escape from it or not.
One ever run away from a fact.
It is not that death is something which will happen iure, so why think about it now? This too is a misapprehension.
Death will not happen iure -- death is already happening every moment.
Although it will e to its pletion iure, it is actually taking place every moment.
We are dying this very moment.
If we sit here for an hour, we will be dead one hour.
It may take seventy years for us to die pletely, heless this one hour will be a part of it.
During this one hour we will be dying too.
It is not that after seventy years one dies all of a suddeh never occurs instantaneously.
It is not a sudde; it is a growth that begins with birth.
In fact, birth stitutes one end of death, ah stitutes the other end.
This journey begins with birth.
What we call the birthday is actually the first day of death.
It will take time, but the journey will tinue.
For example, a mas out from Dwarka for Calcutta.
The very first step he takes will be as much to reach Calcutta as his last step.
The final step will be as instrumental in bringing him to Calcutta as the initial step.
And if the initial step t bring him to Calcutta, the last step ot either.
This means that wheook his first step towards Calcutta, he began to reach Calcutta.
With each step Calcutta drew nearer and nearer.
You may perhaps say he took six months to arrive at Calcutta, but the fact is that it is only because he had started to arrive six months ago that he could arrive six months later.
The sed thing I would like to say to you is: dont think that death is somewhere iure, death is present every moment.
And what is future? It is the sum total of all of our presents.
We keep on adding to it.
It is just like when we heat water.
At the first degree the water warms up, but it hasnt turned into steam yet.
And the same is the case when it heats up two degrees.
The water will turn into steam when it heats to a hundred degrees; however, it started moving closer to being steam at the first degree, and then at the sed, and the third and so on.
But eves at y-nine degrees the water does not turn into steam; that will only happe reaches one hundred.
Has it ever occurred to you that the huh degree is also a degree, just as the first degree is also a degree? The journey from the y-ninth degree to the huh degree is the same as from the first to the sed degree; there is no difference.
So the one who knows will warn you at the very first degree that the water will turn into steam -- although you never see water turning into steam anywhere.
Of course, he may say the water is heating up, but where is it turning into steam? We delude ourselves up to the y-ninth degree that the water is still not turning into steam, but at the huh degree it is bound to bee steam.
Each degree will keep bringing the boiling point closer.
He is meanio try to save yourself from death, or to postpo by saying that death is iure.
Death is happening every moment; we are dying every day.
In fact, there is virtually no differeween what we call living, and dying.
What we call living is just another name for dying gradually.
I dont say think about the future, I say watch what is already happening now.
I am not asking you to think, even.
This friend has asked, "Why think of death?" I dont say to think.
Thinking will lead you nowhere.
Remember this: no fact ever be known by thinking.
Actually, thinking is a tactful means of falsifying facts.
Looking at a flower, if you begin thinking about it you will never know the flower, because the more you move into thinking about it, the further it will be removed from you.
You will move ahead in your thoughts while the flower will remain lying there.
What has the flower to do with what you are thinking? A flower is a fact.
If you want to know a flower, dont think about it -- look at the flower.
There is a differeween thinking and seeing -- and the difference is signifit.
The West puts great emphasis on thinking.
Thats why they have heir sce of thinking philosophy.
Philosophy means ceptual thinking.
We have he same sce darshan.
Darshan means to see; darshan does not mean thinking.
This o be uood a little.
We have called it darshan while they have called it philosophy, and there is a fual differeweewo.
Those who take philosophy and darshan to be synonymous know nothing.
They are not synonymous.
Thats why theres nothing like Indian philosophy and nothing like Western darshan.
The West has a sce of thinking -- it sists of iigation, logialysis.
The East cared for something else.
The East has experiehat there are certain facts which ever be known by thinking about them.
These facts will have to be seen, will have to be lived.
And there is an enormous differeween living and thinking.
A man who thinks about love may perhaps write a thesis on it, but a lover lives it, sees it; its possible he may not be able to write a thesis.
And if someone asks a lover to say something about love, he may close his eyes, tears may start rolling down his cheeks, and he might say, "Please dont ask.
What I say about love?" One who has thought about love will explain it for hours, but he may not even know oa of love.
Thinking and seeing are two altogether different processes.
So I am not saying you should think about death.
You ever know death by thinking about it.
You will have to see it.
What I am saying is: here is death, right now within you, and you have to see it.
What I call the I is dying all the time.
This phenomenon of death will have to be seen, this phenomenon of death will have to be lived, this phenomenon of death, that "I am dying, I am dying," will have to be accepted.
We try our best to falsify death; we have ied a thousand ways to falsify it.
Of course we dye our white hair, but that does not prove death a lie -- it invariably es.
Even underh the dyed color the hair is still white.
They are the indications that death has started approag, that it is sure to e.
How we falsify it? No matter how much we go on falsifying it, it makes no difference -- it is approag, non-stop.
The only difference is that we fail to know it.
What I am asking is: how will one who hasnt even knowh yet know what life is? My point is: death is on the circumference; life is at the ter.
If we dont even know the circumference, how will we ever know the ter? And if we run away from the circumference, we will never reach closer to the ter.
If you bee frightened of the walls that make up the outer limits of a house, and escape, how will you ever ehe inner dwelling? Death is the periphery and life is the temple at the ter of it.
By running away from the periphery, we also run away from life.
One who es to know death will, by and by, u and begin to uand life as well.
Death is the gateway to knowing life.
Eludih is eluding life as well.
So when I say "Know death,&quhe facts -- I am not asking you to think.
There is one more iing thing that o be uood.
Thinking means to repeat, in the mind, what we already know.
Thinking is never inal -- although we ordinarily say that sud-such a persons thoughts are highly inal.
No, thought is never inal.
Thoughts ever be inal.
Darshan, seeing, be inal.
Thoughts are always stale.
If I ask you to think about this roseflower, what will you think? You will simply reiterate what you already know about a rose.
What else would you do? What else you do with thinking? Could even one single unheard-of and inal viewpoint about a rose ever appear in your thoughts? How it?
Thinking is nothing but reiterating a thought.
You may say, "The roseflower is very beautiful," but how many times have you heard this before? How many times have you read this before? Or you may say, "The roseflower is just as beautiful as the fay beloved.
" How many times have you heard this before too? How many times have you read it before? Or you may say, "The flower is very fresh" -- but this too, how many times have you heard or read it before? What good are thoughts? How will you be able to ehe being of that roseflower by thinking about it? Thinking only lead you into whatsoever is in your memory about a rose.
Thats why thinking is never inal.
There ever be an inal thinker -- only seers are inal.
The first dition in looking at a roseflower is that the person looking at it should not think.
He should remove thoughts from his memory; he should bee empty, and live in that moment with the flower.
Let the roseflower be on one side and you be oher, ahere be no oween you -- nothing youve ever heard, nothing youve ever read, nothing youve ever known.
Nothing youve ever experienced should be iween.
No one should be between you two.
Only then, the unknowed within the rose will begin to enter your being.
Finding no hindran between, it will enter, and then you wont feel you want to know the rose, you will feel you are oh the rose.
Then you will know the flower from its interiority.
A seer pees inside an object, while a thinker hovers around it oside -- and therefore a thinker has no achievement of his own; only a seer enjoys achievement.
A seer pees within because there remains no wall between him and the object before him -- the wall crumbles, disappears.
Once Kabir asked his son Kamal to go to the forest and bring some hay for their cattle.
Kamal went as he was told.
It was m when he left, but when the sun was overhead and Kamal had not yet returned, Kabir became worried.
And even by the waning hours of afternoon there was no sign of Kamal.
Kabir grew even more worried.
Soon it was evening and the sun was about to set, so finally, apanied by a few of his devotees, Kabir set out in search of Kamal.
When they reached the forest they found Kamal standing in the middle of the thick grass, his eyes closed, swaying like a blade of grass in the breeze.
Kabir went over, shook him, and asked, "What are you doing here?" Kamal opened his eyes.
He came to himself, realized what had happened, and immediately apologized.
Kabir said, "But what have you been doing for so long? Its so late!"
Kamal answered, "I am sorry, but when I came here, instead of cutting the grass I began to look at it.
And just looking at it tinuously, I dont know when, but I also became a blade of grass.
Soon it was evening, and here I was, pletely oblivious that I am Kamal who has e here to cut grass.
I became the grass itself.
There was so much joy in being the grass, joy that, being Kamal, I never had before.
Its good you came, because I didnt know what was happening.
The breeze was not moving the grass, the breeze was moving me -- the cutter and that which was to be cut had both disappeared.
"
Have you ever seen your wife, your son, with whom you have lived for so many years? Have you ever seehe things your wife did yesterday flash through your mind -- and a thought es iween you and her.
You recall how she quarreled when you were about to leave for the offi the m -- and agaihought is preseween you.
What she said at the diable es back to you -- and the thought stands between you.
You have always thought, you have never seen.
And thats the reason there is ionship between husband and wife, between father and soween mother and son.
Relationship happens where thought is no more and where darshan, seeing, has begun.
That is really when a relationship takes place, because then no os to disrupt it.
Remember, a relationship does not mean there is a third factor binding the two.
As long as there is something iween to bind the two, the disrupter is also present.
That which binds also breaks.
The day nothis to bind, when only two remain, when nothing remains iween, that day what actually remains is only ohen there are not two.
A relationship does not mean we are joined with somebody, a relationship means that now nothis between you and the other person, there is no one iween -- not even to join you.
There, the two streams disappear and merge into each other.
This is love.
Seeing leads you into love; seeing is the source of love.
And one who has not loved has never known anything.
No matter what a man may have set out to know, he has only known it through love.
So when I say death has to be known, I mean we will have to love death as well.
We will have to see death.
But the man who is afraid of death, who is eluding it -- how he love death, how he have its darshan, how he ever see death? Wheh appears before him, he turns his ba it.
He shuts his eyes; he never lets death appear before him, face-to-face.
He is afraid, he is frightehats why he is uo see death at all, nor is he able to love it.
And the man who hasnt been able to love death yet, how will he ever love life? -- because death is a very superficial event and life is a far deeper phenomenon.
One who turned away from the very first step, how will he ever reach the deep waters of the well?
Thats why I say death will have to be lived, it will have to be known, it will have to be seen.
You will have to fall in love with it; you will have to look into its eyes.
And as soon as a man looks into deaths eyes, begins to watch it, pee into it, he feels astounded.
To his great amazement, he realizes, "What a great mystery lies hidden ih! What I knew as death a running away from, actually ceals within itself the source of supreme life.
" Hence I say to you: enter into death willingly so that you may reach life.
There is an incredible saying of Jesus.
Jesus has said, "The one who will save himself will perish; and the one who will efface himself -- no one ever destroy him.
One who will lose himself shall find, and one who will save himself shall be lost.
" If a seed wishes to save itself, it will rot -- what else? And if a seed annihilates itself in the earth, disappears, it will bee a tree.
The death of the seed bees life for the tree.
If the seed were to protect itself by saying, "I am scared.
I could die.
I dont want to disappear.
Why should I disappear?" then the seed is bound to rot.
In that case, it will not even remain a seed, let alone grow into a tree.
We shrink with fear of death.
I would like to say one more thing that may not have occurred to you before.
Only one who is afraid of death has ego, because ego means a stricted personality, a solid knot.
One who has fear of death shrinks within.
Anyone in fear has to shrink inside, and whatever shrinks turns into a knot.
A plex is created ihe person.
The feeling of I is the feeling of a man afraid of death.
The man who pees death, who is not afraid of death, who does not run away from it, who begins to live it -- his I disappears, his ego disappears.
And when the ego disappears only life remains.
ut it this way: only the ego dies, not the soul.
But since we tio remain egos, a great difficulty is created.
In fact, only the ego die; only the ego has a death -- because it is false.
It will have to die.
But we are holding on to it>.
For example, a wave rises in an o.
If the wave wants to survive as a wave, it ot; it is bound to die.
How a wave survive as a wave? It will die.
Unless, of course, it bees ice.
If it tracts, bees solid, then it survive.
But still, in that sort of survival the wave is no more and the ice remains -- ice which is a wave, closed, broken away from the o.
Remember, as a wave it is not apart from the o, it is oh the o.
As ice, it parts from the o, it separates, it bees solid.
In it, the wave has tracted; it has bee frozen.
As a wave it was oh the o; however, if it bees a k of ice it will survive, of course, but then it will be cut off from the o.
And how long will it survive in that state? Whatsoever is frozen will undoubtedly melt.
A poor wave will melt a little sooner, while a rich wave will take a little longer -- what else? The sunrays will take a little loo melt a big wave, while a smaller wave will melt sooner.
It is only a question of time, but melting is bound to happen.
The wave will melt and it will make a big hue and cry, because as soon as it melts it will disappear.
But if the wave, by falling bato the o, were to make itself cease to exist as separate, if it were to e to know that it is in fact the o, then there wouldnt be any question of the waves disappearing.
Theher it disappears or remains, it still exists -- because it knows that "I am not a wave, I am the o.
" When it disappears as a wave, it still exists -- in a state of rest.
When it rises, it is in a state of activity.
Aing is no less enjoyable than being active.
In fact, it is even more enjoyable.
There is a state of activity and there is a state of rest.
What we call samsara, the world, is the state of activity, and what we call moksha, liberation, is the state of rest.
It is like a restless wave which crashes against the wind and wrestles with it, and then it falls bato the o and disappears.
It still exists.
Whatever it was before in the o, it is now still the same, but it is at rest.
However, if a wave were to assert itself as a wave, it would be filled with ego, and then it would want to break itself away from the o.
Once you get the idea that "I am," then how you be with the rest of the all? If you choose to be with the all, then the I is lost.
Thats why the I insists, "Break away from the all.
" And how iing it is, that breaking away from the whole makes you miserable.
And then, once again, the "I" says, "Relate with the all" -- such is the tortuous way of the "I".
First the "I" says, "Break yourself away from the all, isolate yourself; you are different from the whole.
How you remain ected?" So the "I" snaps itself away; but then it gets into trouble -- because, as soon as the "I" separates from the all, it bees miserable; its end approaches.
As soon as the wave es to believe it is separate from the o, it begins to die, its death es nearer.
Now it will fall into the struggle to protect itself from death.
As long as it was oh the o, there was h at all -- because the o never dies.
Remember, an o be without a wave but a wave ot exist without the o.
You ot ceive of a wave without the o -- the o will be present in the wave.
The o, however, exist without a wave.
When they are an integral part of the o, all waves exist in pead rest.
But the moment a wave strives to save itself from the o, difficulties arise -- it cuts itself off from the o and its death begins.
This is the reason one who is to die wants to love.
The reason all of us, whoing to die, are so eager to love is that love is the obvious means to ect.
Thats why no one wants to live without love and be miserable.
Everyone is seeking love: somebody wants to receive your love, somebody wants to give you love.
And for the man who does not find love it bees a problem.
But have we ever wondered what the meaning of love is?
Love means an attempt to restruct, once again, by putting different parts together, the relationship we have broken off with the whole.
So one kind of love is the one where we attempt to rebuild our lost relationship with the whole by adding parts.
This is what we call love.
And there is another kind of love where we have stopped our attempts to break away from the whole.
That is called prayer.
Hence, prayer is absolute love.
And this carries a totally different meaning.
It does not mean that we are attempting to ie the fragments; it means we have stopped breaking ourselves away from the whole.
The wave has declared, "I am the o," and now it is not attempting to ect itself with ead every other wave.
Remember, the wave itself is dying, and the other waves nearby are dying too.
If this wave tries to relate with other waves, it will get into trouble.
Thats why our so-called love is very painful, because it is a wave trying to relate with another wave.
This wave and the other wave are both dying, ahey get into a relationship with each other in the hope that by joining with each other they perhaps may save themselves.
Thats why we turn love into security.
So man is afraid to live alone.
One wants a wife, a husband, a son, a mother, a brother, a friend, a society, an anization, a nation.
These are all endeavors of the ego; these are attempts by one who has broken himself away from it, to unite once again with the whole.
But all these efforts to unite are invitations to death -- because the oh whom you are f a union is as much surrounded by death, as much surrounded by the ego
The funny thing is that the other wants to bee immortal by uniting with you, and you want to bee immortal by uniting with the other.
And the fact is that both of yoing to die.
How you bee immortal? Such a union will double death; it will certainly not turn it into an elixir.
Two lovers long so much for their love to bee immortal -- they sing songs day and night.
For eternity poems have been written about love being immortal.
How two people whoing to die desire immortality together? A union of two such people only makes death twice as real and nothing else.
What else it be? And both are melting, sinking, fading away; thats why they are frightened, worried.
The wave has created its own anization.
It says, "I have to survive.
" It has created nations; it has created Hindu-Mohammedas -- waves creating their own anizations.
And the fact of the matter is that all these anizations are going to disappear -- the o below is the only anization.
And the anization of the o is a totally different thing.
Belonging to it does not mean the wave joins itself with the o; rather, it means the wave knows that "I am not at all different from the o.
" And so I say that a religious man does not belong to any anization -- he her holds to a family, nor does he own a friend, a father or a brother.
Jesus has spoken some very strong words.
In fact, only those who have attaio love speak such strong words; people weak in love ot utter them.
One day Jesus was standing in the market surrounded by a crowd.
His mother, Mary, came to see him.
People began to make way for her.
Somebody from the crowd shouted, "Make way, make room for Jesus mother.
Let her e.
" When Jesus heard him, he said in a loud voice, "If yiving way to Jesus mother, then dont do it, because Jesus doesnt have a mother.
" Mary stopped, stood there in shock.
Addressing the crowd, Jesus said, "As long as you have a mother, a father, a brother, you wont be able to e close to me.
" This is being very harsh.
We t even imagine a person like Jesus, so full of love, utter such words as, "I have no mother.
Who is my mother?" So Mary stood there in shock.
Jesus went on, "Do you call this woman my mother? I have no mother.
And remember, if you still have a mother, then you wont be able to e near me.
"
What seems to be the matter? The question is that if a wave is attempting to uh another wave, it wont be able to e close to the o.
Waves, in fact, uh each other and create an anization mainly to save themselves from the o.
On its own a wave feels more frightehat it may disappear, that it may really disappear.
But the truth is, it is already disappearing.
Yet when a few waves gather together they feel more reassured -- some sort anization is created; a crowd is created.
Thats why man likes to live in a crowd; he feels afraid if he is left alone.
In its loneliness a wave is left totally by itself -- slipping away, falling away, vanishing, close to disappearing, feeling alienated on both sides -- the o ohe rest of the waves oher.
He creates an anization, it creates a .
The father says, "I will disappear, but it doesnt matter -- I will leave my son behind.
" The wave says, "Ill disappear, but Ill leave a little wave -- it will survive after me, the will tinue, my name shall remain.
" Thats why a father feels unhappy if he doesnt have a son -- it means he couldnt arrange his immortality.
He will of course be gone, but he wants to create another wave which will tinue further on, which will at least identify the wave it came from.
So its all right for the former wave to disappear -- it leaves another one behind.
You may or may not have noticed that people who are engaged in a creative activity -- a painter, a musi, a poet, a writer -- are not too ed with having sons, simply because they have found a substitute.
Their paintings will survive, their poetry will survive, their sculptures will survive; they dont care about having a son.
Thats why stists, painters, sculptors, writers and poets are not overly ed with having sons.
There is no other reason except that they have found a different kind of son.
They have created a wave which will remain long after they are gone.
Actually, they have found a son that will last even lohan yours, because even when your son has disappeared, the writers book will still remain.
A writer doesnt care much about having a son, about having an offspring.
This does not mean, however, that he is carefree; it simply means he has found a long-lasting wave; he stops w about smaller waves.
Hence he is not ied in having a family; he has created a different kind of family.
He is also striving for the same degree of immortality.
So he will say, "Money will be lost, wealth will be lost, but my work, my scripture will survive" -- and that is precisely what he wants.
But scriptures also bee lost.
No scripture lasts forever, although of course it lasts a little longer.
Who knows how many scriptures have already been lost, and how ma lost everyday.
Everything will be lost.
In fact, in the world of waves, no matter to what extent a wave may prolong itself, ultimately it is bound to be lost.
To be a wave means to face extin -- prolonging makes no difference.
So if you look upon yourself as a wave you will want to avoid death -- you will remain afraid, scared.
I say to you: look at death -- her should you avoid it nor be afraid of it, nor run away from it.
Look at it.
And just by looking at it you will find that what seemed like death from this end, as you enter into it a little, the same thing turns out to be life.
Then the wave bees the o; its fear of extin disappears.
Then it doesnt want to bee frozen ice.
Then, for whatever time it has, it dances in the sky, rejoices uhe rays of the sun, is happy.
And when it falls bato the o, it is equally happy in its state of rest.
Thus it is happy in life, it is happy ih -- because it knows that "that which is" is never born nor does it ever die.
That which is, is; only forms keep ging.
We are all waves risen above the o of sciousness.
Some of us have turned into ice -- most of us have.
The ego is like ice, as hard as a rock.
How amazing it is that a fluid like water bee hard like id rock.
If a desire to freeze arises in us, the sciousness, otherwise so simple and fluid, freezes and bees an ego.
We are all filled with desire to freeze, and so we employ many kinds of means to see how we bee frozen, solidified.
There are laws under which water turns into ice, and there are also laws which cause the formation of the ego.
Water has to cool in order to bee ice, it has to lose its heat, it has to turn cold.
The colder it gets, the harder it bees.
The man who wants to create ego has to bee cold as well; he has to lose his warmth.
Thats why we say "a warm wele.
" A wele is always warm; a cold wele has no meaning.
Love means warmth; a cold love carries no meaning.
Love is never cold, it tains warmth.
Actually, life is sustained by warmth; death is cold, below zero.
Thats why the sun is the symbol of life, the sun is the symbol of warmth.
When it rises in the m, death departs; everything bees warm and hot.
The flowers bloom and the birds begin to sing.
Warmth is the symbol of life, cold is the symbol of death.
So one who wants to create an ego has to bee cold, and in order to bee cold he has to lose all those things which give warmth.
He has to lose everything that gives warmth to his being.
For example, love gives warmth, hatred brings ess.
So for the sake of the ego, one has to give up love and g to hatred.
Merd sympathy bring warmth; cruelty and ruthlessness bring cold.
Just as there are laws for the freezing of water, there are laws for the freezing of human sciousness.
The same law works: keep on being cold.
Sometimes we say that sud-such a person is very cold -- there is no warmth in him; he bees hard like a rock.
And remember, the warmer a person is the more simple he is.
Then his life has a liquidity that enables him to flow into others and allows others to flow into him.
A cold person bees hard, uo flow, closed from all sides.
No one enter into him, nor he enter into anyone.
The ego is like frozen id love is like water, fluid, flowing.
The man who is afraid of death will run away from it.
He will go on freezing, because that fear that he may die, that he may disappear, will make him tract -- and his ego will remain, growing harder, stronger.
I was a guest at a friends house for a few days.
He is quite rich, with a great deal of property.
But I uzzled about ohing: he would never speak kindly to aherwise he was a good man.
I was very puzzled to see that inwardly he was very soft, but very hard oside.
The servant trembled before him, his son trembled before him, his wife was scared to face him.
People thought about it a good deal before they called on him.
Evehey came to his door they hesitated t the bell, w whether they should go in or not.
When I stayed with him and came to know him closely, I asked him what all this was about.
I said, "As such, you are a very simple man.
" He said, "I am very scared.
It is dangerous to form a relationship, because if you form a relationship with somebody then sooner or later he starts asking for money.
If you remain courteous and loving to your wife, the expenditures shoot up.
If you dont remain stiff with your son, his pocket money goes on increasing.
If you talk to your servaly, he also tries to behave like a boss.
"
So a solid wall of ess had to be erected all around -- that would scare the wife, that would scare the son.
How many fathers have dohis?
The truth of the matter is that there is hardly any home where the father and the so each other lovingly.
The soo the father when he needs mohe father goes to the son when he wants to give him a sermon; otherwise the two do, the meeting never happens.
There is ing poiween a father and a son.
The father is afraid, and he has surrounded himself with a solid wall.
The son is also afraid; he sneaks by his father.
There is no harmony anywhere betweewo.
The more a person is afraid, the more he worries about his security, the more solid he bees.
There is great danger in being fluid, there is insecurity in it.
This is the reason we are afraid of falling in love.
Only after we have scrutihe person and bee totally reassured do we ever fall in love.
That means, first we make sure there is no cause for danger from the person, then we fall in love.
Thats why we ied marriages -- first we marry, first we take all the necessary measures, then we fall in love -- because love is dangerous.
Love is fluid, a man might find his way into anyone.
It is dangerous to fall in love with a stranger; he may sneak off at night with all your valuables! So first we make absolutely certain who the man is, what he does, where his parents are from, how his character is, what his qualities are.
We take all the measures, we take the full social precautions; only then do t the individual in marriage.
We are a frightened people; we want to make everything secure first.
The more we secure ourselves, the harder and colder the wall of ice is all around us, and it shrinks our entire being.
Our separatiod has happened because of one reason alone: we are not liquid, we have bee solid.
This is the only cause of separation: we are not flowing, we have bee like blocks; we are not like water, we are like frozen ice.
Once we bee fluid-like, the separation will no longer exist; but we will only bee fluid-like when we agree to see and to live death, when t that death exists.
Once we have seen and reized that death exists, why should there be any fear? Wheh is surely there, when the wave knows for certain she is bound to disappear; if the wave has found out that birth itself taih, if the wave has e to know that its disiion began the very moment it was created, the matter is finished.
Now why turn into ice? Then it will accept being a wave as long as it has to be, and it will accept being the o as long as it has to be.
Thats it! The matter is over! Thehing is accepted.
In that acceptahe wave bees the o.
Then all worry over its disappearance is gone, because then the wave knows it existed before its extin and it will tio exist even after it has vanished -- not as the I, but as the boundless o.
When Lao Tzu was about to die, somebody asked him to reveal a few secrets of his life.
Lao Tzu said, "The first secret is: no one has ever defeated me in my life.
"
Hearing this, the disciples became very excited.
They said, "You old us this before! We also wish to be victorious.
Please show us the trick.
"
Lao Tzu answered, "You made a mistake.
You heard something different.
I said no one could ever defeat me, and you are saying you too want to be victorious.
The two things are totally opposite, although they look similar in meaning.
In the diary, in the world of language, it has one meaning -- that a person who has not faced defeat is victorious.
I simply said no one could defeat me, while you are talking about being victorious.
Get out of here! You will never uand what I am saying.
The disciples pleaded, "Even so, please explain to us.
Please show us the teique.
How were you never defeated?"
Lao Tzu said, "No one could defeat me because I always remained defeated.
There is no way to defeat a defeated m.an.
I was never defeated because I never wished for victory.
In fao one could pick a fight with me.
If anyone ever came to challenge me he found me already defeated, so he couldnt have any fuing me.
The joy is iing one who desires to be victorious.
What fun there be iing someone who doesnt even want to win?"
Actually, it gives us pleasure to destroy somebodys ego because doing sthens our own.
But if a man has already effaced himself, what fun there be iroying such a person? o would any kick out of it.
The more we succeed in breaking the o, the stronger ours bees.
The others broken ego bees the strength of our own.
But the ego of this man we are talking about is already broken.
For example, you go out to defeat a man, and before you knock him down he lays himself down on the ground; and before you sit on him he invites you as you sit on him.
What will your state be then? You would want to run away from there! What else could you do? People watg would laugh and say, "Go on, sit on him; sit fortably.
Why are you running away?" Who would look stupid, the one who sat on the man, or the man who kept laughing and whose laughter resouhroughout your life?
So whenever somebody went to challehis man, he would immediately lie down on the ground and say, "e on, sit on me.
You have e for that, havent you? So go ahead.
Dont take too much trouble, dont bother too much; theres o exert yourself -- just e and sit on me.
"
Lao Tzu went on to say, "But you are asking something else.
You wao tell you the teique of winning.
If you think of winning, you will lose.
One who harbors the thought of winning is always the loser.
In fact, defeat begins with the very idea of victory.
" And Lao Tzu said further, "And no one has ever been able to insult me.
"
"Please tell us its secret also, because we do not like to be insulted either," a disciple said.
"Once again you are making a mistake.
No one could insult me because I never desired honor.
You will always be insulted because you are filled with the desire fnition.
I was never kicked out from any place, because I always sat he entrance where people remove their shoes.
I was never asked to move from a place because I always stood at the end, where no one could push me further back.
I was very happy to be at the end; it saved me from all sorts of trouble.
No one ever forced me out of there or pushed me aside; nor did anyone say, Get lost! because that was the last place.
There was no place beyond that.
No one ever wao be in that spot.
I was the lord of my own place; I have always been the lord of my own place.
Where I stood, no one ever came to throw me out.
"
Jesus also says, "Blessed are those who are ready to stand in the last row.
" What does this mean?
For example, Jesus says, "If a man slaps yht cheek, offer him the left.
" What this means is: dont even give him the trouble of turning your other cheek -- you do it for him.
Jesus says, "When someone es to defeat you, be defeated readily.
If he makes you lose one round, lose two instead.
" And Jesus says, "If a man snatches your coat, also give him your shirt immediately.
" Why? -- because it is possible the man may feel embarrassed taking the shirt away from you.
And Jesus says, "If someone asks you to carry his load for a mile, at the end of the mile ask him if he would like you to carry it further.
"
What does this mean? This means that by accepting the facts of life totally ing insecurity, failure, defeat, and finally death, we quer them all.
Otherwise, these facts eventually lead us nowhere but to death.
In the final analysis, death is our total defeat.
Even in the biggest defeats, you still survive; although defeated, you tio exist.
But ih even you are annihilated as well.
Death is the biggest defeat of all; thats ant to kill our enemy -- there is no other reason.
Death is the ultimate defeat; after that there is no possibility for the eo win, ever.
The urge to kill an enemy es from our desire to infli him the ultimate defeat.
After that there is no way he ever be a winner, because then he exists no more.
Death is the final defeat, and we all want to run away from it.
And remember also, the man who attempts to escape his owh will tio work towards the killing of others.
The more he succeeds in killing others, the more alive he will feel.
Hehe reason for all the violen the world is totally different from eople ordinarily take it to be.
The reason for this violence is not that it is caused because people dont drink unstrained water or they eat after su, no, it is nothing of that sort.
The fual reason for violence is that man kills others tet about his owh.
Killing others, he believes no one kill him, because now he himself has the power to kill.
Hitler, Genghis Khan, and other such people, killed millions in order to assure themselves that "No one kill me, since I kill millions myself.
" By killing others we try to be free of our owh, we want to firm our independence.
The assumption is that, when we ourselves are capable of killing people, who kill us?
Deep down, this is avoidih.
Deep down, a violent man is an escapist from death.
And one who wants to save himself from death ever be nonviolent.
Only he who declares, "I accept death, for death is one of the facts of life -- it is a reality," be a nonviolent person.
One ever deh.
Where will you run from it? Where will you go?
The sun begins to set the moment it rises.
A su is as much a reality as the sunrise -- the difference is only of dire.
At suhe sun reaches exactly where it was at sunrise -- but at su is in the east, whereas at su is in the west.
Birth is on one side, death is oher.
That which is asding on one side is deing oher.
The rising and the setting go together -- the setting, in fact, lies hidden in the rising.
Death lies hidden in birth.
There is no way that one who knows that such is the case ever deny it.
Then he accepts everything.
Then he lives this truth.
He knows it, he sees it, and he accepts it.
With acceptanes transformation.
When I say "triumph over death," I mean that as soon as a person accepts death he laughs, because he es to know there is h.
Only the outer sheath is formed and unformed.
The o has always been; it is only the wave which has taken form and then disied.
Beauty was always around -- the flowers bloomed and withered away.
Light always shone -- the sun rose a.
And that which shoh the rising aing of the sun was forever present, before sunrise and after su.
But this we will e to see only when we have seeh, when we have had the vision of death, when we have entered death face-to-face -- never before.
So the friend asks: "Why should we think about death? Why not fet it? Why not just live?" I would like to say to him that, fettih, no one has ever lived, nor anyone ever live.
And one who ignores death also ignores life.
It is just as if I have a in my hand and I say, "Why bother about the reverse side of the ? Why not just fet it?" If I give up the reverse side, then I will lose the front side of the too, because both make two sides of the same .
It isnt possible to save one side of the and throw the other side oreet.
How this be possible? With the one I keep, the other side will automatically be saved.
If I throw away one, both will be thrown away; if I save one, both will be saved.
Actually, both are aspects of the same thing.
Birth ah are tects of the same life.
The day one realizes this, not only does the sting of death depart, the thought of not dying disappears as well.
Then one es to know that birth is there and so is death.
Both prise bliss.
We get up every m and go to work.
Somebody goes and digs ditches
Different people do different jobs -- people sweat the whole day.
There is a joy iing up in the m, but isnt it equally joyful to sleep at night? If a few madmeo start ving people not to sleep at night, theing up in the m would also stop, because the man who wouldnt sleep wouldnt be able to wake up in the m either.
The whole of life would e to a halt.
One might feel afraid to go to bed, arguing, "It is such a joy to wake up in the m, it is better not to fall asleep or else it will spoil the whole charm of waking up.
" But we know this is ridiculous: sleeping is the other side of waking up.
One who sleeps right will wake up right.
One who wakes up right will sleep right.
One who lives properly will die properly.
One who dies properly will take the right steps in his future life.
One who does not die in a right manner will not live rightly.
One who does not live rightly will not die rightly.
It will be a mess; everything will bee ugly and distorted.
The fear of death is responsible for creating the ugliness and the distortion.
If a fear of falling asleep were to overtake somebody, it would make life difficult.
An old lady was brought to me by her son.
He said his mother was too afraid to fall asleep.
I asked him, "How did this happen?"
He said, "She has been ill lately, and she feels she may die in her sleep, so she is afraid of falling asleep.
She fears she wont wake up once she goes to sleep, so she keeps trying to stay up the whole night.
We are in big trouble.
She isnt rec from her illness because she stays up all night, afraid she may not wake up alive.
Please do something and save her from this fear; otherwise I am irouble.
"
In a way, sleeping is like dying every day.
The whole day we are alive; the whole night we are dead.
This is like dying in parts, dying a bit every day.
We dive within ourselves at night and e out refreshed in the m.
By the time we are seventy hty, the body is worn out.
Theh takes over.
And with that, this body goes through a plete ge.
But we are very scared of death, although it is nothing more than a deep sleep.
Do you know that the body undergoes ge ht and es out different every m? The ge is so minimal you dont notice it.
The ge is not total, it is a partial transformation.
When you go to bed at night, tired and weary, your body is iate, and when you wake up in the m it is in a different state.
In the m the body feels fresh and rejuvenated; it is filled with energy, ready to faother day of activity.
Now, once again, you sing new songs, something you couldnt do the previous evening.
Then you were tired, broken, worn out.
You have never wondered however, why there is so much fear of death.
When you wake up in the m you feel happy, because only a part of your body ges in sleep -- but death, oher hand, brings about a plete ge.
The whole body bees useless and the need arises to acquire a new body.
But we are scared of death and so our whole life has bee totally crippled.
Every moment is filled with fear of death.
Because of this fear we have created a life, a society, a family which lives the least but fears death the most.
And one who fears death ever live -- both things ot exist together.
The man who is ready to meet death with absolute spoy, he alone is ready to live as well.
Life ah are both aspects of the same phenomenon.
Thats why I say: look at death.
I am not asking you to think about death, because such thinking will mislead you.
Thinking about death, what will you do?
A sid miserable man may find it gratifying to think that everything ends ih.
The thought is gratifying to this man not because it is right.
Remember, never believe that what seems pleasing to you is necessarily true, because what feels pleasing does not depend on what is true, it depends on what you think of as ve.
A person who is miserable, troubled, sid in pain feels he should meet a total death, that nothing should be left behind -- because if any part of him does survive, then it would obviously mean he would survive
.
he, the miserable, sidividual.
Question 2
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: SOME PEOPLE IT SUICIDE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THEM? ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT AFRAID OF DEATH?
They are afraid of death too.
But they are more afraid of life than of death.
Life seems more painful to them thah; hehey want to finish it.
Putting ao their lives does not mean they find any joy ih, but since life appears worse thah to them, they prefer death.
One who is miserable, living in pain, will readily believe that death takes e..verything away -- including the soul -- that death leaves nothing behind.
He obviously does not want to save any part of himself, because if he does he will be saving nothing but his misery and pain.
One who is afraid of death and wants to save himself, readily accepts the belief in the immortality of the soul.
These are all veniences.
It does not show uanding, it merely shows our for venience.
This sort of acceptance feels fortable, thats all.
Thats why we ge our beliefs many times.
A man who was an atheist in his youth bees a theist in his old age.
In fact, the truth is that beliefs ge with headaches.
When the head has no pain we follow o of beliefs; with a headache these beliefs are replaced by another set.
It is hard to say how much the scriptures affect your belief system and how much your liver does! One t be sure whether gurus or the liver affect it more! What goes on ihe body has a greater effect.
Wheomach is upset one feels like being an atheist, and wheomach is okay one feels like believing in God! How a man possibly believe that there is a God when he has a headache? If God exists and so does the headache, how you ect the two?
We run an experiment.
Take fifty men and ihem with ic diseases, ahe other fifty in good health.
Let the first fifty live in misery ahe other fifty live happy lives.
You will find that atheism will increase in the froup and theism will increase iter group.
It is not that happiness is caused by believing in God; a miserable mind iably bees atheistic.
So remember, if you see atheism increasing around the world, know well that misery must be on the increase too.
If you see an increasing number of people believing in God, you should know that more and more people are being happy.
I say to you, therefore, that in the fifty years there is a great possibility that Russia will bee theistid India will bee even more atheistic.
Beliefs dont mean anything.
In Russia people read Marx, while in India you read Mahavira -- this makes no difference.
The works of Mahavira and Marx ake the least difference.
If people were to go on being happier in Russia, then in the fifty years theism would revive there and the bells would begin t in Russian temples.
Lamps would be lit and prayers would be ted.
Only a happy mind rings bells iemple, kindles lamps and ts prayers.
People would begin to thank God.
Only a happy mind wishes to thank somebody, and who else should ohank? -- because a man find no reasons for the presence of inner happiness, so he thanks the unknown; it must be because of it.
An unhappy mind wants to express its anger.
And when the person finds no cause for being unhappy, then who should he be angry at? He obviously bees filled with bitterowards the unknown.
He says, "The whole mess is because of that unknown one, because of God.
Either he does , or he has gone mad.
" What I am saying is that our theism and our atheism, our beliefs -- all of them are the products of veniehat suit our ditions.
One who wants to escape from death will iably grab hold of some belief.
Similarly, someone who wishes to die will also grab on to some belief.
But her of them is eager, anxious to know death.
There is a vast differeween veniend truth.
hink too much about venience.
A thought is always about venience.
A vision is always of truth; a thought is always of venience.
One man is a unist.
He makes a lot of noise -- there should be a revolution, the poor should be poor no longer, property must be divided, and so on.
Now just give him a car, a big bungalow and a beautiful girl to marry, and in fifteen days you will see a totally different man.
You will hear him say, "unism, etcetera -- its all nonsense!" What happeo this man? What was veo him shaped his thinking.
The other day it was ve for him to think that the property be divided; now it is inveo think that property be divided.
Now the division of property would mean dividing his car, dividing his bungalow.
The man who doesnt have a beautiful woman very well say that women should also be socialized.
Why should some men have a monopoly over beautiful women? Women should belong to all.
There are people who think this way.
There are people on this earth who propound, "Today property, tomorrow women.
" And there is nothing wrong in it, because all along you have beeing women as your property anyway.
If one says, "It is wrong that one man should live in a big house and the other in a shanty," then what is the problem iioning, "Why should one man have a pretty woman and another man not? The division should be equal.
" These are danger signals.
Sooner or later such questions will surely e up.
The day property is distributed, the question of sharing women is bound to arise.
But the man who has a beautiful woman will certainly protest.
He will say, "How this be possible? What nonsense are you talking about? This is all wrong!"
So venience shapes our thinking; our thoughts are formed out of venience.
All our thoughts either foster our venience or remove our invenience.
A vision is something else.
A vision has nothing to do with venience.
Remember, therefore, that having a vision is a tapascharya, a deep personal itment to knowing the truth.
Tapascharya means one is not ed with veniences; instead, one has to know whatever is, whichever way it is.
So the fact of death has to be seen, not thought about.
You will think acc to your venience; your venieermines your thinking.
It is not a question of venience.
We have to know what death is, see it as it is.
Your veniences and inveniences make no difference.
Whatsoever is, that has to be known.
As soon as you e to know it a transformation happens in your life -- because death is not.
The moment you know death, you e to realize that it is not.
You believe in its existenly as long as you have not known it.
The experience of ignorance is death; the experience of awareness is immortality.
There are a few more questions which we will be able to discuss during the night session.
Noill sit for the m meditation.
Meditation meah.
Meditation means to move into what is, where we are.
Therefore one moves into meditation only when one is ready for dying, not otherwise.
Be seated with a little distance from each other.
Be seated making a little space around yourself.
Those who want to lie down, do so beforehand.
Also, if someone feels like lying down during the experiment he should do so.
And sit at a little distance from each other so that no one falls over you if someone lies down, or falls over.
Close your eyes
.
leave your eyes relaxed and close the eyelids
.
leave your eyes relaxed and close the eyelids.
Relax your body
.
relax your body
.
relax your body
Leave the body pletely relaxed as if there is no life in it.
One day life will leave you, so feel it by dropping it now.
One day life will leave you totally; even if you want to keep it, it wont stay.
So pull the same life deep within
.
ask the life to retreat within, and leave the body relaxed.
Go on relaxing the body pletely.
Now I will give some suggestions, and you feel them along with me.
The body is relaxing
.
feel it, the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing.
Go on loosening it, feel that the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing.
The body goes on relaxing
.
goes on dying
.
goes on dying.
We are going on slipping ihere where life is.
Let go
.
let go
.
let go of the wave, be oh the o.
Let go of the body pletely, let it fall if it wants to, dont worry about it.
Do not prevent it
.
do not keep any hold over it
.
let go
The body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is going on relaxing
.
the body is relaxing
.
the body is relaxing.
Let go
.
as if it is dead, as if the body has bee pletely lifeless.
We have slipped withinwards
.
the sciousness has slipped withinwards
.
the body has remained just like a shell
.
if it falls it falls.
The body has relaxed
.
the body has relaxed
.
the body has pletely relaxed.
The breathing is calming down
.
the breathing is calming down.
Leave the breathing also relaxed.
The breathing is going on calming down
.
the breathing is calming down.
Retreat back even from the breathing, call your energy back from there too.
The breathing is going on calming down
.
the breathing is calming down
.
the breathing is calming down
.
the breathing is calming sown
.
the breathing is calming down, is calming down.
Leave it relaxed
.
leave the breathing relaxed
.
the breathing is going on calming down
.
the breathing is going on calming down
.
the breathing has relaxed.
Leave the thoughts also
.
move back from them too
.
move further back from them.
The thoughts are relaxing
.
the thoughts are relaxing.
Go on feeling
.
the thoughts are relaxing
.
the thoughts are relaxing
.
the thoughts are going on relaxing.
The thoughgts are also dropping
.
you have moved further back
.
you have moved further back.
The thoughts are going on calming down
.
the thoughts are going on calming down
.
the thoughts are going on calming down
.
the thoughts have calmed down.
Now, for ten minutes just remain awake within, remain scious within.
Look within wakefully.
Oside, death has happened.
The body is lying down, almost dead, away
.
we have retreated back
.
the sciousness has remained lit like a flame.
You are only knowing
.
only seeing.
Remain just a watcher
.
settle in the seeing.
For ten minutes only go on looking within, do not do anything else, only go on looking.
Inside
.
more inside
.
go on looking inside
.
slowly, slowly you would have slipped into depths
.
as if one goes on falling in a deep well
.
goes on falling
.
goes on falling.
Look
.
for ten minutes just remain looking.
(A deep silence prevails
.
after few minutes, Osho starts giving suggestions again.
)
Drop yrip pletely
.
and go deeper within
.
go deeper within.
Only go on looking wakefully
.
slowly, slowly
.
slowly, slowly, everything will turn into a void.
Only a flame of knowing will go on burning in the void, that "I am knowing"
.
am knowing
.
am seeing
.
am seeing.
Drop it pletely, drop all your trol
.
drown in the depths and go on looking
.
the mind will go on quietening.
Mind is beiy
.
mind is beiy
.
let go totally
.
disappear
.
just die.
Disappear pletely from outside
.
let go pletely from outside
.
as if a wave may disappear and bee the o.
Let go pletely
.
do not keep even the least grip.
Mind is beiy
.
mind is beiy
.
mind is beiy.
Mind has bee pletely empty
.
mind has bee empty
.
mind has bee empty.
Only a flame has remained burning
.
a flame of knowing
.
of seeing.
For all the rest, as if death has happened
.
the body will be seen lying at a distance
.
your own body will be seen so far away
.
your owhing will seem to be so far away.
Inside
.
more inside
.
drown
.
let go pletely
.
do not keep any grip
.
let go
.
let go
.
let go pletely.
Let go totally.
If the body wants to drop, let it drop
.
let go pletely
.
bee a void
.
bee a void pletely.
Mind has bee a void
.
mind has bee a void
.
only a flame of knowing has remained inside
.
everthing elso has bee a void
.
eveything has disappeared.
Let go
.
let go pletely
.
show the ce to die
.
die pletely from outside.
The body has bee lifeless
.
we have slipped pletely inside
.
we have slipped pletely inside
.
only a flame he heart has remained burning.
We are seeing
.
we are knowing
And everything has disappeared
.
we have remained only a watcher.
The mind has bee pletely a void.
Look ily into this void
.
inside, look at this void.
A great spectrum of bliss will unfold within that very void
.
a great light of bliss will fill that very void.
A waterfall may emerge and only bliss flows all around, which spreads all over you, in your every fiber, in your each particle.
Look ily in that void
.
and just as a flower blossoms when the sun rises, similarily the spring of bliss bursts forth looking at the void within.
Only the bliss prevails all over, all around.
Look
.
look within
.
let that spring burst forth
.
look within
.
as if a fountain of bliss opens up and bliss abounds all over.
Now, slowly take a few deep breaths.
The breath will appear to be far away.
Slowly take a deep breath
.
keep watg the breath.
The mind will bee even calmer.
Slowly take a few deep breaths
.
slowly take a few deep breaths
.
slowly take a few deep breaths.
The mind will bee even calmer
.
the mind will bee even calmer.
Thehe eyes slowly
.
open the eyes slowly
.
e back from meditation.
Those who are lying down or have fallen down, take a deep breath slowly
.
then open your eyes
.
a up very slowly aly.
Chapter 7
I Teach Death
31 October 1969 pm iion Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: ARE YOU TEAG PEOPLE HOW TO DIE? ARE YOU TEAG DEATH? YOU SHOULD TEACH LIFE INSTEAD.
He is right, I am ieag people how to die.
I am teag the art of dying, because one who learns the art of dying bees an expert i of living as well.
One who agrees to die bees worthy of living the supreme life.
Only those who have known how to erase themselves also e to know how to be.
These may seem like opposite things because we have taken life ah to be opposing each other, tradictory, but they are not.
We have created a false tradi betweewo, and that has produced fatal results.
Perhaps nothing has caused so much harm to the human race as this tradi.
Subsequently, this tradi has had ramifications on many levels.
If we divide things which are essentially oo separate parts -- not only separate but tradictory parts -- the ultimate result be nothing but the creation of a schizophrenisane man.
Lets assume there is a place where mad people live.
Great difficulty and trouble would arise if these people were to believe that cold and hot were not only separate but tradictory things -- for the simple reason that cold and hot are not tradictory, they are different degrees of qualifying the same thing.
Our experience of cold and hot is not absolute, it is very relative.
A little experiment will make this clear.
We always find things which are hot and things which are cold.
We also see that something which is hot is hot, and something which is cold is cold -- we ot believe the same thing be hot and cold at the same time.
Now, when you go bae do a little experiment.
Take a pot taining hot water, a pot taining cold water, and a pot taining water at room temperature.
Put one hand i water and another hand in cold water.
Now take both hands out and place them ier at room temperature.
One hand will feel the water is cold and the other will feel the same water is hot.
Is that water hot or cold? One hand will say it is hot, the other will say it is cold.
Then what is the nature of the water really? If, simultaneously, one hand feels it is hot and the other feels the same water is cold, then we will have to realize the water is her hot nor cold -- its feeling hot or cold is relative to our hands.
Hot and cold are degrees of the same thing -- they are not two different things.
The distin between them is of quantity, not of quality.
Have you ever thought about the distin between childhood and old age? Ordinarily we think they are opposite to each other -- childhood on the one hand, old age oher.
But what is the distin between childhood and old age really? The difference is only of years, the difference is only of days; the difference is not qualitative, it is only quantitative.
For example, there is a child aged five.
We call him "an old man of five" -- whats wrong with that? It is simply linguistic usage that we say "a child five years of age.
" If we want to we call him -- as is done in English -- "five years old," which also mean "an old man of five.
" One is just an old man of seventy, while there is someone who is five years old.
What is the difference? If we want, we call a seventy -- year-old man a seventy-year-old child -- after all, a child grows into an old man.
But when we look at them separately they seem like two tradictory things.
It seems like childhood and old age are trary to each other, but if they are, then no child ever bee old.
How he? How two trary things be the same? Have you ever been able to he day a child turned into an old man? or whiight? you note on a dar that on sud-such a day this man was a child and then on sud -- such a day he became old?
In fact, the problem is
For example, there are steps leading to the terrace.
You see the lower steps and you see the steps oop as well, but you may not be able to see the steps in the middle se.
It may look as if the lower steps and the steps on top are separate, far away from each other.
But one who see the whole staircase will deny such a distin.
He will say, "The differeweeeps below and the steps above only appears because of the steps iween.
The very step at the bottom is ected with the step oop.
"
The differeween hell and heaven is not of quality, the difference is only of quantity.
Dont think hell and heaven are trary, diametrically opposite to each other.
The differeween hell and heaven is the same as between cold and hot, between the lower rung and the higher rung, between a child and an old man.
The same sort of differes between birth ah; otherwise one who is born will never be able to die.
If birth ah were trary to each other, how could birth end ih? We only reach to a point of our natural growth.
Birth grows into death -- this means birth ah are two ends of the same thing.
We sow a seed, it grows into a plant, and then it bees a flower.
Have you ever believed there was any oppositioween the seed and the flower? The flrows out of the seed itself and bees a flower.
Growth is in the seed.
Birth turns into death.
God knows from what kind of foolishness and during what unfortuimes the idea became fixed in the human mind that birth ah are dious, that life ah are two separate things.
We want to live; we dont want to die -- but we dont know that death is already part of life.
Once we decide we dont want to die, it bees a certainty, that very moment, that our lives will be filled with problems and difficulties.
The whole of mankind has bee schizophrenic.
Mans mind is split into parts, intments, and there is a reason for this.
We have takeality of life as if it were made up of parts, and itted each part against the other.
Man is the same, but we have created divisions inside him and have also determihat these divisions are trary to each other.
We have dohis in all spheres.
We tell a person, "Dont be angry, be fiving," without realizing that the differeween anger and fiveness is again only of degrees -- as it is between cold and hot, between childhood and old age.
We say that anger, reduced to the lowest, is fiveness -- there is no diy between them.
But all the age-old precepts of mankind teach us, "Get rid of anger and adopt fiveness" -- as if anger and fiveness are such opposite things that you drop anger aain fiveness.
Such a thing only result in splitting man intments and in bringing him trouble.
All of our past belief systems say that sex and brahmacharya, celibacy, are trary to each other.
Nothing be more erroneous than this.
The lowest point of sex is brahmacharya.
Sex, dropping downward, decreasing, is brahmacharya.
The distaweewo is not one of enmity and tradi.
Remember, in this world there is nothing at all like tradi.
In fact, there ever be anything like tradi in the world, because if there were, there would be no way to uhe opposites.
If birth ah were separate entities, birth would move along its own course ah on its own -- nowhere would they meet.
Just as two parallel lines do anywhere, ing would ever take place between birth ah.
Birth ah are iwihey are two ends of a tinuum.
When I say this, what I am actually saying is that if man is to be saved from going insane in the near future, we will have to accept life in its totality.
We t afford any loo create divisions and to pit one part against the other.
It is se that one who says, "Sex is trary to brahmacharya, so lets get rid of sex," will himself be ultimately destroyed in his attempts to get rid of sex.
Such a person ever attain brahmacharya.
Striving to cut off sex from his life, his mind will remain fixed on sex alone -- there is no way he ever attain brahmacharya.
His mind will be iension and trouble forever -- right there, thats his death.
His life will bee too onerous.
He will bee heavy and wont be able to live at all -- not even for a moment.
He will be irouble.
If you look at it this way -- and this is the fact -- then what I am saying is that sex and brahmacharya are related to each other, just as the lowest and the highest rungs are.
As man moves up the ladder of sex, he enters into brahmacharya.
Brahmacharya is nothing but sex reduced to its lowest degree.
One reaches to a point where it almost feels as if everything has bee empty -- it is reag to the ultimate end.
Then there is no tradi in life, no tension.
Then there is lessness in life.
Then we live a natural life.
What I am talking about is how to live a most natural life, in all its aspects.
We dont live naturally at any level, because we have learhe ways of living life unnaturally.
If you were to tell a person, "Walk only with your left foot, because the left foot stands fihteousness.
Dont walk on yht foot because the right foot represents unrighteousness
" If the mao believe this -- and there are lots of people who would believe this; people to believe in such stupid ideas have always been found.
So you would e across people who would agree that to walk on the left foot is righteous, and to walk on the right foot is unrighteous.
Then they would begin cutting their right foot off and trying to walk on the left foot.
They would never be able to walk.
We only walk with the bined movement of both legs.
A leg never walks alone, by itself, although only one leg moves forward at a time.
Walking, you only lift o a time, which may create the wrong impression that you walk on one foot.
But dont fet that the o a standstill, the one in repose, is as important as the one in motion.
The day oains brahmacharya, the sex in repose is instrumental in that attai -- in the same way as the stationary right leg is instrumental in the left legs moving forward.
The left leg would not be able to move without the help of the right one.
Sex which has bee still bees the foothold for the arising of brahmacharya.
One take the step of brahmacharya only when sex has ceased to move.
Uprooting the foothold of sex, breaking it, will certainly result in cutting off sex, but that wont help in achieving brahmacharya.
Instead, man will remain hanging in limbo -- in the same way all the age-old teags have left humanity hanging in limbo.
What we see around us in life is nothing but the movement of the left and the right step, of the left and the right foot.
In life everything is ied.
The apparent diversity is like the notes of a great symphony.
If you cut anything out, you will find yourself in difficulty.
Someone may say the color black signifies evil.
Thats why no one is allowed to wear black at marriages; black is allowed at somebodys death.
There are people who believe black is a sign of evil, and there are people who believe white is a sign of purity.
In a symbolise, it is alright to have such distins, but if someoo say, "Lets get rid of black, lets remove black from the face of the earth," then remember, with the removal of black, very little white will be left behind -- because the whiteness of white stands out in all its sharpness only against a black background.
The teacher writes on a blackboard with white chalk.
Is he out of his mind? Why doesnt he write on the white wall? Of course one write on a white wall, but the letters wont stand out.
White mas because of the black background; black is in fact causing the white to stand out.
Remember, the white of the man who invites enmity with black will iably grow dull, insipid.
One who is against showing anger, his fiveness will be impotent.
The strength of fiveness lies in anger; only one who be angry has the power to be fiving.
The more fierce the ahat much greater will be the magnanimity of fiveness.
The power of aself will lend luster to the act of fiveness.
In the absence of ahe fiveness will appear totally lackluster, absolutely lifeless, dead.
If a persons sex is destroyed -- and there are means to destroy sex -- then remember, that will not make him a brahmacharya, a celibate, he will simply turn into an impotent person.
And there is a fual differeweewo things.
There are ways to do away with sex, but a man ot bee a brahmacharya by doing away with sex, he only bee impotent.
By transf sex, by accepting it, by moving its energy towards a higher level, one certainly attain brahmacharya.
But remember, the brilliance you see in the eyes of a brahmachari, a celibate, is the brilliance of sex energy itself.
The energy is the same, but transformed.
What I am saying is that what we call opposites are not opposites -- life sists of a very mysterious order.
In this mysterious order opposites have beeed so that things exist.
You must have seen a heap of bricks piled up in front of a house under stru.
All the bricks are the same.
Then the architect, the engineer, in order to make an arch for a doorway in the house, lays the bricks in opposing order.
The bricks are the same, but making the doorway he places them opposite each other so they hold each other.
He wouldnt be able to make the arch if he placed them in the same order -- the doorway would fall immediately.
Bricks laid in the same order carry nth; there is an them.
Wherever resistance occurs a strength is created.
All strength es with opposition; all energy is produced from fri.
In life, the principle of polarity is behind the creation of energy, power.
The bricks are all alike, but they are placed in opposite order.
God, the divine architect of life, is very intelligent.
He knows that life will bee cold immediately, will dissolve right away if the bricks are not laid in opposition to each other.
So he has placed anger opposite fiveness, sex opposite brahmacharya, and because of the resistance preseween them, an energy is created.
And that energy is life.
He has put the bricks of birth ah together, fag each other, and thus of both a gateway to life is created.
There are people who say, "We will only accept the brick of life, we wont accept the brick of death.
" Thats fine.
Suit yourself.
But if you dont accept death you will die that very moment, because then all the bricks that are left will be alike.
Only the bricks of life will be left -- and they will collapse right away.
This mistake has beeed many a time.
For the last ten thousand years man has been badly afflicted with and troubled by this mistake.
He insists on plag bricks that are all alike; he doesnt want opposing bricks.
"Remove the polarity," he says.
He says, "If we believe in God, then thats all well believe in.
Then we wont believe in samsara, in the mundane world.
If God is, then there is no samsara; then we ever accept the mundane life.
We t be in the marketplace, we t attend to our businesses; because we believe in God well beonks aire to the forests.
" That man would like to create his world with the bricks of God.
you imagine what the sequences would be if, by mistake, worldly people were to go crazy and beonks? From that very day things wouldnt move an inch; from that day the whole world would be in ruins.
In fact, the man who is a monk has no idea that he is surviving, that his left foot moves forward, because someone, a worldly man, is running a store in the marketplace out there.
One foot is rooted there; thats why the monks foot is free to move.
The monks very life-breath es from the worldly man.
He is uhe illusion that he is living on his own, but the fact is, all his nourishment es from the mundane world.
A he goes about cursing the worldly man; he goes on telling him, "Renouhe world and bee a monk.
" He doesnt realize he is creating a situation for universal suicide this way -- a situation even he t escape from: he will die as well.
He is thinking of using bricks that are all alike.
There are also people who say the opposite.
They say, "Theres no God, theres just this world and nothing else.
We only believe in matter.
" And, believing only in matter, they also tried to create a world of their own.
They too ?99lｉb.e landed in trouble.
Where they have arrived, suicide will happen there as well -- because if there is only matter and no God, thehing that lends savor to life, that makes life charming, that gives movement to life, that creates the desire to rise, will be gone.
If oo believe there is no God, that there is nothing but matter, then what meaning is there in life? Then life bees totally useless.
Thats why people like Sartre, Camus, Kafka and others talk so much about meaninglessness in the West.
Today, with one voice, all Western philosophers are saying that life is meaningless.
What Shakespeare once said has bee relevant all of a sudden, aern thinkers are now reiterating it in the text of life itself: "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
" There ot be any significe, any meaning, because you have put together only briatter, and of matter alone.
Meaning is bound to disappear absolutely.
Just as there being only monks would take meaning away from the world, there being worldly people alone would also take meaning away.
It is iing that the worldly man survives with the help of the renunciate and the renunciate survives with the help of the worldly man -- in the same way the left foot is depe on the right foot and the right foot is depe on the left foot.
On the surface this dependence appears as a tradi, but deep down it is not.
Both feet are part of the same being: one keeps it rooted; the other causes it to move.
No one experiehe whole truth of life without uanding this tradi correctly.
A person who, in his opposition, insists on cutting out the half of it has not yet attained enough intelligence.
You do away with the half, of course, but as soon as that happens the remaining half will die as well -- because, uionably, the latter half received its life energy from the first half and from nowhere else.
I have heard
Two monks were involved in an ongoing dispute.
One believed it is good to have some money on you, that it be useful in emergencies.
His friend, the other monk, used tue, "Why do we need money? We are renunciates, what do we need money for? Only worldly people keep money.
" Both used to put forward arguments in support of their respective views, and it seemed like their arguments were correct.
The great mystery of this universe is that you present an equal number uments in support of any of the opposing bricks used in its creation, and the dispute ever end because both bricks are used equally.
Anyone point out, "Look, the universe is created of my bricks," while someone else argue against this, saying, "No, the universe is made of my bricks.
"
And life is so vast that very few people evolve enough to see that the whole doorway is made of opposing bricks.
The rest merely see the bricks that fall within the range of their view.
They say, "You are right, the universe is a creation of sannyas.
You are right, Brahman is the source of the universe.
You are right, the universe is made of atman.
" Other people say, "The universe is made of matter, it is made of nothing but dust.
Everything will eventually turn into dust -- Dust unto dust.
" These people also show only the bricks that fall within their particular view.
In this whole affair her the theist nor the atheist wins the argument; her the materialist nor the spiritualist wins.
They ot.
Their statements are ing from a diized view of life.
So there was a great dispute between these monks.
One maintai is necessary to have money, while the other disagreed.
One evening, in a great hurry, they arrived at a river.
It was close to nightfall.
One of the monks approached the boatman, who was tying up his boat for the night, and said, "Please dont tie your boat up yet, bring us across the river.
Night is approag and we must reach the other side.
"
The boatman said, "Sorry, I am finished for the day and now I have to go bay village.
Ill take you across in the m.
"
The monks said, "No, we t wait until m.
uru, with whom we lived, who taught us what life is all about, is close to dying.
The news is, he will be dead by m.
He has summoned us.
We t stay ht.
"
The boatman said, "Okay, Ill take you over for five rupees.
" The monk who had argued in favor of carrying money laughed and, looking at the other monk, said, "What do you think, my friend? Is carrying money worthless or meaningful?" The other monk simply kept laughing.
The monk paid five rupees to the boatman -- he had won.
After reag the other shore, the monk said again, "What do you say, my friend? We would have been uo cross the river if we hadnt had the money.
"
The seonk laughed uproariously.
He said, "We crossed the river not because you had money, but because you could part with it! We were able to cross the river not because you had money but because you could let go of it.
" So the argument remained.
The seonk tinued, "I always said a monk must have the ce to let go of money.
We could give it up; thats why we could cross the river.
If you had kept holding on to it, if you had not let it go, how could we have crossed the river?"
So the problem remained.
The first monk also joined in the laughter.
They came to their guru.
They asked him, "What shall we do? This has bee quite a problem.
What happeoday illustrates our differences suctly.
One of us believes we crossed the river because we had money on us, while the other says we were able to cross because we let money go.
We are firm in our beliefs, ah seem to be right.
"
The guru laughed a belly laugh.
He said, "You are both crazy.
You are itting the same kind of foolishness mankind has done fes.
"
"What is that foolishness?" the monks asked.
The guru said, "Eae of you is looking at one side of the truth.
It is true you could hire the boat and cross the river only because you let go of money -- but the other side is equally true: you could part with your money because you had moo part with.
It is true, of course, that you were able to cross the river because you had money on you.
But the other part is equally true.
Had you not had any money you wouldnt have been able to cross.
You crossed because you let go of money.
So both things are right.
There is no tradi between them.
"
But we have created such diies in all levels of our lives.
And a belief iher of the two parts provide a ving argument in its support.
It is not difficult, because after all, a man has at least half of life to draw upon -- he is living half his life; thats not a small matter.
It is more than enough tue for.
So nothing will be solved by arguing.
Life will have to be iigated, known in its totality.
I certainly teach death, but that does not mean I am against life.
What it means is: death is the gateway to know life, tnize life as well.
What it means is: I dont see life ah as trary to each other.
Whether I call it the art of dying or whether I call it the art of living -- both mean the same thing.
It depends on how we look at it.
You may ask, "Why dont you call it the art of living?" There are reasons for it.
The first thing is, we have bee extremely attached to life.
And this attat has bee very unbalanced.
I call it the art of living too, but I wont, because you are too attached to life.
If I should say, "e lear of living," you would e running because you would want tthen your attat to life.
I call it the art of dying so you regain your balance.
If you learn how to die, then life ah will stand before you equally; they will bee your left and right foot.
Then you will attain to the ultimate life.
In its ultimate state life taiher birth nor death, but it is made of the tects we call birth ah.
Of course, if there is a town where people are suicidal, where no one wants to live, I wont go there and talk about the art of dying.
There I will say, "Lear of living.
" And as I tell you, "Meditation is the gateway to death," I would tell the people of that town, "Meditation is the gateway to life.
" I would tell them, "e, learn how to live, because unless you have learned how to live, you wont know how to die.
If you wish to die, the me teach you how to live -- because once you have learned how to live you will have learned how to die as well.
" Only then would the people of that town e to me.
Your town is just the opposite: you are residents of a town where no one wants to die, where everyone wants to live, where people want to g to life so hard they keep death away forever.
Therefore, I am pelled to talk to you about death.
It has nothing to do with me; because of you I am calling it the art of dying.
I have been saying the same thing all along.
Once Buddha entered a village.
It was early m and the sun was just about to appear on the horizon.
A man came to him and said, "I am an atheist, I dont believe in God.
What do you think? Is there God?"
Buddha said, "God alone is.
There is nothing but God everywhere.
"
The man said, "But I was told that you are an atheist.
"
"You must have heard wrongly," said Buddha.
"I am a theist.
Now you have heard it from my own lips.
I am the greatest theist ever.
There is God, and nothing but God.
" The man stood there uhe tree with an uneasy feeling.
Buddha moved on.
Another man came at noon and said, "I am a theist.
I am an absolute believer in God.
I am an enemy of atheists.
I have e to ask you, what do you think about Gods existence?"
Buddha said, "God? her is there one, nor there ever be one.
There is absolutely no God.
"
The man couldnt believe his ears.
"What are you talking about?" he exclaimed.
"I heard a religious man had e to this village, so I came to ask whether God is.
And whats this you are saying?"
Buddha said, "A religious man? A believer in God? I am the greatest atheist ever.
"
The man stood there utterly fused.
We uand this mans fusion -- but Ananda, a disciple of Buddhas, was in a terrible suspense; he had heard both versations.
He became very restless; he couldnt figure out what was going on.
It was all right in the m, but by afternoon it became a problem.
"What has happeo Buddha?" Ananda woo himself.
"In the m he said he was the greatest theist, while iernoon he said he was the greatest atheist.
" He made up his mind to ask Buddha in the evening, when he would be alone.
But by evening Ananda was in for yet another surprise.
By the time it was evening another person came to Buddha and said, "I dont uand whether there is God or not.
" The man must have been an agnostie who says he doesnt know whether God is or not.
No one knows, and no one ever know.
So he said, "I dont know whether there is God or not.
What do you say? What do you think?"
Buddha replied, "If you dont know, then I dont kher.
And it would be good if we both remained silent.
"
Listening to Buddhas ahis man was founded as well.
He said, "I had heard you are enlightened, so I thought you must have known.
"
Buddha said, "You must have heard wrong.
I am an absolutely ignorant man.
What knowledge I have?"
Just try to feel what Ananda must have gohrough.
Put yourself in his shoes.
you see his difficulty? When it was night and everyone had left, he touched Buddhas feet and said, "Are y to kill me? What are you doing? I almost lost my life! Never have I been so upset aless as I have been today.
What is this you have been saying and doing the whole day? Are you in yht mind? Are you sure you know what you said today? In the m you said ohing, iernoon another, and in the evening you gave airely different ao the same question.
"
Buddha said, "I did not give these ao you.
I gave my ao the people ed.
Why did you listen to them? Do you think it is right to hear what I say to others?"
Ananda said, "Now this tops it all! How in the world could I not hear? I resent, right there; my ears were not blocked! And could it ever be possible I wouldnt want to hear you speak? I love to hear you speak, no matter who you talk to.
"
Buddha said, "But why are you upset? I didnt answer you!"
Ananda said, "Maybe not, but I am in a quandary.
Please answer me, right now.
What is the truth? Why did you give three different answers?"
Buddha explained, "I had t the three of them to a point of balance.
The man who came in the m was an atheist.
Being an atheist only he was inplete, because life is made of opposites.
"
Keep this in mind: a truly religious person is both -- an atheist on one hand, and a believer in God oher hand.
His life tains both aspects, but he brings harmoweewo opposites.
Religion is in that very harmony.
And one who is only a believer in God lacks religious maturity.
He has not yet attained a balan his life.
So Buddha said, "I had t a balao his life.
One side of him had bee very heavy, so I had to put some rocks oher scale.
And besides, I also wao ule him, because somehow he had bee vihere is no God.
His vi o be shaken up, because one who bees certain, dies.
The journey must go on; the search must tinue.
"The man who came iernoon was a theist.
I had to tell him I was an atheist because he had bee lopsided too; he had also lost his balance.
Life is a balance.
One who attains this balaains the truth.
"
The reason I say to you, you should lear of dying is because your life has bee lopsided.
You are sitting very solidly on the scale of life, and so everything has turo rock.
Life has bee solidified; the balance is gone.
Go ahead.
Invite death as well.
Say, "e and be my guest too.
Well stay together.
" The day life agrees to live with death, it is transformed into life supreme.
The day one weles death, gives it a hug, embraces it, the matter is over! That day the sting of death departs.
The sting lay in our running away from death, in our being afraid of it.
When a person es forward and embraces death, death loses, death is quered, because the man who embraces death bees immortal.
Now death t do anything to him.
What death do when the man himself is ready to disappear?
There are two types of people -- one whom death seeks and the other who seeks death.
Death seeks those who run away from it.
And there are those who seek death, but it keeps eluding them.
They seardlessly but t fih.
What kind of a person would you like to be -- the one who runs away from death or the one who embraces it? A person eludih will tio be defeated; his entire life will be a lifelong story of defeat.
One who embraces death will instantly triumph over it; defeat will no longer exist in his life.
Then his life bees a triumphant journey.
Yes, I teach the very art of dying.
I am teag you how to die so you may attain life.
Do you know a secret? The man who learns how to live in darkness -- the moment he accepts the totality of darkness, the darkurns into light for him.
Do you know that the man who takes poison lovingly, joyfully, as if he were takiar -- the poison bees ar for him? If you dont, then you must find out.
One of the most profound truths of life is that the man ts poison lovingly, the poison no longer remains poison for him -- it turns into ar.
And the man who has accepted darkness itself, wholeheartedly, finds to his astonishment that darkness has bee light.
And one who greets pain with open arms, finds there is no pain at all -- only happiness remains for him.
For one ts his state of agitation and agrees to live with it, the doors of pead tranquility are thrown open.
This seems tradictory.
Remember, however, that one who says he wants to attain peace ever bee peaceful, because to say "I want to attain peace," is, in fact, looking for disturbance.
Man is restless as he is, ahere are some who create a new restlessness by saying, "We want to be peaceful.
"
Once a man came to me.
He said, "I have been to the Ramana ashram, to Pondicherry, and to the Ramakrishna ashram -- they are all full of hypocrisy.
I couldnt find anything else there.
I am looking for peace, which I find nowhere.
I have been wandering in search of it for the last two years.
In Pondicherry someoioned your name.
I have e straight from there.
I eace.
"
I said, "Get up and walk out that dht this moment, otherwise I shall be proven to be a hypocrite as well.
"
He said, "What do you mean?"
I said, "Simply get out.
And dont ever look ba this dire again.
It is better I save myself before I am called a hypocrite as well.
"
"But I have e to find peace," the man said.
"Simply get lost," I said.
"A me ask you this: who did you go to and ask how to be in agony? Which guru has initiated you into agitation? Which ashram did you go to, to learn how to be restless?"
"I went nowhere," the man replied.
Then I said, "You are such a clever fellow, you evee mental disturbance for yourself.
Then what is there for me to teach you?" The way you have created yitation, take an opposite route and you will find peace.
What do you want from me? Dont tell anyone you came to see me too, even by mistake.
I have nothing to do with whats happening to you!"
The man said, "Please show me the way to find peace.
"
I told him, "You are looking for ways of being agitated.
There is only one way to attain peace: be at peace with restlessness.
"
One ts restlessness in its totality, one who says, "e, stay with me.
Be my guest in this very home," suddenly finds the restlessness has left him.
With the ge in our state of mind the restlessness departs.
One ts even the restlessness itself, his mind quiets down.
How restlessness last if the mind is attuo peace?
Even though it may be a noance of restlessness, the very restlessness itself is the product of our attitude of noance.
One who says he will not accept beiless will tio be restless, because this very non-acceptance is itself the root of restlessness.
A man says, "I wont accept restlessness, I t accept suffering, I t accept death, I t accept darkness.
" Thats just fine, dont accept them -- but you will tio be surrounded by what you will not accept.
Instead, see what happens by accepting, by agreeing to something no one else wants to agree to.
And to yreat surprise you will find what you sidered your enemy became your friend.
If you invite your eo be yuest, what other course is there for him but to bee your friend?
The reason for my discussing these issues with you for three days was because I saw you came here with the desire to quer death.
You must have thought I would let you in on some trick so you would never die.
A friend has written a letter in which he says:
Question 2
ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW US HOW TO REJUVENATE OUR BODIES? ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME ALCHEMICAL METHOD TO BEE YOUNG AGAIN? IF THATS THE CASE THEN ITS WORTH SPENDING OUR MOO E THERE.
Maybe you have e here with the same idea too.
If so, you will be disappointed, because I am teag the art of dying here.
I say unto you: Die! Learn how to die.
Why run away from death? Accept it, wele it.
And remember, I am giving you the very key to be victorious over death.
Rejuvenation is not the key for attaining victory over death.
No matter how much you gh a process of rejuvenation, you will still have to die.
The body is sure to die.
Rejuvenation only push death a little further away; death be avoided a little longer.
It only means your problems will be extended over a longer period -- instead of dying iy years, you might be able to die in seven hundred years.
The suffering you could have otherwise finished with iy years will be prolonged for sev9９ｌｉｂ.
en hundred years -- what else? The troubles of seventy years will extend to seven hundred.
The quarrels of seventy years will tinue up to seven hundred.
The problems of seventy years will spread over seven hundred years -- they will be stretched that much, multiplied.
What else do you think will happen?
This may not have occurred to you, but if you really should e across someone who could give you a potion and say, "Take this and you will live for seven hundred years," you would tell him, "Wait a minute, let me think it over.
" I dont believe any one of you would agree to take a potion that would extend life for seven hundred years.
So what does that mean? That means "I will tio be as I am.
This very I will now have to live for seven hundred years.
" And that would prove to be very costly; it would have very grave sequences.
Should stists someday discover how man live infinitely -- and such a discovery is possible; it is not difficult -- remember, people will start looking furu to teach them how to die quickly.
Just as now people are looking furus who rejuveheir bodies, people then will look for someone who will show them the secret, the teique of dying, so that even stists will not be able to save them.
They will try to cheat the gover so they ease themselves out of life.
We have absolutely no idea that aended life has no meaning.
The meaning of life es with living.
An individual live so totally in one moment -- more totally than another man could even in an infinite number of lives.
Its a matter of living, and only a man who has no fear of death live -- otherwise how he live? The fear of death keeps man trembling -- he ands still; he keeps running all the time.
Have you noticed that speed is tinuously on the increase in the world? Everything is speedy.
In one respect a rocket is better than a bullock cart -- because a rocket take us places faster -- but why so musisten speed? You may not have realized this, but all mans attempts at speed are attempts to escape where he is.
Where he is, he is so scared, he is so afraid, he wants to get away.
He feels he would be better off anywhere except where he is.
All over Europe and America weekends and holidays have bee a great nuisance.
People get more tired on these days than ever.
The idea is to jump into the car and dash off -- fifty miles, a hundred miles, two hundred miles -- to escape to a piic spot, to a mountain, to a hill resort, to the beach.
The motivation for rushing off so fast is because others are running off, are in a hurry too -- they might reach first.
If one asks where they want to reach, they dont know.
Ohing is certain, however: they want to get away from where they are -- away from the house, away from the wife, away from their work.
Man is uo live; thats why there is so much running about.
He wants to go on putting more power into his vehicles so he run faster.
Ask where he is going, where he wants to reach, and his answer will be, "I t tell yht now; I dont have time.
I have to get there soon.
We have to land on the moon; we have to land on Mars.
" All our lives we are running.
What are we running from? What is the fear? The fear is that on the one hand we are uo live fully, and oher hand the fear of death is immi, present.
Both things are interected.
The man who is afraid of death will not be able to live his life; he will remain terrified of death.
Then what is the answer?
You ask me, "Whats the answer? Whats the solution?" I say: accept death.
Invite death and say, "e on, Ill worry about living later -- first you e.
Let me first be finished with you so the matter is over ond for all.
After that Ill live at leisure.
Let me take care of you first, then Ill settle down and live fortably.
" Meditation is the means to accept death with this attitude.
To extend su invitation to death, meditation is the means, meditation is the answer.
One ts death in this way es to a halt immediately.
His speed disappears.
Have you ever watched? When you are angry and you are cyg, you pedal faster.
When you are angry and driving a car, you press the accelerator harder.
Psychologists say car acts happen, not because of bad roads but because of the man on the accelerator -- there is something wrong with the man.
His teeth are ched in anger and he is pressing the accelerator harder, and somehow or other he is wishing to have an act.
He is filled with the desire to crash into something.
Life seems so dull and useless to him that he wants t some excitement, some juito it -- at least by crashing against something, if nothing else.
He thinks hell get some thrill out of it, will feel good about it.
He feels hell have the satisfa that something happened in his life, that it was not a total waste.
Many criminals in Europe and America have given statements in court, saying they had nothing against the person they killed -- they just wao see their names in print, and that was the only way.
A good mans name never appears in the papers; you only see names of murderers and criminals.
There are two types of murderers: those who it a single murder for personal reasons, and those who it collective murder -- the politis.
Only their names are printed in the neers, the rest are ignored.
Although you may be a good citizen, your name will not be in the papers -- but stab a person and it will create headlines.
A criminal fesses in the court, "I had y with the person, I had never seen the man before.
I just looked at his bad plunged a ko it.
When the blood gushed out of the victim I felt satisfied that finally I had done something people would talk about, that my life had not passed in vain.
The neers are filled with the story.
The courts, the big judges and lawyers in their black gowns are discussing my case with great seriousness.
Looking at all this, I feel I have also done something, I am not an ordinary man.
"
A man who is evadih, who is scared of death, has bee so frustrated, so sad and bored that he is ready to indulge in anything.
The ohing he is not doing, however, is welih.
As soon as a man weles death, accepts death, a new door opens in his life -- a door that leads him to the divine.
The word "Die" is inscribed oemple of God, whereas ihe stream of life is overflowing.
Looking at the signboard -- "Die" -- people turn back.
No one goes inside.
Its a very smart idea, a very clever idea, otherwise there would be a crowd inside and it would be difficult to live -- so the temple of life has the signboard "Die" hanging outside.
Those who bee frightened looking at it, run away.
Thats why I said one has to learn how to die.
The biggest secret of life is to learn how to die, how to accept death.
Let the past die every day.
Let us die every day.
We dohe yesterdays past die.
A seventy-year-old mahe happy memories of his childhood alive.
His childhood is not yet dead.
He still carries the desire to return to his childhood.
The man is too old to move about, he is bedridden, but his youth is not yet dead.
He is still thinking about the same things.
He is still dreaming of the female movie stars of his youth, although none of them are the same now.
The pictures are still moving before his eyes; nothing has died.
In fact, our yesterday never dies.
We never gather the ce to die; we never let anything die, and sequently everything piles up.
We dohe dead be dead; instead, we amass it like a heavy load.
And then it bees impossible to live us weight.
So one of the keys to the art of dying is: let the dead be dead.
As Jesus assing by a lake, a wonderful iook place.
It was early m -- the sun was about to rise; the horizon had just turned red.
A fisherman had thrown his in the lake to catch fish.
As he began pulling the out, Jesus placed his hand on the fishermans shoulder and said, "My friend, would you spend all your life catg fish?"
The same question had crossed the fishermans mind many times before.
Is there any mind in which it doesnt? Of course, the fish may be different, the may be different, the lake may be different, but heless, the question arises, "Am I supposed to spend the whole of my life catg fish?"
The fisherman turned around to see who the man as raising the same question he had in his mind.
He looked at Jesus.
He saw his serene, laughing eyes, his personality.
He said, "There is no other way.
Where else I find a lake? Where else I find fish and throw my o catch them? I also ask myself, Will I go on catg fish the rest of my life?"
Then Jesus said, "I am a fisherman too, but I throw my in some other o.
e, follow me if you wish, but remember, only a man throw a new who has the ce to give up his old .
Leave the old behind.
"
The fisherman must have really been a ceous man.
There are very few ceous people like him.
Right there, he dropped the filled with fish.
A desire must have occurred in his mind to at least pull out the hat was already filled, but Jesus said, "Only they throw the new into the new o who have the ce to leave the old behind.
Drop your right there.
" The fisherma go of his and asked, "Tell me where I have to go.
"
Jesus said, "You seem to be a man of ce.
You have the potential to go some place.
e with me!" As they reached the outskirts of the village, a man came running.
He caught hold of the fisherman and said, "You madman, where are you going? Your father, who was ill, has died.
Where were you? We went looking for you at the lake and found your lying there.
Where are you going?"
The fisherman said, "Please let me take leave for a few days to perform my fathers last rites.
Then Ill e back.
"
Jesus words in reply to the fishermaremendously wonderful.
He said, "You fool, let the dead bury the dead! What need is there for you to go? e.
Follow me.
Now one who is dead is already dead, why even bother to bury him? These are all tricks to keep him alive.
So one who is now dead, is dead forever.
And there are many dead people in the village.
They will bury the dead.
You e with me.
"
The fishermaated for a moment.
Watg him, Jesus said, "Perhaps I wrongly uood you could leave your old behind.
" The fisherman paused for a moment and then followed Jesus.
Jesus said, "You are a ceous man.
If you leave the dead behind, you itain to life.
"
Actually, that which has died in the past should be dropped.
You sit iation but then you always e and tell me it never happens, that thoughts keep ing.
Thoughts dont e like that.
The question is, have you ever left them? You always keep holding on to them, how they be at fault? If a man keeps a dog, feeds him, ties him in his house and then suddenly one day sets him loose, turns him out; if the p es back to the man again and again, would the dog be at fault?
All these days you fed the dog, petted him, loved him, played with him, tied a collar around his neck, kept him in your home.
And then all of a sudden you decide to meditate ahe dog to get lost.
How that be? The p has no idea what has happeo you so suddenly, so he wanders around for a while and then es back to you.
He thinks maybe you are having some kind of fun with him, hehe more you drive him out the more playful he bees, the more he keeps ing back to you.
He feels something new is happening, that maybe the master is in a good mood, so he takes more and more i in the game.
You e and tell me thoughts wont leave you.
How they? You have nourished them with your own blood.
You have tied them to yourself; you have put a collar around their necks with your name on it.
Just tell someohat what he thinks is wrong -- he will jump back at you saying, "What do you mean, what I think is wrong? My thoughts ever be wrong!" So the thought with a collar with your name on it es back to you.
How is your thought supposed to know you are meditating? Now you say to your thought, "Get out! Scram!" The thought is not going to go away like this.
We nourish thoughts.
We nourish thoughts of the past, we keep tying them to ourselves.
And then, one day, you want them to leave you all of a sudden.
They wont leave you in one day.
You will have to stop feeding them; you will have to stop rearing them.
Remember, if you want to drop thoughts, stop saying, "My thoughts.
" How you leave something you claim as yours? If you want to get rid of thoughts, then stop taking i in them.
How will they depart unless you stop taking i in them? Otherwise, how will they know you have ged, that you are no longer ied in them?
All our memories of the past are thoughts.
There is a whole work of them we are holding on to.
We dont allow them to die.
Let your thoughts die.
Let the dead remain dead; dont try to keep it alive.
But we are keeping it alive.
This is also a part of the art of dying.
Keep this key in mind too: if you want to lear of dying thehe dead be dead.
Let the past be past.
It no longer exists, let it go.
There is no need even to preserve it in your memory.
Say goodbye to it, let it depart.
Yesterday was finished yesterday; now it is no more -- a keeps its hold over us.
There is another small question.
A friend has asked:
Question 3
WHAT IS A MIND FILLED WITH ILLUSIONS? WHAT IS A VERY FUSED MIND? WHAT IS CLARITY OF MIND?
This o be uood, because it will be useful for meditation as well as in learning the art of dying.
He has asked a very signifit question.
He asks, "What is a fused mind?" But here we make a mistake.
We say, "disturbed mind," "fused mind.
" This is where the mistake is.
What is the mistake? The mistake is we are using two words -- fused and mind -- and the truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as a fused mind.
Rather, the very state of fusion itself is mind.
There is nothing like a fused mind.
Mind is fusion.
Mind is another name for fusion.
And when there is no fusion does not mean that the mind has bee peaceful; then there is no more mind at all.
For example, there is a storm at sea, the sea is restless.
Would you call it a "restless storm"? Would anyone call it a "restless storm"? You would simply call it a storm, because a storm is just another name for restlessness.
And wheorm dies down, do you now say the storm has bee peaceful? You simply say the storm no longer exists.
In uanding the mind, remember too, mind is just another name for fusion.
When peace desds it does not mean the mind bees peaceful; rather, the mind does at all.
A state of no-mind appears.
And when the mind is no more, then what remains is called the atman.
The sea exists evehere is no storm.
Wheorm disappears, the sea remains.
When the fused mind ceases to exist, then what remains is atman, soul.
Mind is not a thing, it is a state of disorder, a state of chaos.
Mind is not a faculty, it is not a substance.
The body is a substahe atman is a substance -- aing as a state of fusion that bees a liweewo, is mind.
In a state of peace, the body remains, the atman remains, but the mind is no more.
There is no such thing as a peaceful mind.
This error in expression is because of the language we have created.
We say an "uhy body," a "healthy body.
" This is okay.
There is an uhy body, of course, and there is a healthy body as well.
With the disappearance of uhiness, a healthy body remains.
But this is not true in the case of the mind.
There is no such thing as a "healthy mind," an "uhy mind.
" Mind by itself is uhy.
Its very being is fusion.
Its very being is uhy.
Its very being is a disease.
So dont ask how you save the mind from being fused, ask how you get rid of this mind.
Ask how this mind die.
Ask how you do away with this mind.
Ask how you let go of this mind.
Ask what be done so that the mind will exist ?９9lｉｂ?no more.
Meditation is a way to be finished with the mind, to part with the mind.
Meditation means to step out of the mind.
Meditation means to move away from the mind.
Meditation meaion of the mind.
Meditation means to stay away from where the fusion is.
By moving away from the fusion, the fusion stills -- because it is our very presehat creates it.
If we move away, it ceases to be.
Say, for instawo people are having a fight.
You have e to fight with me and the fight is on.
If I were to step aside, how would the fight ti would stop, because it only tinue if I make myself a part of it.
We live on a mental plane; resent right where the disorder, where the trouble is going on.
We dont want to get away from there, a we want t peace there.
Peace ot be there.
Just be kind enough to step aside, thats all.
As soon as you step aside, the turmoil will e to an end.
Meditation is not a teique t peace to your mind; rather, it is a teique to move away from the mind.
Meditation is a means to slip away, to turn away from the waves of fusion.
Yet another friend has asked a question which is related to the previous one.
It would be good to uand that as well.
He has asked:
Question 4
WHAT IS THE DIFFEREWEEN TO BE IATION, AND TO DO MEDITATION?
It is the same difference I am already explaining to you.
If a person is doiation, he is trying to make a fused mind peaceful.
What will he do? He will attempt to make his mind quiet.
When an individual is being iation, he is n to quiet down his mind; instead he is slipping away from it.
If it is sunny outside, you may see a man trying to open his umbrella -- and umbrellas be opened outside in the sun; one may stand us shade, or any other shade -- but such umbrellas, however, ever be opened within the mind.
The only kind of umbrella there be in the mind is of thoughts -- but they make no difference.
It is as if a mao stand in the sun with his eyes closed, thinking that an umbrella is over his head and that he is not feeling hot now.
But he is bound to feel hot.
This man is trying to cool down the sun.
He is trying to "do" meditation.
Now there is another man.
When it is sunny outside, he merely gets up, walks ihe house and relaxes.
He is making no effort to cool down the sun, he is merely moving away from the sun.
Doiation means making an effort, an effort to ge the mind.
And to be iation means not making any effort to ge the mind but instead moving within without a sound.
You must take into at the distin betweewo.
If you make an effort to meditate, meditation will never happen.
If you try to make a scious effort, if you sit down, strain your muscles, force yourself, bee determio calm your mind no matter what, it wont work -- because, after all, who will be doing all this? Who will be showiermination? Who else but you?
As it is, you are already fused, restless.
Now you try to calm yourself down -- that means you will be adding one more headache.
You are sitting uptight, ready, disregarding everything.
The more stiff you bee, the further you get into difficulty, the more you go on being tense.
This is not the way.
I ask you to meditate because meditation is relaxation.
You have not to do anything, just be relaxed.
Make sure you uand.
Let me explain a little further through one small principle.
Keep it in mind finally.
A man is swimming in the river.
He says he wants to reach the other side.
The current of the river is swift, and he flaps his arms arying to swim across.
He is getting tired, worn out, broken, but he keeps on swimming.
This man is making an effort to swim.
To swim is an effort for him.
Doiation is an effort too.
Then there is another man.
Instead of swimming he just keeps floating.
He has let himself go in the river.
He does not throw his arms and legs about; he is simply lying in the river.
The river is flowing and, along with the river, so is he.
He is not swimming at all, he is just floating.
An effort is not required to float; floating is merely no-effort.
The meditation I am talking about is like floating, its not like swimming.
Watch a man swimming and a leaf floating in the river.
The delight and the joy of the floating leaf is simply out of this world.
There is no trouble, no hindrano quarrel, no bother for the leaf.
The leaf is very smart.
And whats its smartness? The smartness of the leaf is that it has made the river its boat and is now riding on it.
The leaf is ready and willing to go wherever the river takes it.
The leaf has broken all the strength of the river.
The river do it no harm because the leaf is not fighting against the river.
The leaf doesnt want to create aas just floating.
So the leaf is in plete accord.
Why is that so? It is because now, it is n to fall in accord with the river, it is simply floating; thats all.
Wherever the river wants to take it, so be it.
So keep the floating leaf in mind.
you float like this in the river? There should not be even a thought of swimming, not even the feeling of it; there should be no mind at all.
Have you ever observed that a living man drown in a river whereas a dead man floats on the surface? Have you ever wondered what this is about? A living man drowns, but never a dead man.
He es to the surface right away.
Whats the differehe dead body enters into a state of no-effort.
The dead body does nothing; it ot even if it wished to.
The body es to the surfad floats.
A living man drown because a living man makes an effort to stay alive.
Attempting to do that, he gets tired -- and as he gets tired he drowns.
His fighting drowns him, not the river.
The river t drown the dead man because he doesnt put up any fight.
Since he doesnt fight, losing his strength is out of the question.
The river do no harm to him.
So he floats in the river.
The meditation I am talking about is like floating, not like swimming.
You just have to float.
When I say relax your body, I mean you should let the body float.
Now one does not maintain any hold over the body; now one does not tether oo the shore of the body -- you let it go, you float.
When I say to let go of the breath as well, then do not g to the shore of breathing.
Then leave that too, then float with it also.
Then where will one go? If you let go of the body you will move within; if you hold on to the body you will e out.
How oer the river if he holds on to the shore? He only be ba the shore.
If one leaves the shore, he will ght into the river.
So a stream of life, a stream of divine sciousness is flowing within us, but we are grabbing on to the shore, on to the shore of the body.
Let go of it.
Let go of breathing too.
Let go of thoughts as well.
Now all the shores are left behind.
Where will you go now? Now you will begin to float in that stream which flows within.
One who allows himself to float in that stream reaches the o.
The stream within is like a river, and one who starts floating in it reaches the o.
Meditation is a kind of floating.
One who learns how to float reaches the divine.
Do not swim.
One who swims will go astray.
One who swims will, at the most, leave this shore and reach the other.
What else will he do? What more a swimmer do? He will go from one shore to the other.
This shore brings you out of the river, and so does the other shore.
A poor man, after a great deal of swimming, may bee a rich man at most -- what more? After swimming a great deal, a man occupying a small chair may sit on a high chair in Delhi -- what more will happen?
This shore takes you out of the river, the same as that shore does.
The shore of Dwarka is as outside the river as the shore of Delhi is -- it makes no difference.
A swimmer only reach the shore.
But what about the one who is floating? No shore prevent a floater, because he has let himself go iream.
The stream will carry him.
It is sure to carry him and bring him to the o.
The very goal is to reach the o -- the river bees the o and the individual sciousness bees the divine.
When a drop is lost in the vast o, the absolute meaning of life, the supreme bliss of life, the paramouy of life is attained.
The ultimate thing is: the art of dying is the art of floating.
One who is prepared to die never swims.
He says, "Take me where you will.
I am ready!"
What I have talked about these four days has pertaio this.
Some friends, however, believed I was merely answering questions.
They have written over and ain, "Please say something of your own.
Dont simply answer questions" -- as if someone else were giving the answers!
The problem is that pegs beore important than the clothes hanging on them.
What they are saying is, "Just show us the clothes.
Why are you b to hang them on pegs?" But what am I hanging on the pegs anyway? Whatever I have to say, I will be hanging it on the pegs of your questions.
But thats how our minds are.
I have heard
There was a circus.
Every day, the owner of the circus used to give four bananas to the monkeys in the m and three in the evening.
One m it happehere werent enough bananas in the market, so he gave them three bananas.
The monkeys went on strike.
They said, "This is impossible, we want four bananas in the m.
"
The owner said, "Ill give you four in the evening, take three now.
"
The monkeys insisted, "This has never happened before.
We have always had four bananas in the m.
We want four bananas now!"
The owner said, "Have you gone crazy? Youll have seven bananas altogether anyway.
"
The monkeys persisted, "We dont care about your arithmetic.
All we care about is that we have beeing four bananas every m.
We want four bananas right now!"
On and on friends write to me, "Please say something of your own.
Dont answer questions.
" Indeed I will speak, but the question is, what will I speak? The questions merely serve as pegs; whatever I have to say, I hang on them.
Whether I speak or whether I answer questions, what difference does it make? Who is it that will be answering? Who is it that will be speaking? But they feel I must speak my own stuff because they have beeing four bananas every m.
In each meditation camp there used to be four discourses and four question-and-answer sessions.
This time it has happehat you have turned all the meetings into question-and-answer sessions.
But this makes no difference.
Keep the arithmetic of seven bananas in mind.
Add them together.
There is o t one by ohat there are four in the m and three in the evening, or vice versa.
I have given you all seven bananas.
If you get mixed up ting, you might miss the point.
Thats why, at the end, I have said there are seven bananas.
What I had to say, I have said it all.
Chapter 8
Ignorance of Life is Death
4 November 1969 pm in Bhulabhai Auditorium, Bombay, India
Ma even know what life is.
And if we t know what life is, then there is no possibility of our knowih either.
As long as life itself remains unfamiliar, as long as it remains an enigma, there is no way one be familiar with death, no way one ever know what death is.
The truth is, death seems to occur because we have no idea of what life is.
For those who know life, death is an impossible word.
It is something which has never occurred, never occurs, ever occur.
There are certain words which are absolutely false; they tain not even an iota of truth.
The word death is one of them.
It is a totally false word.
like death occurs anywhere.
But we see people dying every day.
Every day, death seems to be happening all around us.
Every village has a cremation ground.
And if we uand rightly, we will e to realize that wherever we may be standing on the earth, the dead bodies of tless people have beeed on that very spot.
The very piece of land on which we may have built our houses has been a cemetery at some time or other.
Millions upon millions of people have died, and are dying every day.
A, you will be surprised if I say there is no other word iire human language more false thah.
There was a mysti Tibet by the name of Marpa.
Someone once came to him and said, "I have e to ask you about life ah.
" Marpa gave a big laugh and said, "If you want to know about life you are most wele, because I know what life is.
As far as death is ed, I have not had aing with death, I am not acquainted with it.
If you want to know death, go and ask those who are as good as dead, or those who are alread..y dead.
I am familiar with life, I talk about life.
I show you what life is.
I am not familiar with death.
"
This story is similar to the tale of darkness and light.
Perhaps you may have heard it.
Once darkness went to see God and implored, "Lord, this sun of yours is out to get me.
I am exhausted.
He starts chasi dawn and only after much trouble leaves me alone in the evening.
What wrong have I done? What kind of enmity is this? Why is this sun following me and harassing me? I barely mao rest after a hectic day when once again I find him standing at my door at dawn.
Again I have to run for my life, again I have to escape -- this has been going on siernity.
I have run out of patience.
I t take it any more.
I beg you, please make him uand.
"
It is said that God called the sun and said, "Why are you after darkness? What wrong has he done you? Why the enmity? What grievance do you have against him?"
"Darkness?" asked the sun.
"I have been wandering the universe siime immemorial, but I have never e across darkness.
I dont know who darkness is.
Where is he? Please bring him before me so that I may ask his fiveness, e to know him, and stay out of his way.
"
Infiime has passed sihis iook place.
The matter is still pending in Gods files; he has still not been able t darkness before the sun.
He never , and this matter is never going to be resolved.
How y darkness before the sun? Darkness has no positive existence of its own at all.
Darkness is merely the absence of light.
How the absence of the sun be brought into the presence of the sun? No, darkness ever be brought before the sun.
It is even difficult t darkness before a little lamp, let alohe sun, which is so vast.
It is difficult for darko pee the radius of light around a lamp; it is difficult for darko have an enter with a lamp.
How darkness be where there is light? How death be where there is life? Either there is no life at all, or else there is h.
Both ot be true together.
We are alive, but we dont know what life is.
And this ignorance makes us believe in the certainty of death.
Ignorance is death.
The ignorance of life itself bees the phenomenon of death.
If, God willing, we could e to know the life that is within, a single ray of that knowing would destroy forever this ignorahat one die, or that one has died at some time in the past, or that one will die at some time iure.
We dont know the light that we are, and we bee scared of the darkhat we are not.
We fail to bee acquainted with the light that is our vital energy, our life, our existence, and we are frightened of the darkhat we are not.
Man is not mortal, he is immortal.
The whole of life is immortal, but we never look at the immortality.
We never sear the dire of life; we dont even take oep towards it.
And since we remain unfamiliar with life, we seem frightened of death.
So the question is not one of life ah, the question is only of life.
I have been asked to speak on life ah, but this is impossible.
The question is only of life, there is nothing like death at all.
When one knows what life is, only then does life exist, but when life remains unknown there is only death.
As a problem, life ah do not both exist simultaneously.
Either we know we are life, then there is h -- or we do not know we are life, and in that case death alone is, there is no life.
They dont both exist together -- they t.
But we are all afraid of death.
The fear itself shows we are unfamiliar with death.
The fear of death has only one meaning, unfamiliarity with life.
And the fact is, life is flowing within us every moment.
It is flowing in every breath, in every particle, all around, within and without -- a is unknown to us? This mean only ohing, that man is in a deep sleep.
Only in sleep is it possible a man could remain unfamiliar with who he is.
It boils down to the fact that man is deeply unscious.
It only mean that the whole vital energy of man is not scious, not awake.
When a man is asleep he doesnt know who he is, what he is, where he is from -- everything is lost in the darkness of sleep.
He does not even know whether he exists or not.
He bees aware of his sleep only after waking up; only then he es to know that he has been asleep.
In sleep a ma know he is asleep.
When he was not asleep he knew he was about to sleep.
And as long as he was awake he knew he was still awake and not asleep.
But as soon as he falls asleep he doesnt know he is asleep, because if he were to notice that he is asleep then that would mean he is still awake, not asleep.
When a man is no longer asleep, only then does he know he was asleep before.
In sleep one doesnt know whether one really is or not.
Obviously, man has no idea whether he is or not, or who he is.
This only meahing, that some deep spiritual hypnotic sleep is surrounding him.
Thats why he doesnt know life itself, what life is.
But we wont accept this.
Well say, "We know very well what life is.
We breathe, we walk, we rise, we sit, we sleep.
" A drunkard also walks, breathes, moves, talks, and so does a madman.
But that does not prove the drunkard is in his right senses or that the madman is scious.
Once, while a royal procession assing, a man stood in the main square and began throwing stones and shouting abuse at the emperor.
It was, after all, a royal pageant, so the man was immediately arrested and thrown into prison.
But while the man was hurling stones and abuse at the emperor, the emperor himself was laughing.
His soldiers were puzzled.
His prime minister asked.
"Why do you laugh, my lord?"
The emperor replied, "As far as I see, the ma know what he is doing.
I believe he is drunk.
heless, bring him before me tomorrow m.
"
m the man was brought before the emperor.
The king asked, "Why did you shout abuse at me? Why did you swear at me yesterday? What was the reason?"
The man said, "Me? Swearing at you? No, your majesty, I must not have been myself; thats why I must have said such things.
I was drunk, I was unscious, I wasnt there.
I have no idea what I said.
"
We too exist as if we are not.
We walk and talk and love and hate, wage war -- all in sleep.
If anyone from a distant pla were to watch us, he would think the entire human race is behaving as one behaves in sleep, in a state of unsciousness.
In the last three thousand years man has fought fifteen thousand wars.
This shows the human race is not awake.
From birth to death it is one long story of ay, misery, pain ah.
Ma find a single moment of bliss, a single spot of joy in his life.
He remains pletely ignorant of what joy is.
Life passes and he has not a single glimpse of joy.
Obviously, one ot say man is living in awareness.
Misery, pain, ay, sadness and insanity make up our lives, but we never notice it because people around us are also as asleep as we are.
On a while, when an awakened oakes birth, we who are asleep bee so angry at this awakened person that we immediately kill him.
We dont tolerate him for long.
The reason we give for crucifying Jesus is "
.
because you are an awakened man, and that is your fault.
Seeing you awake, we who are asleep feel very insulted.
For people like us who are asleep, you bee a symbol of disgrace.
You are awake; your presence disturbs our sleep.
Well kill you.
" So we give poison to Socrates, we execute Mansoor.
We treat the awakened ones in the same mahe inmates of a madhouse would treat someone who is not mad.
A friend of mine once went mad.
He ut in a lunatic asylum.
In his insanity, one day, he actally drank a bucket of phenyl that had bee for ing toilets.
For fifteen days he was violently sick.
He suffered from tinuous vomiting and diarrhea.
This brought about such a drastic ge in his body that he became well -- as if all the excess heat were expelled from his body.
Actually he was to stay in the asylum for six months, but his stay was extended for three more months even after he became well.
These three additional months in that asylum, he told me later, were worse than hell for him.
He said, "As long as I was mad, there was no problem, because everyone else was the same as I was.
But when I recovered, I couldnt figure out where I was.
I was fast asleep and two men jumped on me; I was going my way and someoarted pushing me.
I never noticed these things before because I was mad too.
When I was mad I never could reize that everyone around me was mad as well.
Only when I came out of my madness did I realize that all those people were mad.
"As I ceased to be mad, I became the target of everyohere.
My problem was that I knew I was quite well, but I wondered and worried what would happen to me now.
How would I get out of there? My screaming I am not mad, was of no avail because all madmen scream they are not mad.
No doctor was ready to believe me.
"
We are surrounded by people who are asleep, hence we dont realize we are asleep too.
We immediately kill the one who is awakened because he appears very troublesome, very disturbing to us.
A British scholar, Keh Walker, has dedicated a book of his to a mystic, Gurdjieff.
The w of his dedication is tremendous, wonderful.
He has written, "To Geurdjieff, the disturber of my sleep.
"
There have been very few people in the world who have tried to break mans sleep.
But if you attempt to break anybodys sleep, he will take revenge on you.
Dont ever try to waken a sleeping man, he will be at your throat.
Up to now, whosoever has tried to shake man out of his spiritual sleep, we have been at his throat as well.
We dont notice it because we are all sleeping too.
I have heard: A magi oered a city.
He threw some powder into a well and declared that whosoever would drink water from that well would go mad.
This was the only well iy.
There was one more, but that was ihe kings palace.
By the time it was evening everyone in that city became thirsty, so even at the cost of turning mad, people drank the water.
How long could they hold out? They were helpless.
And so by evening the ey had gone mad.
The king and his queens were happy that they didnt have to drink the water from that well and bead.
His ministers were happy to be saved from madness as well.
The palace was filled with musid celebration, but by evening they realized they were wrong.
The people had surrouhe palace; they had all gone mad.
The palace guards and the soldiers of the kings army had gone mad as well.
Surrounding the palace, they shouted, "It seems our king has gone mad.
We ot tolerate a mad king sitting ohrone.
"
From the tower of his palace the king saw there was no way to escape, that he was pletely surrounded by the mad crowd.
The king was terrified.
He asked his prime minister what he should do.
"What will happen now?" he worriedly asked.
"We thought we were fortuhat we had our own well.
Now we have to pay very dearly for it.
" Sooner or later, all kings have to pay dearly for owning an exclusive well.
This is true all over the world.
One who has retly bee a king will certainly find his separate well proves costly tomorrow.
Owning an exclusive well is dangerous.
But, until then, the king had not realized the sequences of having his own separate well.
So he turo the prime minister for advice.
The prime minister said, "Now there is nothi for which to seek advice.
Just escape by the back door, drink the water of the well outside and hurry back; otherwise this palace is in grave danger.
"
The king asked in horror, "You wao drink water from that well? You wao go mad?"
"There is no other way you save yourself except by being mad," replied the prime minister.
The king and his queens rushed to the city well and drank its water.
That night a great celebration took pla the city.
The people expressed their joy, singing and dang the whole night.
They thanked God for rest the kings mental state, because now the king was also dang in the crowd and shouting abuse.
Mentally, the king had bee normal.
Since our state of sleep is so on, so universal, and because we have been asleep since birth, we remain unaware.
In this state of sleep what do we uand about life? We uand only that the body itself is life and that one is uo pee the body.
This kind of uanding is similar to a man mistaking the outer wall of a palace for the palace itself, or a man walking on the parapet and thinking he is in the palace, or a man sleeping, leaning oer wall, thinking he is resting in the palace.
One whose uanding revolves around the body is like this fool who imagines himself to be the palaces guest while standing outside its walls.
We have no access ihe body.
We live outside the body.
We are familiar only with the outer layer of the body; we never e to know its inner layers.
We dont even know the inner sides of the palace walls, let alohe palace itself.
We sider the outside of the wall to be the palace, we remain ignorant of the inside of the wall.
We know our bodies externally; we have never gone inside ahe body from within.
For example, we are all seated in this room; we see this room from within.
A man, wandering around outside, sees this house from the outside; he t see it from within as we do.
Man is not even able to see his own body, his own house from within -- he knows it only from the outside.
And this gives rise to the idea of death.
That which we know from without is only the sheath, it is only the outer c.
It is only the outer wall of a house, it is not the master of the house.
The master of the house is within, and we never get to meet him.
When we dont even know the wall from the inside, how will we e to know the master seated within?
This experieng of life from outside bees the experience of death.
When this experience slips away from ones hands
.
the day ones vital energy tracts within -- leaving the house, the body behind, and the sciousness moves inside, away from the outer wall -- people looking on from outside feel the man is dead.
The man also feels he is dying.
He is dying, because his sciousness begins to move within, away from what he had uood as life.
The sciousness begins to move within, away from the plane where he knew life to be.
On its way to the new, unknown journey, his soul starts screaming in agony, "I am dying! I am gone! Everything is sinking!" -- because what he had sidered as life up to now begins to sink, to drop away.
People outside think the man is dead, and in this moment of death, in this moment of ge, the person also feels, "I am dying! Dying! Dying! I am gone!"
This body of ours does not really represent our authentic being.
Deep inside we have a kind of being which is entirely different from the body.
It is totally opposite, reverse to the body.
Look at a seed.
It has a very hard shell which protects the tender, delicate seedling of life hidden i.
Inside lies the very delicate sprout, and a tough wall, an enclosure, a sheath covers the seed in order to protect it.
But the sheath, the enclosure itself, is not the seed.
If a man takes the sheath for the seed, he wont be able to know the sprout hidden within it.
He will just g to the sheath and the sprout will never e out.
No, the sheath, the cover is not the seed.
On the trary, the truth is that when the seed is born the sheath has to efface itself, has to burst, has to diffuse itself, has to dissolve in the earth.
When the sheath is dissolved, the seed inside mas itself.
Our physical body is the sheath taining the seed, and ihere is a sprout sisting of life, of sciousness, of being.
But, taking this sheath for the seed, we ruin ourselves and the sprout is never born, the seed never sprouts.
One experiences life when the seed sprouts.
When it sprouts, man ceases to be a seed and grows into a tree.
As long as man is a seed, he is only a potentiality, and wheree of life is born in him, he bees authentic.
Some call this authenticity the soul, some call it God.
Man is the seed of God.
He is only a seed.
Its the tree that will have the experience of the wholeness of life.
How the seed have su experience? How a seed ever know the blissful state of the tree? How a seed ever know that green leaves will appear someday, and that the suns rays will dan them? How a seed ever know the winds will pass through the leaves and the branches, and a resounding music will emerge from their beings? How a seed ever know that flowers will bloom, eclipsing the beauty of the stars? How the seed ever know that, sitting on top, birds will sing and that travelers will rest in the shade? How a seed ever know the experieree has? The seed has no idea.
The seed t even dream of the possibilities awaiting when it grows into a tree.
It only realize them by being a tree.
Ma know what life is because he has believed his fulfillment is in being a seed alone.
He will know it only when his iree of life has maed itself totally.
But this is a far cry when, in the first place, we dont even realize there is somethiing within that is different and separate from the body.
We are never able to remember, to realize there is something different and separate from the body as well.
Hehe real issue in life is experieng that which is within, but we believe life to be that which pervades outside.
Once I asked a tree, "Where is your life source?"
The tree replied, "In the roots, which are not visible.
" The life of the tree springs from those invisible roots; the tree which is visible draws life from the roots that are invisible.
Mao Zedong has written ae from his childhood.
He tells that there was a little garden close to the hut he and his mother lived in.
All her life his mother had tehe garden with great love and care.
People used to e from faraway just to see the large, beautiful and lovely flowers of that garden.
There was never so hard-hearted a person who, passing by the garden, would not stop for a moment or two and admire such appealing flowers.
In her old age his mother fell ill.
Mao was very young then.
There wasnt any grown-up around, but Mao told his mother not to worry about the plants and flowers.
He said he would take good care of them.
Day and night, from dawn till dark, Mao would toil in the garden.
Assured, the mother rested.
In fifteen days the mother recovered from her illness and came out in the garden.
What she saw was awful.
The entire garden had withered away.
Not only were the flowers long go the leaves were dead too.
Everees had bee sad.
The old woman must have felt the same way ah eyes would feel looking at the garden of humanity today.
All the flowers had fallen off, all the leaves had dropped, all the trees were sad.
The old woman cried out, "What have you done? What were you doing from dawn till dusk?" she wailed.
Mao also burst into tears.
He said, "I did the best I could.
I used to dust ead every flower, I used to dust ead every leaf.
I used to kiss each flower and spray water on each flower.
I dont know what happened! I put in so much effort, and the whole garden has withered away!"
Even though she was g, his mother couldnt hold back her laughter.
"You foolish child!" she said.
"Dont you know trees never have their life-energy in their flowers and leaves? It lies in their roots, which are not visible.
Your watering the flowers and leaves, your kissing them, your p love on them was all meaningless.
Never worry about the flowers and the leaves.
If the invisible roots begin to gain strength, the flowers and leaves e on their own -- you dont have to worry about them.
"
But man has uood life in terms of the outer expanse of the flower and has ed the roots pletely.
Mans inner roots are lying there, totally ed.
He doesnt even remember that he is something inner as well.
And actually, whatsoever is, is within.
The truth is within, the energy is within, all potentialities are within -- they ma from there.
Being is within, being takes place outside.
That which is authentic is within.
That which expands and mas is without.
Maion is all outside.
Being is within.
Those who take the outer maion as life, their entire life is threatened with the fear of death.
They live as if almost dead.
They are afraid they may die some day, any moment.
And those very people who are frightened of death, weep and are troubled over someone elses death.
Although, in fact, they dont really cry aroubled over anyones death -- each death reminds them of their own, and the closer the dying person, the strohe reminder.
And then a chill goes up ones spine, fear grips one, one begins to tremble.
In this state a man thinks hings.
He thinks, "The soul is immortal, art of the divine, we are the form of Brahman.
" This is all rubbish, it is nothing more than self-deception.
To boost his strength, one who is scared of death repeats, "The soul is immortal
" What he is saying in effect is, "No, I wont have to die, the soul is immortal.
" Although his being shakes with fear, yet outwardly he says that the soul is immortal.
If a man knows the soul is immortal, he doesnt have to repeat it even once.
He knows.
The matter is over.
These people who are scared of death tio fear it.
Meanwhile, they fail to know life and i a rick, a new deception that the soul is immortal.
Thats why it is difficult to find a nation more afraid of death than the one which talks about the immortality of the soul.
That misfortune has occurred in this very try.
Of all the people in the world who believe in the immortality of the soul, most are in this try.
And in this try the number of cowards afraid of death is the greatest as well.
How did these two things happen together?
There is no more death for those who know the soul is immortal.
The fear of death has disappeared for them; now no one kill them.
You should also keep ahing in mind: her anyone kill them, nor they be now uhe illusion that they kill anyone -- because now, for them, the very phenomenon of death is finished forever.
This secret o be uood.
Those who believe the soul is immortal are people afraid of death.
They are merely repeating, "The soul is immortal.
" Afraid of death, such people will also talk a great deal about non-violence -- not because they wouldnt want to kill anyone, but because, very deep down, they dont want ao kill them.
They believe the world should bee non-violent.
But why? Their answer will be, "It is bad to kill anyone.
" But deep down they are saying, "Lest we are killed by someone.
" To kill is evil indeed, but if these people know there is h at all, then there is her room for the fear of dying nor of killing.
Then such matters bee irrelevant.
Otlefield, Krishna says to Arjuna, "Do not be afraid, because those you see standing in front of you have existed many times before.
You have certaied before, and I have too.
We have all been here many times in the past and will be here many more times again.
" Nothing is ever destroyed in this world; hehere is no place for the fear of dying or of killing.
The question is of living life.
Those who are afraid to kill or to be killed bee impotent in the eyes of life.
One who either die nor kill has absolutely no idea that that-which-is either be killed by anyone nor it ever die.
How exg the world will be when, as a whole, it will e to know from within that the soul is immortal! That day the whole fear of death will disappear.
The fear of dying will vanish as well, and the threat of killing will be gone food.
That is when wars will disappear -- not before.
Wars ot disappear from the world as long as it appears to man that he be killed, that he die.
Regardless of how much Gandhi may teaon-violence, or Buddha and Mahavira may teach it; no matter how many lessons of non-violence are given in the world, as long as man does not experience from within that whatsoever is, is eternal, war ot cease.
Dont think those who wield swords are brave people.
A sword is proof that the man is a coward.
Statues iy square of those holding swords are statues of cowards.
The brave man needs no sword in his hand because he knows it is childish to kill and to be killed.
But maes a strange deception.
He pretends he knows things he is ignorant about -- all because of fear.
Deep down he is fraught with fear, deep down he knows he will have to die -- people are dying every day.
He sees his body growing weaker inside -- youth has passed, old age is approag.
He sees the body is on its way out, but inside he keeps reiterating, "The soul is immortal.
" He tries to muster up his belief, his ce by doing so, and tells himself, "Dont be afraid.
Of course death is there, but the sages, the wise men say the soul is immortal.
" Around such wise men who talk about the immortality of the soul, people afraid of death gather in big crowds.
I am not saying the soul is not immortal.
What I am saying is that the doe of the immortality of the soul is a doe of those who fear death.
Knowing the immortality of the soul is a totally different thing.
And remember, only they know the immortality of the soul who experiment with death while being alive -- there is no other way of knowing it.
This o be uood.
What happens ih really? The eal energy that is diffused, spread all around, it tracts, returns to its ter.
This essential energy that is reag out to every nook and er of our bodies, withdraws, es back to its core.
For example, if we go on dimming a diffused light, it will begin to shrink and darkness will gather.
At some point the light will be reduced to the point where it es close to the lamp itself.
And were we to dim it even further, the light would be lodged in seed form and darkness would surround you.
So the vital energy of our life shrinks, returns to its ower.
Again it bees a seed, an atom, ready for a new journey.
Because of this very tra, this very shrinkage of the essential energy, one feels, "I am dying! I am dying!" What one had taken to be life until then begins to slip away; everything begins to drop.
A mans limbs start losing their strength, he begins to bee short of breath, his eyesight bees poorer, his ears bee hard of hearing.
In fact, all these senses were alive, and the whole body too, because of the e with some energy.
And ohe energy begins to recede, the body, which was essentially lifeless, bees lifeless once again.
The master prepares to leave and the house bees depressed, desolate.
And the man feels, "Here I go!" At the moment of death he es to feel, "I am going.
I am sinking, the end is near.
"
The nervous feeling that he is dying -- the worried and melancholy state, the anguish and a..y of dying, the feeling that his end is approag -- brings such terrible suffering to a mans mind that he fails to be aware of the very experience of death.
To know death one o be peaceful.
Instead, a man bees so restless he never knows what death is.
We have died many times before, an infinite number of times, but we have never known what death is.
Each time the moment of death has arrived, we have bee so perturbed, so restless, so troubled -- how we have known anything in that state? What knowledge one have had? Each time death has e -- a we have remained unfamiliar with it.
No, death t be known at the moment of dying, but one certainly have a planned death.
A planned death is meditation, yoga, samadhi.
Samadhi means only ohing: bringing about the event that, otherwise, occurs by itself ih.
In samadhi, the seeker brings it about with effort by knowingly drawing his entire life energy within.
Obviously, there is no need for him to feel restless, because he is experimenting with pulling, drawing the sciousness in.
With a ind he tracts the sciousness within.
What death does anyway, he does himself.
And in that silent state he finds that the life energy and the body are two separate things.
The bulb that emanates electricity is ohing, and the electricity that is emanated from it is another.
When the electricity tracts totally, the bulb lies there, lifeless.
The body is nothing more than aric bulb.
Life is the electricity, the energy, the vital force that keeps the body alive, warm, excited.
In samadhi, the seeker himself meets death.
And because he enters death himself, he es to know the truth that he is separate from his body.
O is known that "I am separate from the body," death is finished.
And ohe separatioween the body and the being is known, the experience of life has begun.
The end of death and the experience of life take place at the same point, simultaneously.
Know life, death is gone; know death, there is life.
If uood correctly, these are just two ways of expressing the same thing.
They are two pointers in the same dire.
Hence, I say religion is the art of dying.
You might say, however, that I have often said religion is the art of living.
I certainly talk about both things, for only one who knows how to die is able to know what life is.
Religion is the art of living and dying.
If you wish to know what life is, what death is, you will have to lear of withdrawing energy from your body voluntarily.
Only then you know, not otherwise.
This energy be withdrawn; it is not difficult.
Its easy to pull this energy inside.
This energy is diffused at will and withdrawn at will.
This energy is simply an expanse of the will.
It is merely a matter of will.
One just needs a determined resolve to go within.
If you resolve that for half an hour you want to turn within, you want to die, you want to drown within yourself, you want to withdraw all your energy, then within days you will e close to experieng the tra of energy.
It will be a state in which the body will lie separate from you.
A deep three-month long experiment will make you see your body lying separate from you; you see your own body lying distant from you.
First you will see from within that inside, you are standing separate -- radiating, like a flame.
You will see the entire body from within as you see this building.
With a little more ce you even bring this inner living flame outside, and from outside you see the body lying there, removed from you.
Let me tell you an incredible experience I had.
It has just occurred to me; I have old it before.
About seventeen hteen years ago I used to meditate until late at night sitting iop of a tree.
I have oftehe body has a greater influence over you if you meditate sitting on the ground.
The body is made of earth, and the forces of the body work very powerfully if oates sitting on the ground.
All this talk of the yogis moving up to the higher elevations -- to the mountains, to the Himalayas -- is not without reason; its very stific.
The greater the distaween the body and the earth, the lesser the pull of the earthly element on the body.
So I used to meditate every night sitting in a tree.
One night
.
I dont know when I became immersed in deep meditation, and I dont know at oint my body fell from the tree, but when it did, I looked with a start to see what had happened.
I was still iree, but the body had fallen below.
Its difficult to say how I felt at that time.
I was still sitting iree and the body was below.
Only a single silver cord ected me with the navel of my body -- a very shiny silver cord.
What would happe was beyond my prehension.
How would I return to my body?
I dont know how long this state lasted, but it was an exceptional experience.
For the first time I saw my body from outside, and from that very day on the body ceased to exist.
Sihen I am finished with death, because I came to see another body different from this one -- I came to experiehe subtle body.
Its difficult to say how long this experience lasted.
With the breaking of dawn, two women from the nearby village passed, carrying milk pots on their heads.
As they approached the tree they saw my body lying there.
They came and sat o the body.
I was watg all this from above.
It seems the women took the body to be dead.
They placed their hands on my head, and in a moment, as if by a powerful force of attra., I came bato the body and my eyes opened.
At that point I experienced something else too.
I felt that a woman create a chemical ge in a mans body, and so a man in a womans body.
I also wondered how the touch of that woman caused my return to the body.
Subsequently, I had many more experiences of this kind.
They explained why the tantrikas of India, who experimented extensively with samadhi ah, had lihemselves with women too.
During intensive experiences of samadhi, mans luminous body, his subtle body, ot return without a womans help if it has e out of the physical body.
Similarly, a womans luminous, subtle body, ot be brought back without a mans assistance.
As the male and female bodies ect, arical circuit is pleted and the scioushat has go returns swiftly to the body.
Following this event, I sistently had the same kind of experience about six times in six months.
And in those six months I felt I had lost at least ten years off my life.
If I were to live up to seventy, now I only live up to sixty.
I went through some strange experiences in six months -- even the hair on my chest turned white.
I couldnt prehend what was happening.
It occurred to me, however, that the e between this body and that body had ruptured, had been interrupted, that the adjustment, the harmony that had existed betweewo, had broken down.
What also occurred to me was that the reason for Shankaracharya dying at the age of thirty-three and Vivekananda dying at the age of thirty-six was something else.
It bees difficult to live ohe e betweewo bodies breaks abruptly.
This explained why Ramakrishna was besieged with illnesses and Ramana died of cer.
The cause was not physical; rather, the breaking of the adjustmeween their physical and subtle bodies was responsible for it.
It is generally believed that yogis are healthy people, but the truth is pletely the opposite.
The truth is, yogis have always been ill, and have died at early ages.
The sole reason for this is that the necessary adjustmeweewo bodies bees interrupted.
Ohe subtle body es out of the physical body it never reenters fully and the adjustment is never pletely restored.
But then it is not needed.
There is no reason for it; it has no meaning.
With the use of will power, simply with will power, the energy be drawn inside -- just the thought, the feeling, "I want to turn in, I want to go ba, I want to return within, I want to e ba.
" Were you to have su intense longing, such a powerful emotion; if your whole beio fill with a passionate, intense desire to return to your ter; if your entire body were to pulsate with this feeling, someday it happen -- you will instantly return to your core and, for the first time, see your body from within.
When yoga talks about thousands of arteries and veins, it is not from the point of view of physiology.
Yogis have nothing to do with physiology.
These have been known from within; hence, when one looks today one wonders where these arteries and veins are.
Where are the seven chakras, the ters within the body that yoga talks about? They are nowhere in the body.
We t find them because we are looking at the body from outside.
There is oher way to observe the body -- from within, through the inner physiology.
Thats a subtle physiology.
The nerves, veins aers of the body known through that inner physiology are all totally different.
You wont find them anywhere in this physical body.
These ters are the tact fields between this body and the inner soul, the meeting points for both.
The biggest meeting point is the navel.
You may have noticed, if you suddenly get into an act driving a car, the navel will be the first to feel the impact.
The navel will bee disordered at once, because here the tact field between the body and the soul is the deepest of all.
Seeih, this ter will be the first to bee disturbed.
As soon as death appears, the navel will be disrupted iion to the bodys ter.
There is an internal arra of the body which has resulted from the tact between this body and the inner body.
The chakras are their tact fields.
So obviously, to know the body from within is to know a totally different kind of world altogether, a world we know absolutely nothing about.
Medical sows nothing about it, and wont for some time.
Once you experiehat the body is separate from you, you are finished with death.
You e to know there is h.
And then you actually e out of the body and look at it yourself from outside.
Questioing to life ah are not matters of philosophietaphysical thought.
Those who think about these things never aplish anything.
What I am talking about is aential approach.
It be known that "I am life;" it be known that "I am not going to die.
" One live this experience, one enter into it.
But those who only think, who say, "Well think about what death is, what life is," may think about it a million times, may think about it life after life, but they wont know anything.
What oh is there to think about?
We only think about something which is known to us.
About something which is unknown nothing be thought.
You only think about that which is known to you.
Has it ever occurred to you that you t think what you dont know? How you think, how you ceive that which you know nothing about? We dont know what life is; we dont know what death is.
What are we to think? Thats why I say that whatsoever the philosophers have said about life ah is totally worthless.
Whatsoever is written about life ah in the philosophy books is worth nothing, because those people have written it after a lot of thinking.
It is not a question of thinking and then writing about it.
Except for what yoga has said about life ah, everything else that has been said is only playing with words.
What yoga is ed with has to do with aential, living experience.
That the soul is immortal is not a theory; it is not an ideology.
It is the experience of certain individuals.
Only when experience is what you want experience alone solve the riddle, "What is life? What is death?" And as soon as you have the experience you will e to know that life is, that death is not -- that only life is, that there is h at all.
Then we will be in a position to say that death just happens.
And what this simply means is that we leave the house, the body we were living in, and a jourowards a new home begins.
We set out, leaving one house for another.
This house has a limited capability.
This house is a mae.
It wears out, it gets tired, and we have to go beyond it.
If sce would have it so, it would be possible to keep the human body alive for one huwo huhree hundred years.
But that would not prove there is no soul.
It would only prove that the soul woo ge homes anymore, that sce had now worked out a way to fix the old house.
heless, stists should not remain uhe illusion that by increasing the loy of man to five hundred years, to a thousand years, they would have proved there is no soul in man.
It wouldnt prove anything.
It would only demonstrate that because the meism of the body used to wear out, the soul had to ge it.
Now, if the parts of the body could be replaced -- the heart, the eyes, the limbs -- if they could be replaced, then the soul would have no reason to ge bodies.
In that case the old house would do -- it is now repaired.
But this doesnt eveely prove there is no soul in the body.
It is also possible that in the near future sce may succeed iing a child in a test tube, in produg life.
And then, perhaps, stists may fall uhe illusion they have created life.
But that would also be wrong.
Let me say this too: su achievement wont prove anythiher.
What happens when a unioween a man and a woman takes place? Together, they dont create a soul ihers womb, they just create a situatiohe soul enter.
Whewo elements of man and woma, an opportunity is created for the soul to ehe womb.
It may be that soon stists may create a similar situation in a test tube, but that is not the same as creating a soul.
The mothers womb is a meical system too; its a test tube.
It is a natural system.
Soon, with full discovery and knowledge of those chemical elements which make up the male sperm and the female egg, a stist in his laboratory may succeed in produg the same chemical anization in a test tube.
In that case, souls, which before had ehe mothers womb, would er test tubes.
But even so, it would not be the soul taking birth, it would be the body -- the soul would still just be arriving.
The phenomenon of birth is a double event -- the formation of the body and the arrival of the soul, the desding of the soul.
The future looks very dangerous and dark as far as the soul is ed, because with eaew discovery sce will vince man there is no soul.
But the existence of the soul will not be disproved by it, it will only weaken the will of man to turn within himself.
If, because of increased loy and the creation of test tube babies, man should e to believe there is no soul, evehe existence of the soul will not be disproved, only the tinuing inner searan will e to an end.
And this unfortunate circumstance is sure to occur in the fifty years.
In the last fifty years, the ground has already been prepared for it.
There have always been poor, wretched, miserable, sick people in the world.
Their lifespan was short: they her had good food to eat nor proper clothes to wear.
But from the point of view of the soul, the number of poor has never been so great as it is today.
This is only because man has e to believe there is nothing within, and so, for him, the question of turning i arise.
Once humanity believes there is nothing within, the whole idea of reag inside is finished.
The future may turn out to be terribly bleak and dangerous.
Therefore, experiments must be carried out in all ers of the world so that a few individuals may stand up and assert -- not merely an assertion of words and does, not just a reiteration of the Geeta, the Koran, The Bible, but a living affirmation, "I know I am not the body.
" And this should not be just a verbal declaration, it should be reflected through their entire way of living.
Only then may we succeed in saving humanity -- otherwise, the whole of stific development will turn man into a mae, an automaton.
The day man es to believe he is nothing more than a body, that there is nothing within him, perhaps all doors leading inwards will be shut.
What will happen after that is hard to say.
Even to this day, the inner doors of the majority of people have remained shut.
But on a while a ceous person breaks through the inner walls.
A Mahavira, a Buddha, a Christ, a Lao Tzu breaks through the wall aers within.
But the possibility of such a phenomenon happening again is decreasing every day.
I say: Only life is, death is not.
But it may be that in the one hundred or two hundred years man might say, "Only death is, life is not.
" The ground is ready for it.
People asserting it have already e forward.
After all, what is Marx saying? Acc to Marx, "Matter is, God is not.
And what looks like God to you is nothing but a byproduatter.
" Marx says, "There is no life, only death is.
" Now if the soul is not and only the body is, then obviously there is no life, only death is.
You may not be aware of it, but what Marx has said is gaining ground.
There have always been people in the world who have dehe soul, but up to now a religion was never born of these people.
Up to now there never has been an anization of atheists.
Charvaka, Brihaspati, Epicurus and many other such remarkable people in the world dehe existence of the soul, but they never formed any church, any anization.
Marx is the first atheist in the world who created an anized church.
Today, half the world is already within its fold, and the remaining half will join it in the fifty years.
The soul exists, of course, but all the avehrough which it be known, reized, are closing down one by one.
Life is there, but all the possibilities of eg with it are fading away.
Before all the doors and avenues close down, those who have even a little bit of ability and ce should experiment on themselves and make an effort to turn within so they have the experience.
If even one huwo hundred individuals could experiehe inner flame, we will be out of danger.
The darkness of millions of people be dispelled with the inner flame of the few.
Even a tiny lamp cuts through a long darkness.
With the presen a village of a single man who has known the immortality of the soul, the whole atmosphere, the whole vibe, the entire life of the village will ge.
A single flower blooms and its fragrance spreads to faralaces.
The very presence of a person who has known the immortality of the soul bring about the purification of the spirit of aire village.
This try is full of sadhus, monks and other people who make themselves hoarse shouting "The soul is immortal" -- there is a whole line of them, a huge crowd.
A, such a low moral character! Such a downfall of the try! This degradation proves they are all involved in a double-dealing business.
None of these people know anything about the soul.
Look at the crowd, at this queue, at this platoon of sadhus, at this whole great circus of sadhus all over the try.
Some with bandages over their mouths, some perform acrobatics with a staff in their hands, others prese aype of circus! Such a crowd of people know the soul and this try is in such a dee! Its hard to believe.
There are people who blame the an for causing the moral dee in the world.
I would like to say they are wrong.
The an has always been the same.
In the past, around the world, the moral character was high because of a few self-realized individuals.
The an always remaihe same; he has remained unged.
There have been a few beings, of course, who always raised, always uplifted human sciousness.
Their very presence has always worked as a catalytic agent and has always elevated human life.
The responsibility for the present low state of human character lies with these sadhus, with the so-called holy men, with the hypocrites and charlatans who talk abion.
The an bears no responsibility for it whatsoever.
her did he before, nor does he now.
If you want to ge the world, stop talking nonsense about improving the moral duct of ead every person, about teag moral education to everyone.
If you want to ge the world, a few individuals will have to be willing to gh very intense inner experiments.
Those who are ready to undergo the experiment deep within themselves
Not too many, just a hundred people.
If a hundred individuals in a try reach a point of knowing what the soul is, the life of that entire try will be automatically uplifted.
With the presence of a hundred shining lamps the whole try be uplifted.
I agreed to speak on this subjely because I felt that in case some ceous man came forward, I would invite him, "e on! If you are ready to go on an inward journey, I am willing to take you.
There, it be shown what life is and what death is.
"
Chapter 9
The Ultimate Freedom
5 November 1969 am in Opera House, Bombay, India
A few questions have been asked, seeking clarification of certain points I discussed in last nights talk.
Question 1
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: IF A MAN AND A WOMAE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SOUL TO TAKE BIRTH, THE MEAN THERE ARE MANY SEPARATE SOULS AND NOT ONE UNIVERSAL SOUL? ALSO, ON MANY OCCASIONS YOU HAVE SAID THERE IS ONLY ORUTH, ONE GOD, ONE SOUL.
ARENT THESE STATEMENTS TRADICTORY?
There is no tradi.
Of course, God is one.
The soul is essentially ooo, but the body is of two types.
One is the gross body which we see, and the other is the subtle body which we ot see.
At the moment of death, the gross body falls away, but the subtle body remains intact.
The soul resides within two bodies -- the subtle body and the gross body.
At the time of death the gross body dies.
The body which is made of earth and water, the body which sists of flesh, bones and marrow, drops, dies.
Subsequently, the body prised of subtle thoughts, subtle feelings, subtle vibrations, subtle filaments, remains.
This body, formed of all these subtle things, along with the soul, once again proceeds on a journey, and agaiers a gross body for a new birth.
When a new soul ehe mothers womb, it means this subtle body enters.
In the event of death only the gross body disies, not the subtle body.
But with the occurrence of the ultimate death, what we call moksha, the subtle body disies along with the gross body as well.
Then there is no more birth for the soul.
Then the soul bees oh the whole.
This happens only once.
It is like a drop merging into the o.
Three things have to be uood.
First, there is the element of the soul.
Whewo types of bodies -- the gross and the subtle -- e in tact with this element of the soul, both bee active.
We are familiar with the gross, the physical body; a yogi is familiar with the subtle body, and those who go beyond yoga are familiar with the soul.
Ordinary eyes are able to see the gross body.
The yogic eye is able to see the subtle body.
But that which is beyond yoga, that which exists beyond the subtle body, is experienced only in samadhi.
One who goes beyoation attains samadhi, and it is iate of samadhi that one experiehe divine.
The ordinary man has the experience of the physical body, the ordinary yogi has the experience of the subtle body, the enlightened yogi has the experience of the divine.
God is one, but there are tless subtle bodies and there are tless gross bodies.
The subtle body is the causal body; it is this body that takes on the new physical body.
You see many light bulbs around here.
The electricity is ohat energy is one, but it is maing through different bulbs.
The bulbs have different bodies, but their soul is one.
Similarly, the sciousness maing through us is one, but in the maion of this sciousness, two vehicles are applied.
One is the subtle vehicle, the subtle body; the other is the gross vehicle, the gross body.
Our experience is limited to the gross, to the physical body.
This restricted experience is the cause of all human misery and ignorance.
But there are people who, even after going beyond the physical body, may stop at the subtle body.
They will say, "There are an infinite number of souls.
" But those who go beyond even the subtle body will say, "God is ohe soul is one, Brahman is one.
"
There is no tradi in my statements.
When I referred to the entering of the soul, I meant that soul which is still associated with the subtle body.
It means the subtle body the soul is enveloped in has not disied yet.
Thats why we say that the soul which attains to the ultimate freedom steps out of the cycle of birth ah.
There is indeed no birth ah for the soul -- it was never born, nor will it ever die.
The cycle of birth ah stops with the end of the subtle body, because it is the subtle body that causes a new birth.
The subtle body is an ied seed sisting of our thoughts, desires, lusts, longings, experiences, knowledge.
This body is instrumental in taking us on our tinuing journey.
However, one whose thoughts are all annihilated, whose passions have all vanished, whose desires have all disappeared, who has no desire left within him, there is no place for him to go, there is no reaso for him to go anywhere.
Then there is no reason for him to take birth again.
There is a wonderful story in the life of Ramakrishna.
Those who were close to him, who knew him to be a paramhansa, an enlightened one, used to be deeply troubled about ohing.
It bothered them greatly to see an enlightened person such as Ramakrishna -- one who had attained samadhi -- craving food so much.
Ramakrishna used to bee very anxious about food.
He would ofteer the kit, asking his wife Sharada Devi, "Whats cooking today? Its getting so late!&quht in the middle of a serious talk on spiritual matters he would get up abruptly and rush towards the kit asking what was being cooked, start looking for food.
Feeling embarrassed, Sharada would politely chide him, "What are you doing? What must people think -- dropping the talk on Brahman so suddenly and starting to talk about food!" Ramakrishna would laugh and remain silent.
Even his close disciples remonstrated with him.
They would say, "Its giving you a bad name.
People say, How such a person have attained knowledge when his desire for food is so overwhelming?"
One day his wife Sharada got very upset and reproached him.
Ramakrishna told her, "You have no idea, but the day I show aversion to food, know that I shall not live more than three days afterwards.
"
Sharada asked, "What do you mean?"
Ramakrishna said, "All my desires and passions have disappeared, all my thoughts are gone -- but for the good of mankind I am deliberately holding on to this one desire for food.
Its like a boat tied down with one last rope.
Ohat rope is cut loose the boat will move on to its endless journey.
I am staying on with effort.
"
Perhaps those around him did not give much thought to this at the time.
But three days before Ramakrishnas death, when Sharada entered with a dish of food, Ramakrishna looked at it, shut his eyes, and lay with his back turowards her.
In a flash she remembered Ramakrishnas words about his death.
The dish fell from her hands and she began to weep bitterly.
Ramakrishna said, "Dont cry.
You wished I should not crave for food -- your wish has e true.
" Exactly three days after this i Ramakrishna died.
He was holding on with effort to just a little bit of desire.
That little desire had bee the support for the tinuation of his life-journey.
With the disappearance of that desire, the entire support ceased to exist.
Those whom we call the tirthankaras, those whom we call the buddhas, the sons of God, the avataras -- they hold on to only one desire.
They keep the desire solely out of passion, for the good and wellbeing of all mankind.
The day this desire is lost they cease to live in the body, and an endless jourowards the infinite begins.
After that there is no more birth, no more death.
After that there is her one nor many.
What remains after that ot, in any way, be ted in numbers; hehose who know dont even say, "Brahman is ohe divine is one.
" To call it one is meaningless when there is no way to follow it with two, when one t t any further in the sequence of two and three.
Saying one is meaningful only as long as two, three and four are also there.
One is signifit only in the text of other numbers.
Thats why those who know dont even say Brahmanan is ohey say Brahman is non-dual, he is not two.
They are saying something quite remarkable.
They are saying, "God is not two; there is no way you t God in terms of numbers.
" Even calling him one we are attempting to t him in terms of numbers, which is wrong.
But to experiehat one is still a long way.
Right now we are still at the level of the gross body, of the body whidlessly takes multiple forms.
Wheer this body we find another body -- the subtle body.
Going beyond this subtle body, we attain that which is not a body, that which is bodiless -- the soul.
What I said yesterday is not tradictory, is not paradoxical.
Question 2
A FRIEND HAS ASKED: OHE SOUL HAS LEFT A BODY, IT ENTER INTO ANOTHER DEAD BODY?
Yes it .
But there no longer remains any meaning, any purpose iering another dead body: the other body was dead because the soul had found it unsuitable to reside in.
The body was discarded because it had bee useless, hehere is no point iering that body.
heless, it is indeed possible to enter another body.
Its no use asking, however, how one enter another body when we dont even knoe exist in the body we are already in.
What be gained by thinking about such worthless things as entering another body? We dont even knoe ehe body we have now.
We dont even knoe are living in our body.
We have never had the experience of seeing our own body separate from us.
In any case, there is no reason for entering another body; however, in stific terms, it be said that it is possible to enter another body -- because, basically, a body ot be seen in terms of yours and mine.
All bodies are external.
When a soul enters a mothers womb it is actually entering a body -- a very small body, an atomic body, but entering a body heless.
The cell that is created on the first day in a mothers womb tains the whole inbuilt program in itself.
For example, the possibility that ones hair may turn gray fifty years from the time of ception is hidden in that tiny little seed.
Potentially, the seed tains within itself what the color of your eyes will be, how long your hands will be, whether youll have a healthy body or a sick body, whether youll be white or black, whether or not youll have curly hair.
It is a tiny body, an atomic body.
The soul ehis atomic body.
It enters in accordah the structure of the atomic body, with the situatioomic body is in.
The sole reason human sciousness has been deing daily is because married couples are not creating suitable opportunities for superior souls to take birth.
Whatever opportunities are being created are for the birth of inferior souls.
It is not necessarily so that, following a mah, his soul may soon find the opportunity to take birth.
Ordinary souls, which are her very superior nor very inferior, find new bodies within thirteen days from the death of the body; however, very inferior souls are stopped from taking birth because it is very difficult to find a suitable opportunity, a womb that low in quality.
We call these inferior souls ghosts and evil spirits.
Very superior souls are prevented from taking birth too, because they dont find suitable opportunities, wombs that high in quality, either.
We call these superior souls, gods.
In the past, the number of evil spirits was very large while the number of gods was very small.
In the present day, the number of ghosts and evil spirits has greatly decreased and the number of gods has increased, because the opportunity for the birth of godlike people has diminished whereas the opportunity for the birth of evil souls has increased rapidly.
By entering human bodies, ghosts and evil spirits, which otherwise used to be held back from taking birth, have now all joihe human race! Thats why its so difficult to see ghosts and evil spirits nowadays.
One need not see them, however.
Just look at man and you have seen them!
Our belief in gods obviously deed, because how one believe in them when they are so hard to find? There was a time when gods were as real as any other actuality of our lives.
If you read the Vedic rishis, the sages, it doesnt seem as if they are talking about some imaginary gods.
No, they are talking about gods who speak to them, who sing and laugh with them.
They are talking about gods who walk very closely with them, on this very earth.
We have lost our tact with the world of gods because we dont have men among us who bee links, who bee bridges between gods and men a men know what gods are.
And the entire responsibility for this lies with mankinds marital system.
The whole marital system of the human race is ugly and perverted.
The most important thing is that we have stopped marriages resulting from love, that marriages are happening without love.
A marriage devoid of love does not create a spiritual bond -- a bond which is only possible with the presence of love.
A harmony, a rapport, a musiecessary to give birth to a great soul is not created between the man and the woman.
The love between them is merely a sequence of panionship.
There is ing of souls in their love, none of the movement that brings two beings together into oneness.
Children born of a marriage without love ever be loving, ever be godlike.
They will be more like ghosts and evil spirits; their lives will be filled with anger, hatred, and violence.
Even a little thing makes the difference, an incredible difference, if there is no harmony, no rapport between the man and the woman.
Perhaps it may not have occurred to you why women look more beautiful than men, why there is such roundness, such shapeliness in women.
Why isnt the same seen in men? It may not have occurred to you why there is a musi inner dance apparent in the being of a woman, and which is not seen in man.
The reason is very simple, not very big really.
The reason is so small you t even imagihat the enormous differeween man and woman is based on something so tiny.
The first cell ihers womb tains twenty-four osomes of the man and twenty-four osomes of the woman.
With the meeting of two cells, each taining twenty-four osomes, the first cell of forty-eight osomes is created.
With the union of forty-eight osomes a female body is formed -- both sides of its scale taining twenty-four osomes each, balanced.
But the first cell of a male child sists of only forty-seven osomes -- twenty-four on one side and twenty-three oher.
Right here the imbalance is created, the harmony is broken.
Both sides of a womans being are well balanced; hehe whole beauty of a woman -- her shapeliness, her art, the juice of her personality, the poetry of her personality.
There is a slight defi the personality of man.
One side of his scale is made up of twenty-four osomes.
The cell he receives from the mother tains twenty-four osomes and the cell received from the father sists of twenty-three osomes.
Thus, whewenty-four osomes of the mother meet the twenty-three of the father, the male body is formed.
This is the reason why man remains so restless, so intensely distehroughout his life.
He is always anxious, always worried about what to do and what not to do, whether to do this or to do that.
All this restlessness begins with a very small i, having one osome less on one side of the scale.
Man is imbalanced.
A woman is fully balanced.
The harmony, the rhythm is plete in her.
Such a small occurrence brings su enormous difference, although because of it the woman could bee beautiful but she could not grow.
An even personality does not grow, it remains stagnant.
The personality of man is uneven, hence you see him rag ahead, growing.
He climbs Everest, crosses mountains, lands on the moon, reaches the stars.
He searches and iigates.
He thinks, writes books, gives birth tion.
A woman does nothing of this kind.
She wont climb Everest, land on the moon or stars; nor will she search fions, write books or make discoveries in sce.
She wont do anything.
The balan her personality does not fill her with the passion to transd.
It is man who has given rise to human civilizations -- and all because of one small matter: he lacks one osome.
Woman has not developed civilizations because her personality is plete; there is no osome lag.
Such a small phenomenon cause su enormous differen personality! I am pointing this out because this is just a biological occurrence, because one biologically see how such a little difference gives birth to personalities so different in character.
But there are other, more profound inner differences as well.
The child born out of the union of a man and a woman shows how deeply they are in love with each other, how much spirituality exists between them, and with how much purity and prayerfulhey have e together.
On this depends how superior, how great the soul is which is attracted towards them, how great the divine sciousness is which makes that body its place of residence.
The human race is being increasingly miserable and unhappy.
Deep down, the distortion of the marital relationship is the cause.
Until we have redefihe meaning of marital life and brought it to a healthy state; until we have refi, spiritualized it, we prove the future of mankind.
In this unfortuate of affairs, those who have denouhe householders life and those who have made a great fuss over the life of renunciation are equally responsible.
Ohe householders life was ned, we stopped thinking in that dire altogether.
This is nht.
I would like to say to you that very few people reach God through the path of renunciation.
A very small number of people, some special type, a few individuals of a totally different kind, reach through the path of renunciation.
Most people reach God through the path of the householder and through marital relationship.
The strahing is that even though it is simple and easy to reach through the householders path, no attention has yet been paid to it.
Up to nion has suffered from the extreme influence of those who have renouhe world.
Religion could not evolve for the be of the householder.
Had it been evolved for the sake of the householder, before the very first moment of birth we would have sidered what kind of soul we wao invite, what kind of soul we wao be, what type of soul we wao allow to enter life.
If religion could be taught rightly, and if every individual could be given right thought, right cept and vision, withiy years we create a totally new geion of men.
One who enters into sex without first extending a loving invitation to the ining soul is a sinner.
He is a criminal, and his children are illegitimate even though they may be born in wedlock.
That man who has not given birth to his children with an utterly prayerful and revere is a criminal -- and he will remain a criminal before all geions.
Our eure depends upon what kind of soul ehe womb.
We care about childrens education, about their clothes, about their health and nutrition, but we have pletely given up on g about what kind of soul a child would have.
We ot hope for a better human race this way.
So t?９9lｉb?here is o worry much about how to enter another body; rather, be ed about how you have ehis very body of yours.
In this respect, a friend has asked:
Question 3
WE KNOW ABOUT PAST LIVES?
We certainly know about our past lives, but at present you know nothing even about this life.
Knowing past lives is far more difficult.
Man , of course, know about his past lives, because onething is imprinted in the form of a memory on our minds, it is never destroyed.
It always remains in our deep unscious levels.
Whatsoever we have known, we never fet.
If I ask you what you did on January 1, 1950, perhaps you wont be able to answer.
You might say, "I dont remember anything.
I have absolutely no idea what I did on January 1, 1950.
" But if you could be hypnotized
.
and it be done easily.
Thus, by making you unscious, were I to ask what you did on January 1, 1950, you would give me the whole days at as if the first of January were passing before your eyes right at that moment.
Also you would be able to tell me that on the first of January your m tea tained a little less sugar.
You would even be able to say that the man whht you tea stank with perspiration.
You would be able to point out such minor details -- like the shoe you were wearing was hurting your foot.
Iate of hypnosis your deeply embedded memories be brought out.
I am telling you this because I have done many experiments along this line.
Anyone who wishes be taken into his past lives; however, he will first have tress in this life.
He will have to walk the memory lane of his present life.
He will have to go as far back as the point when he was ceived ihers womb.
Only after reag that point he step into the memories of past lives.
Remember, however, it is not without reason that nature has arranged for us tet our past lives.
And the reason is very signifit.
Recalling the memories of one month drive you crazy, let alohose of past lives.
Even your recolle of the memories of a single day will not allow you to survive.
The whole arra of nature is such that it only permits as many memories as your mind bear.
The rest are thrown into a dark abyss.
Its like a storehouse where we throw things that are no longer needed and shut the door.
Similarly, there is a collective house of memories, a house of unsciousness where all unwanted memories -- memories no longer needed in the mind -- are stored.
But were a man to ehis storehouse unwittingly, without uanding, he would instantly go mad -- so overwhelming are the memories.
One lady used to experiment under my guidance.
She was very keen to know her past lives.
I said, "It is possible; however, you must realize the sequences -- because perhaps by knowing your past lives you may bee terribly worried and upset.
"
She said, "No.
Why would I get upset? The past life is already gone.
Whats there to worry about now?"
She began the experiment.
She rofessor in a college, intelligent, wise and ceous.
Following my instrus exactly, she went into deep meditation.
Slowly, she began to dig into the deeper levels of her memory, and the day she entered her past life for the first time, she came running to me.
She was trembling all over, in tears.
She began to cry bitterly and said, "I want tet what I have remembered.
I dont want to go any further into my past life.
"
I said, "It is difficult.
It will take time tet what has returo your mind.
But why are you so nervous?"
She said, "Please dont ask me.
I used to think I was very pure and chaste, but in my previous birth I rostitute in a temple in the south.
I was a devadasi.
I made love with thousands of people.
I sold my body.
No, I want tet all that.
I dont even want to remember it for a sed.
"
So anyone enter his past life.
There are ways of doing it; there is a methodology for it.
The greatest tribution to mankind made by Mahavira and Buddha is not the doe of nonvioleheir greatest tribution is the doe of remembering past lives.
They were the first oh to make it clear to seekers that until they had eheir past lives, they would not be able to know what the soul is.
And they helped every seeker to go bato his previous life.
Should a man gather enough ce to recall the memories of his past life, he will bee a different man altogether -- because he will e to see he is repeating things he has already dohousands of times before.
He will see his foolishness.
He will e to see how many times he has amassed wealth, how many mansions he has built, how many times he has run after prestige, honor, status, how many times he has traveled to Delhi and attained high position.
He will realize the innumerable times he has done all this, and that once again he is doing the same thing.
And each time, in the final analysis, the journey has proven unsuccessful.
And the journey will be unsuccessful this time as well.
With the revival of this memory, his chase after wealth will instantly end, his attat to position will disappear.
The man will e to know how many women he has had relations with in the course of thousands of years, and the woman will e to know how many men she has had relations with -- and that no man was ever satisfied by a woman, nor was any woman ever satisfied by a man.
A, a man still wonders whether he should enjoy this or that woman and a woman still wonders whether she should enjoy this or that man.
This has happened millions of times.
If all this is recalled even once, a person will never repeat it again -- because havied an aany times, its worthlessness bees self-evident; the whole thing bees meaningless.
Both Buddha and Mahavira ducted intensive experiments in jati-smaran, in recalling the memories of past lives.
The seeker who passed through these memories even once, was transformed.
He became a different man.
I assure the friend who has asked the question that he be taken into past life memories if he so desires.
Befetting into the experiment, one o give it very careful sideration, however.
As it is, there are already enough worries and troubles in ones present life.
Obviously, it is tet all this, tet his days, that a man drinks, watches movies, plays cards, gambles.
When a man finds it so hard to live with the memories of a single day, when he is not brave enough to face this life, how will he be able to gather the ce to recall previous lives?
You may find it strange, but all religions of the world have been opposed to alcohol.
However, giving their reasons for opposing alcohol, these ordinary, absolutely stupid politis explain to the whole world they are against it because it destroys moral character, ruih and property, makes man violent.
This is all nonsense.
Religions have opposed alcohol only because one who drinks does so tet himself.
And one who is trying tet himself ever bee acquainted with the soul.
The very purpose of knowing oneself is to know the soul.
Thats why alcohol and samadhi became two opposing things.
It has nothing to do with what the politis are saying.
The truth of the matter is
.
and this needs careful sideration: Ordinarily, people think an alcoholic is a bad person.
I know people who drink, and I also know people who do not drink.
Based on thousands of experiences, I have found that the man who drinks is in many ways far better than the one who does not.
The degree of pity and passion I have e across in those who drink, I have not seen in the non-drinkers.
The sense of humility I have found in people who drink, I havent seen in those who dont drink.
The kind ance I have seen in non-drinkers I have never e across in those who drink.
But these are not the reasons, normally advocated by the politis, why religion has opposed alcohol.
The reason has been that, in trying tet himself, man gives up the ce to remember.
How one who is busy fetting his present life remember his past ones? And how one who ot remember his past lives ge his present one?
sequently, a bliition goes on.
What we have done many times before, we keep doing over and ain.
Its an unending process.
And until we have remembered our past lives, we will be bain and again -- and will repeat the same stupidities over and over, endlessly.
This boredom, this tinuous , is meaningless -- because well die again and again, keep fetting our as, and the same thing will start all ain.
We will keep moving in circles like an ox at a water wheel.
Those who have called this life samsara
Do you know what samsara means? Samsara means a wheel, the spokes of which keep revolving, keep moving up and down.
I dont know why the experts in India have placed the wheel oional flag.
Perhaps they dont know, and one wonders what they think about it.
Ashoka had engraved it on his stupas, on his Buddhist shrines, in order to remind people that life is a revolving wheel, that it is like an ox moving in circles at a water wheel, that things go around and around in a circle, ing back again and again to where they were before.
So the wheel is a symbol of samsara; it does not represent any viarch.
It symbolizes life beied daily.
It shows, symbolically, that life is a repetitive boredom, a revolving wheel.
But each time we fet this fad start repeating ourselves with great i ahusiasm.
A man falls in love with a woman and begins c her.
He doesnt realize, however, how many times he has fallen in love before, how many women he has chased before.
A, once again he approaches them and thinks that this wonderful event is happening for the first time in his life.
But that sort of wonderful event has occurred to him many times before.
If he were to e to know this fact, he would be like a man who has seen a movie ten or twenty times.
When you see a movie for the first time you may enjoy it.
If you are shown the movie the day you may tolerate it.
Ohird day you will say, "Thank you, I dont wish to see the movie any more.
" But if you are pelled, threatened -- "If you dohe movie the police will take you away, the polic..e will be after you" -- and like this you are forced to see the same movie for fifteen days, on the sixteenth day you will surely attempt suicide.
The whole thing will have gone beyond all limits.
You will cry out, "But I have seen it for fifteen days, how much longer I see it?" And the police are on your back, f you to see the movie! However, if you are drugged after you have watched the movie and you sequently fet you ever saw it, the day you be seen purchasing a ticket for the same movie and enjoying it greatly.
Each time a man drops one body and acquires ahe door to the memories of his previous body closes.
With the new body, a new play starts once again -- the same act, the same story.
Once agaihing is the same; everything has happened many times before.
Remembering the past one es to see that the same act has been played many times before, that the same story has occurred many times before, that the same songs have been sung many times before.
Now the whole thing is beyond endurance.
Nonattat, freedom from worldly desires, es with remembering the past.
There is no other way for oo feel aversion towards the kind of life he now leads.
Nonattat is created by reviving the memories of previous births.
The reason nonattat has deed in todays world is that there is no means available for remembering past lives.
Let me tell those friends who have raised this question that, from my side, I am fully prepared.
What I am saying is not just theoretical.
I am ready, with vi, to put ead every word Ive said to the test.
And Ill be happy to see anyone who is ready.
Yesterday, I ihose with ce to experiment with me.
I was delighted to receive a few letters saying, "We are very eager to begin the experiment.
We were waiting for someoo call us.
You have beed us; we are ready.
" I am happy to know they are ready.
My doors are open to them.
I take them as far as I would like them to go, and as far as they are willing to go.
Now is the time the world needs at least a few people to attain enlighte.
Even if a few people bee enlightened, we destroy the entire darkness engulfing the human race.
You may not have , but within the last fifty years, two experiments of an opposite nature prevailed in India.
One experiment was ducted by Gandhi, while the other was carried out by Aurobindo.
Gandhis experiment was to raise the moral character of eadividual.
Gandhis experiment seemed successful, but it turned out to be a total failure.
Those whose character he thought he had improved turned out to be made of clay: a slight drizzle and, in the last twenty years, all the paint wore off.
We are all wito it.
Their bodies stand naked in New Delhi.
All the paint and color has washed off; not a bit is left anywhere.
Whatsandhi had painted on them washed away in the rain.
So long as power didnt shower down upoheir faces looked very impressive, their clothes of khadi looked very bright, and their caps seemed to assure people they would lift the try to greater heights.
The same caps have now bee worthy to be tossed into holy fires of ead every village; they have now bee symbols of the beoisie, of the corruption in the try.
So Gandhi seemed to be succeeding but ended as a total failure.
Experiments similar to Gandhis were ducted many times before and each time, failed.
Aurobindo carried out an experiment which did not appear to be successful.
He could not succeed, but he was moving in the right dire.
He was experimenting to see if it ossible for a few souls to rise so high that their very presence would begin to uplift other souls, would call out to other souls and they would start rising.
Is it possible, with the rising of one mans soul, for mankiire spirit to be uplifted? It is not only possible, it is the only thing possible.
There is nothing else which succeed today.
Today, man has fallen so low that if we remain ed with ging every individual, it will never happen.
On the trary, the greater possibility is that aempting t about such a ge might himself bee like those he wants to ge.
It is highly possible he might bee corrupt like the others.
You see for yourselves that those who set out to serve the masses turn out, in a few days, to be their deceivers.
Those who had go to serve others, to reform others, in no time you find that people have begun to reform them.
No, that idea of ging eadividual is not feasible.
The history of human sciousness shows there were times when the whole sciousness of mankind soared to such heights you hardly imagine.
Twenty-five hundred years ago India saw the advent of Buddha, Mahavira, Prabuddha Katyayana, Makkhali Gosal, Sanjaya Vilethiputta.
In Greece, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus were born.
Lao Tzu, fucius and g Tzu appeared in a.
Twenty-five hundred years ago ten or fifteen people of such precious quality happehat, during the span of a hundred years, mans sciousouched the heavens.
A golden age seemed to have arrived all around the world.
Never before was the human soul so powerfully in evidence.
Mahavira lit the divine flame within the hearts of fifty thousand people who apanied him from place to place.
Thousands of Buddhas disciples were awakened, and their light, their flame began stirring village after village.
In the village where Buddha would arrive with his ten thousand bhikkhus, within three days the whole vibe of that place would ge.
Where ten thousand bhikkhus assembled and prayed, it was as if the darkness was dispelled from the village, as if the prayer read over the entire village, as if hearts began to bloom and were filled with fragrance for the first time.
A few people rose, and with that the eyes of those who were below were uplifted.
People only look up when there is something above to see.
In the present world there is nothing to see above, but there is much to see below.
The loerson falls, the bigger his bank balahe larger his mansion, the fancier his Cadillac -- so there is much to see below.
Today, Delhi is way down, absolutely i.
If you look below you will see Delhi in the lowest region of the earth, in the lowest hell.
Whoever wants to reach Delhi should desd to the herworld, lower and lower.
There is nothing above worth seeing today.
Who would you look at? Who is up there? What greater misfortune there be than that there are no longer any souls above worth seeing -- such souls that just seeing them creates a deep longing in our hearts, such souls that just looking at them brings a cry from our whole being, such souls that just looking at them fills us with self-reproach, make us feel: "I could have been a lamp like this.
The same flower could have blossomed ioo.
I could have also sung the same song.
I could also have been a Buddha, a Mahavira, a Krishna, a Christ.
"
Should it even once occur to you that "I could have been the same too" -- of course you need someoo look up to for su inspiration -- your vital energy would embark on a higher journey.
And remember, your vital energy is always moving -- if it is not journeying upward, it is journeying downward.
The vital energy is atic.
In the world of scioushere is no stopping, no waiting.
There is no station where you get off a, whether you are moving up or down.
Every moment life is in motion.
The time has e for the raising of sciousness, and for having these sciousnesses remain there aloft so that others may look up to them.
I would like to start a movement throughout the world, not of many people -- I only need a few ceous individuals ready to experiment.
If a hundred people in India agree to experiment and are determio raise their sciousnesses as high as humanly possible, the entire face of India be ged in the wenty years.
At the time of his death Vivekananda said, "I kept calling for a hundred people to e, but they never did.
I am now dying a disheartened man.
If only a hundred people had e, I could have ged the whole try.
"
Vivekananda went on calling but the people didnt e.
I have decided I wont call people.
Ill sear ead every village.
Ill look into the eyes of ead every man to make sure who he is.
And that man who will not e in respoo the call will have to be physically brought.
If only a hundred people could be assembled like this, I assure you their souls will rise like Mount Everest.
On that jourhe spirit, the life energy of the whole try move ahead.
Those friends who find my challenge worth accepting, who feel they have enough ce and strength to tread a path which is absolutely unknown, unfamiliar, to cross a totally uncharted o, should know within themselves that such ce and daring os in them because deep down a divine call must have e -- otherwise such ce and daring is not possible.
It was said i, "A person who calls fod should know that God must have called him long before, otherwise the call could not have arisen in him.
"
Those who feel the call from within have a great responsibility towards mankind.
The need of the hour is for a few people to e forward and, in order to experiehe heights of sciousness, offer their lives totally.
All the truths of life, all the experiences up to this point are being falsities.
All the heights attained so far are being taken as fantasies, are being myths.
One or two hundred years from now, children will refuse to believe there ever were people like Buddha, Mahavira and Christ.
They will call them all merely fictitious characters.
In the West, in faan has written a book in which he says a man like Christ never existed.
He says its just an old play which, in the course of time, people fot and began to look upon as history.
We enact Ramleela because we believe a person like Rama did exist before -- and so we perform Ramleela.
A hundred years from now children will say, "They played Ramleela and people got the wrong impression that Rama had lived at some time in the past.
" So Ramleela, the enat of Ramas adventures, would precede Rama.
Ramleela will be seen as nothing but a play which went on for a long time, and Rama will simply be remembered as an upshot of it.
Obviously, when people like Rama, Buddha and Christ cease to be reized, how will it be possible to believe they ever existed before?
The human mind is never ready to believe there be people with higher minds.
It refuses to accept there be someone greater.
A man always wants to believe he is the greatest.
He accepts someones superiority only when pelled to, otherwise all.
He makes a thousand attempts to find some fault, some defe the other in order to prove he is inferior too.
He is always on the lookout so that someday he tell everyone his old image of the person is shattered, that he no lives him any credence because he has discovered a blemish.
Essentially, the search is to find something wrong with the person.
If none is found, a new wrong is ied so a man feel fortable in his own stupidity and feel he is doing fine.
By and by, man will deny all the great souls because their symbols, their signs, are nowhere visible.
How long will images of stone vince us that Buddha and Mahavira really did exist? How long will the words of The Bible assure us of the existence of Christ? And how long will the Bhagavadgita be able to show that Krishna lived? Not for long.
We need people like Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira.
If we do not produce men of such caliber in the fifty years, the human race is about to enter a very dark age.
Then there is no future for mankind.
This is a great challenge for those who feel they do something for humanity.
I will move from town to town giving this clarion call.
Wherever I e across eyes which I feel bee burning lamps, be lit with the divine flame, I am ready to put my whole effort into making this a reality.
From my side I am fully prepared.
Let us see if at the time of my death I also have to say, "I was looking for a hundred people, but couldnt find them.
"
Chapter 10
Religion is a Seareditation1 August 1970 pm in CCI Chambers, Bombay, India
Question 1
BEFORE DISCUSSING THE PROCESS OF ENTERIH SCIOUSLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU: WHAT IS THE DIFFEREWEEATE OF UNSCIOUSNESS AND THE STATE OF AWARENESS? WHAT STATE OF MIND IS CALLED THE UNSCIOUS STATE? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL SOULS SCIOUSNESS LIKE IN ITS SCIOUS AND UNSCIOUS STATES?
In order to uand the states of sciousness and unsciousness, the first thing that o be uood is that they are not opposite states, although normally they are seen as opposites.
Actually, we are used to seeing life in terms of duality.
First we create a divisioween darkness and light and then think they are two separate things.
As soon as we take darkness and light to be two different things we it a fual mistake.
Any thought that follows this mistake is bound to be wrong; it ever be right.
Darkness and light are variations of the same thing.
They are different aspects, different stages of the same thing.
It would be appropriate to call darkness a deficy of light.
Light which our eyes ot catch, light which our eyes ot detect, looks like darkness.
Similarly, we should call light a she of darkness -- darkness which our eyes catch.
So darkness and light are not two separate things, they are varying degrees of the same phenomenon.
What is true of darkness and light is true of all other dualities of life.
The same thing is true regarding the unscious and the scious states.
You may sider unsciousness as darkness, and sciousness as light.
In fact, even the most unscious of all objects is not pletely unscious.
A rock is not all unscious -- it exists in a state of sciousoo, but the sciousness is so small it is hard to grasp.
A man is asleep, a man is awake.
Sleep and wakefulness are not two different things.
The same man is floatiween sleep and wakefulness.
What we call being asleep is also not really being asleep.
For example, five hundred people are asleep in a room and you call the name "Rama" aloud.
Only the person named Rama opens his eyes to find out who is disturbing his sleep, who has called him.
The remaining four hundred and y-nine people stay asleep.
Had this man been really asleep, he could not have heard anyone calling him; he could not have reized that his name was Rama.
His sleep was actually one of the lesser states of wakefulness, or his state of wakefulness had bee a little hazy, a little fuzzy.
You see a man running oreet.
He has heard that his house is on fire.
You greet him.
He sees you a he does not see you.
He hears you a he does not hear you.
You ask him the day why he didurn yreeting and he replies, "My house was on fire.
At that time I couldnt see anything except my house, I couldnt hear anything except the he sound around the house, people shouting The house is on fire! I am sure you must have seen me, greeted me, but I couldnt see you, I couldnt hear you.
" Now, was this man awake or asleep? In every sense he was awake, of course, a, as far as the man who met him oreet was ed, he was almost asleep.
He was more asleep thaher man, the one who heard "Rama" being called in his sleep.
So what is being asleep and being awake? The first thing I would like to say is: they are not two opposite things.
Matter and God are not two opposite things.
Sleep and wakefulness, light and darkness, devil and divine, good and bad, are not opposite things.
But the human mind immediately divides things into two.
In fao sooner does the mind raise a question than it divides the thing into two.
The moment mind thinks, it divides into two.
To think and to divide into two stitute one and the same thing.
The moment you think, you divide.
Thinking is a process of division -- you immediately divide into two.
The more a man is used to thinking, the more he will keep on dividing.
Ultimately, he will end up with fragments and the whole will be pletely lost.
And the ao every question lies in this wholeness, in this totality.
The mind is uo find the ao any question.
In fact, it raises a number of questions from easwer it finds.
No matter how signifit the answer is, the mind will immediately raise dozens of questions -- but it ever find an ao anything.
There is a reason for this: the answer lies in the wholeness.
But the mind is helpless.
It t fun without making divisions.
For example, I am sittialking to you.
You are listening to me and you are also looking at me.
The one you are looking at and the one you are listening to are not two different individuals.
However, as far as you are ed, you are looking with your eyes and hearing with your ears.
You have divided me into two parts.
If you were to sit close to me and smell my body, you would have divided me into three.
Then you will put these three parts together and create an image of me.
But that wont be my image, it will be your addition of the parts.
It will be misleading.
You ever create the whole by adding up the parts, because the whole is that which was before the parts were made.
No sooner do we ask about sciousness and unscioushan we have begun to divide.
In my view, they are one.
But when I say they are one, I do not mean they are one and the same.
I am not saying sciousness itself is unsciousness.
When I say darkness and light are one, I dont mean you walk in the dark as you do when there is light.
When I say darkness and light are one, I meaence is made of varying degrees of the same maiy.
The difference sists in being a little more or a little less, in being present or not present.
Now it will be easier for you to follow me.
What is this thing which appears as sciousness when it is present in a greater degree and bees unsciousness when it exists in a lesser degree? The name of this very element is attention.
The deeper and sharper the attention, the same is the state of sciousness.
Unsciousness and sciousness are but differeies of attention.
The more profound the state of attention, the same will be the sciousness.
The more tenuous the attention, the same will be the state of unsciousness.
In fact, the differeween a rod a human is that the rock does not have density of attention at any level of sciousness.
At whatever level the attention bees densed, sciousakes place, and at whatever level the density of attention decreases, unsciousness occurs.
If you let the suns rays pass through a lens, fire is immediately produced.
A densed light creates fire.
When it loses its density, when it bees tenuous, light remains.
There is fire in an ember because it tains highly densed light.
Whenever light is densed, fire is produced.
When the light bees tenuous -- that is, when its density is reduced -- then even fire remains just light.
As density decreases darkness increases.
With an increase iy, light increases.
If we travel towards the sun, the light will keep on increasing, because the rays are very dense on the sun.
As we move farther and farther away from the sun, the light will go on decreasing.
At the farthest distance from the sun there will be nothing but darkness, because of the reduced density of light.
I apply the same principle to the states of unsciousness and sciousness.
The basic principle is attention.
Its fluidity, density, tenuity, solidity, determine whether to call one awake or asleep, whether to call one unscious or scious.
We must remember, however, that all these words are used in a relative sense.
For example, when we say there is light in this room, it only means there is more light ihe room than there is outside.
There is light in this room because it is dark outside.
Were there bright sunshiside, this room would look darker.
So when we say somebody is awake or asleep, we simply mean, in parison to someone else.
Language has its own difficulty; it would be a problem to tinually express things in suparative terms.
Thats why we use words in the absolute sense -- which is nht.
The right way is always to express iive terms.
For instance, we are all sitting here and in a way we are all awake.
But thats not really true.
Eae present here is awake to a respective degree.
Not every oting here is awake uniformly.
He is possible that, pared to you.
the person to your left is less awake, or the person to yht is more awake.
The element that moves between sciousness and unsciousness is attention.
So if we uand what attention, dhyana is, well uand what sciousness and unsciousness means.
Attention means: awareness of something.
It means refle of something in the sciousness.
It is not that every moment, twenty-four hours a day, one is equally awake -- it is never like that either.
As an example, it would be good to know a few things about the pupil of the eye.
When you go out in the sun, the pupil tracts because there is no need for so much light to go in.
Less light is enough for you to see; hehe pupil tracts and the focus is narrowed.
When you e out ht light into a dark place, the pupils dilate and the focus is enlarged, because in order to see in the dark, more light o go within.
So acc to the degree of darkness and light it is exposed to, the pupil of the eye keeps ging its focus -- the same way we keep adjusting the focus of the camera lens while shooting pictures.
Just as every moment ones eye is flexible, so is otention.
You walk along a street.
If the street is familiar your attention will be tenuous; if the street is unfamiliar your attention will be dense.
You need not be alert if it is a street you cross every day, because in an unscious state you are sure to make it.
If the street is totally unfamiliar, one you have never crossed before, you will cross it with awareness.
Because of the unfamiliarity of the street, great attention will be needed.
Hehe more a man lives in security, the more unscious he will be.
In security everything is known, familiar.
The more one lives in insecurity, the more aware he will be.
So ordinarily, except for the moments of danger, we are never aware, we are always asleep.
If I suddenly point a dagger at your chest, you will bee alert at once.
You will bee scious, awake, quite different from what you are now.
Seeing the dagger poi you will create su emergency, such a critical situation, that at that moment you t afford to be asleep.
That means you t be sleepy in such a moment.
If you stay sleepy in such a dangerous situation you will be near death.
In that threatening moment your whole being will e to the point of crystallization, your whole attention will bee densed.
Your whole attention will remain fixed on the dagger and you will bee fully aware of it.
It is possible this situation may last only for a sed; heless, the fact is, your attention ordinarily bees dense only in critical moments.
Ohe danger is over, you go back to your previous state, you go to sleep once again.
That seems to be the reason datracts.
We love to take risks.
A man gambles, for example.
You may have hardly given a thought as to what makes him gamble.
It is the element of dahat draws him to gambling.
At the moment of plag his bet, he is more aware than ever.
A gambler has placed a huhousand dollars on a bet and is about to throw the dice.
Its a very critical moment.
In a blink, a huhousand dollars go this way or that.
At this moment he ot afford to be asleep; he will have to be aware.
That moment of betting is certain to crystallize his attention.
Now this may intrigue you, but in my view a gambler is also in seareditation.
Whether he knows it or not is another matter.
A man brings a wife home.
Then, as the days go by and she bees more and more familiar, he bees less and less atteowards her.
She bees as well known to him as the street he crosses every day -- and suddenly the woma door looks more attractive.
The reason is nothing more than the fact that her unfamiliarity excites his attention.
Looking at her, his attention has to bee dehe focus of his eye ges immediately.
Actually, the eyes of husbands and wives dont ge focus when they look at each other.
In fact, a husband hardly ever looks at his wife; he avoids her.
The way he lives and moves around her doesnt require him to pay any attention to her.
Hence, in my view, the attra for another woman or another man is really the attra of attention.
In that one moment, in that moment of thrill, the mind bees fully aware.
It has to -- because only then is it possible to see somebody.
There is a chase going on -- to have a new house instead of the old, new clothes instead of the old, new positions instead of the old.
Deep down, all this chasing indicates a profound desire to experience a crystallized attention -- meditation.
And all the joys in ones life depend on how crystallized the meditation is.
The moments of bliss are the moments of crystallized meditation.
Hence.
those who wish to attain joy must awaken.
You ot attain joy by staying asleep.
Religion is a seareditation, and so is gambling.
One who goes to battle, sword in hand, is in seareditation too.
One who goes hunting a tiger in the forest is also searg for meditation.
And the one who is sitting in the cave with his eyes closed, w hard on his agya chakra, his third eye ter, is searg for meditation as well.
The search be both good or bad, desirable or undesirable, but the search is one and the same.
A search may be successful or unsuccessful, but the desire for searg is one and the same.
Meditation means: the power of knowing that lies within you bees ma in its ey.
No part of it should remain potent within you, in seed form.
Whatsoever capability of knowing you have should not remain just a potential, it should bee actual.
Only in that moment a person bees fully aware does he really flower as a being.
Both events occur simultaneously.
For example, a tree is hidden in a seed, but potentially.
It is just a potentiality: the seed die without materializing into the tree.
It is not necessary that the tree has to e out of the seed, it is simply a possibility.
It is only a potentiality, not yet an actuality.
The later turning of the seed into a tree is yet aate of its being, the ma state.
It would not be wrong to say that the seed is the unma state of the tree, because pears in the form of a tree is the same as was hidden within the seed.
Following the same analogy, it would not be incorrect to say that unsciousness is the potential state of awareness, or that awareness is the ma state of unsciousness.
What is it that moves between these states? What resent in the seed and also exists iree? There must be a eg liween the seed and the tree.
There must be something that makes the journey from the seed to the tree, that exists in both.
How else there be a e between the seed and the tree? What was hidden in the seed and has maed iree? It either be the seed nor it be the tree.
This o be uood.
The third power that was hidden in the seed and which became ma iree could not have been the seed alone.
Then it could never have bee the tree.
And if it were the tree alone, how could it have been in the seed? It existed in both.
That third power is the vital energy.
Awakening and unsciousness are two states.
The element that travels betweewo is meditation.
Thats the third force, the vital energy.
So, the more meditative you are, the more aware; the less meditative, the more asleep.
A rock is a sleeping God -- totally asleep, absolutely like a seed, no sprouting anywhere.
Man is not a tree, he is a broken seed with a tiny sprout.
He has not yet bee a tree, but he is no longer like a rock either.
He is on a journey somewhere iween.
Man is on a journey -- or it would be eveer to say that man is in transit, at a halting pla a journey.
Man is a seed on its way to being a tree.
He is also a sprout iween.
Thats all man is -- a sprout, a sprouted seed.
What we ordinarily know as being awake is also just a sprouting.
What we call being awake is also a very blurry state.
What we call being awake is still a very sleepy state.
The wakeful state in which we go about our daily routine is not very different from the state of somnambulism.
In a dream, a mas up, goes to the kit and drinks a glass of water, or sits at his table and writes a letter, and then goes back to sleep.
He remembers nothing of this in the m, he did it all in the dream.
His eyes were open, he followed the right path, opehe door without difficulty, wrote the letter, but still he was asleep.
This means that, except for a tiny little er, his entire mind was asleep, and hence could nister his as in its memory.
So the man is at a loss in the m to explain what happe night.
What we call being awake is a state similar to somnambulism.
If I ask what you did on January 1, 1950, you will be at a loss to answer.
You may simply say.
"There was a first of January indeed, and I must have done something on that day, but I have no idea what exactly.
" You will be surprised to know, however, that if you were hypnotized and asked the same question you could easily give a detailed at of that very day.
What occurred on that day was recorded in some er of your mind, a er of which even you are not fully aware.
It was recorded a unused.
Similarly, the memories of our past lives are also lying there undisturbed.
We are not fully izant of them.
In the previous life some part of our being was awake, and that part had dohe rec.
Now the same part is inactive, asleep; the other part is awake, active.
The part which is awake in this life has no knowledge of the immense amount of work already aplished by another part in a previous life.
It is ignorant of the fact that a seed had already sprouted in the previous life and subsequently died.
It has no idea at all that su attempt was already made once before.
As a matter of fact, infiempts have been made before.
Should you ever enter into the memories of your past lives, you will be in freat surprise.
The memories of past lives are not restricted to human lives alone.
Entering these memories is very easy; one do so without much difficulty.
However, prior to many human lives, assed through animal lives as well.
It is difficult to pee them because they are hidden under even deeper layers.
And even prior to our animal lives, we have lived through many lives as trees as well.
Peing them is even more difficult because they are buried even further, at deeper levels.
Prior to having lived as trees, we have gohrough many lives as rocks and minerals.
Memories of these lie at even lower levels.
Access to them is even more difficult.
Up to now, experiments in remembering past lives have not gone beyond the level of animal life.
Even the experiments carried on by Buddha and Mahavira did not go beyond the level of animal life.
The memory of being a tree is yet to be revived.
As for the memory of being rocks and minerals, it is still further down the road.
But the memories of all these past lives are clearly recorded.
This rec, however, must have taken pla a state of somnoleherwise oire mind would be aware of it.
It may not have occurred to you, but there are certain things we never fet.
Why is it so? For example, lets assume someone slapped you when you were five years old.
Even after so many years the i is still fresh in your mind, and you will never fet it for the rest of your life.
What seems to be the matter? At the moment you were slapped, your attention must have been very sharp.
Thats why the i made such a deep impression on you.
It is only natural that at the moment one is slapped, otention would be at its highest point.
This is the reason man ever fet the moments of insult, the moments of pain, the moments of happiness.
These are all intense moments.
In these moments he is so filled with awarehat their memory pervades his entire sciousness, while the ordinary run-of-the-mill happenings are fotten by him.
How are we to uand what attention is, what meditation is? Because it is an experieo uand it is a bit difficult.
If I were to stick a pin in your body what would happen inside? All your attention would at once begin to rush to the point where the pin had stuck you.
All of a sudden that point in the body would bee signifit.
One should say, rather, your whole being would verge upon it.
At that moment you would only remain aware of that part of the body where the pin was hurting.
So what really did occur in your body? Even without the pin that part of your body was there, but you were not aware of it, not izant of it; you didnt even know such a part existed.
And then, suddenly, the pain caused by the pied a crisis and your whole attention rushed to where the pin was hurting.
What is it that rushed towards that point? What happened inside you? How are things different now? What is it that was not present at that point a moment ago, but now is? It is the sciousness, the awareness, that was absent from this point a moment ago.
Its absence made you so oblivious to that part of the body that whether it existed or not was all the same.
You had no knowledge of it; it made little difference whether it was there or not.
Suddenly you became aware that part also exists in your body.
Suddenly it makes a lot of difference whether it exists or not.
Now its existential awareness bees apparent to you.
So, attention means awareness.
There be two kinds of attention.
This also o be uood, because it will be useful in following your question.
There are two kinds of attention.
One, we may call tration.
In order to uand what tration is, it is necessary to know that when your attention is tered on one point, you bee oblivious to all other points.
As I mentioned earlier, if a pin is thrust into your body, your eention will go to the point where the pin is hurting.
You will bee unaware of the rest of the body.
In fact, a sick person remains aware only of those parts of his body which are not well.
He begins to live only in and around the afflicted parts of his body; the rest of the body does for him any more.
One who suffers from a headache bees identified with the head alohe rest of his body ceases to be.
One whose stomach hurts, his whole attentioers only oomach.
If a thorn pricks your foot, the foot bees everything.
This is tration of attention.
This is how y all your sciouso one point.
Wheire sciousness verges on one point as there, obviously all other points bee ed, disappear into darkness.
As I pointed out earlier, when someones house is on fire, he bees oblivious to everything but the fire.
He only knows his house is on fire; everything else is dead as far as he is ed.
The only thing he remains aware of is that his house is on fire.
He bees unscious towards the rest of the world.
So, tration is one form of attention.
In tration you bee tered on one point while remaining unscious of the infinite number of other areas.
Hence, although tration is the density of attention, at the same time it is the expansion of unsciousoo.
Both things happen simultaneously.
The other form of attention is awareness -- not tration.
Awareness means attention which is not tered on any particular point.
This is a little difficult to uand, because we only know the poitention.
A man knows about the thorn hurting his foot, the headache, the house on fire, the taking of an examination and so on, so we know attention directed towards a particular point; we know what tration is.
But there is oher kind of attention which is not focused on a given point.
As long as a mans attention is narrowed down to a particular point, he will be unscious of the remaining areas.
If we believe God is, then he must indeed be an awakened God, fully aware.
But what would he be aware of? And should there be a point of which he is aware, then he would obviously have to be unscious of all the rest.
So there t be any object, aer of awareness as far as God is ed.
Its an awareness without a ter.
In such a case, awareness bees infinite, all pervading.
This all-pervading awareness is the ultimate state, the highest possible.
Thats why, when we define God as sat-chit-anand, the word chit means this state of being.
Ordinarily, people take chit to meaana, sciousness, which is not really its meaning, because sciousness is always about something.
If you say, "I am scious," then it be asked, "scious about what?" Chit means objectless sciousness.
It is not sciousness aimed at something, it is just a pure state of being scious.
sciousness will always be object-tered, while the state of being scious is c９9lib?entrifugal, radiating into infinity.
It does not rest on anything; it does not stop at anything, it pervades all over.
In this state, which extends to infinity, there is no single point where unsciousness gain a foothold.
This is the ultimate state.
We may call it the state of total awareness.
There is a state exactly opposite to this which we call sushupti, the state of total, dreamless sleep.
And this o be uood too.
In tration, ones sciousness is tered on one object, unscious of the rest.
Awareness is tered on one point only.
Iate of total awareness, however, there is no particular point to be aware of -- the awareness is all-permeating.
One should say there is just awareness, not an awareness of a particular object.
Iate of total awarehe object disappears, only the subject remains.
Only the knower remains; that which is to be known remains no more.
The knower alone remains.
The energy to know spreads into infinity and no longer is there anythio know.
There is always a price for whatsoever knowledge one wishes to attain.
If you want to know藏书网 about something, you will have to be ignorant of something else.
Remember, it is with ignorahat one alays the price of knowing.
As man goes on being knowledgeable of many things, he has to remain equally ignorant of many others.
Now, for example, a stist is quite a knowledgeable person, but if he is a chemist he will know nothing about physics, if he is a mathemati he will know nothing about chemistry.
If he wants to know a great deal about mathematics, he will have to be tent with not knowing about many other things.
He will have to make this choice.
If you want to be an expert in a particular field, you will have to have the ce to remain ignorant about many other things.
Thats why Mahavira and Buddha were not men of knowledge in this sense.
They did not have any specialized knowledge; they were not experts in any field.
Hence, on the one hand we say Mahavira was omnist, but the fact is he didnt even know how to fix a puncture in a bicycle tire.
He was not a specialist.
One who o know how to fix a puncture in a bicycle tire will have to keep himself from knowing about many other things.
His sciousness will have to bee object-tered and allow many things to be left in the dark.
The very meaning of sce is knowing more and more about less and less.
As the amount of knowledge grows, the area of knowledge bees more and more narrow.
Finally, only one point remains to be known and the rest of the areas are filled with ignorance.
Thats the reason a stist who may be able to produce a hydrogen bomb be easily fooled by an ordinary shopkeeper -- because whatsoever he knows is in such a limited sphere that he knows nothing about the rest.
About the rest he is as dull as a villager, even worse.
A villager knows about a good many things; he is not a specialist.
Thats why an old-fashioned man knows about many things while a modern man does not.
The modern man has had to make a choice.
In order to know a lot about ohing he has had to give up knowing about many other things.
tration is bound to end up like this.
One particular object will gain importance while all remaining objects will fall into .
Yet another result of tration is that the more an object grows in importahe more the one who knows about it bees sedary.
A stist knows a great deal, but he has no knowledge of the knower, of the knowing element within himself.
He bees object-tered.
If you ask him about an object he will explain it to you, but if you ask him to say something about himself, you will often times find him at a loss.
There is an iing episode in the life of Edison, who made a thousand discoveries.
Perhaps no one else has made so many discoveries.
In the first world war, when rationing was introduced in America, Edison had t his ration card to the shop and stand in the queue as well.
When his homas Edison, was called out, he looked around with indifference, as if someone elses name was being called.
Somebody in the queue happenize him.
He came up to him and said.
"Pardon me, I have seen your photograph in the neers.
You yourself seem to be Edison.
"
Edison gave a start.
He thahe man for reminding him who he was.
He said, "In the last thirty years I have had little free time or leisure to meet myself.
" For thirty years this man had been so busy in his laboratory that he had no time for himself.
He was su important figure that in thirty years no one had ever called him by his given name.
Obviously, he had fotten it.
tration happens when the arrow of sciousness strikes an object with great iy.
With that, however, the entire world, including ones own self, falls into darkness.
Iimate state that I am speaking to you about the particular object will have vanished; instead, everything will be illuminated, including yourself, including that which you are.
It will be an unfocused light.
Instead of calling it light, we should rather call it luminosity.
Light and luminosity are not synonymous; there is a slight distin betweewo.
pears with the sunrise is light, but when the night is past and the sun is yet to rise, what then appears is luminosity.
It is unfocused, uered, just luminosity.
So, God is just luminosity -- or, luminosity is the state of ultimate awakening.
Exactly opposite to this is the state of darkness or of dreamless sleep.
Lets put it this way.
Iate of total awareness her the subjeor the object remains.
What remains is just infinite luminosity.
In a manner of speaking, this luminosity is a state of knowing all, but in another se is a state of knowing nothing at all.
It is all-knowing, because now nothing remains that falls outside the radius of its light.
And it knows nothing, because now there is nothi whieeds to be known.
If oempts to know something in particular, many other things will obviously be left unknown.
So this is not the kind of knowledge that is acquired by a stist, it is knowledge in the sense a poet is known to have it.
The sed on state of awareness is that of tration, where you know about ohing and fet about all the rest, including yourself.
And there is yet aate whies before this.
It is the primary state in which you know her the objeor yourself.
It is the state of total darkness.
her do you know about anything -- it is not even tration; nor do you know about everything -- it is not even awareness.
Nor do you know yourself.
The knowing is still in the embryo state.
It is still in seed form; it is still unma, hidden in the roots.
So there is sushupti, the state of dreamless sleep, and there is the state of total awareness.
Iween these infinite points of attention we oscillate.
When you are aware in the day, the pendulum of your attention swings a little towards awareness.
At night, when you are asleep, it swings towards sushupti.
The fact is, in sleep we e o matter.
When we are awake we e closer to the divine, just a little closer.
We swing tod.
Should we tio lean towards awareness like this, should this journey tihen a moment es when even in sleep you are not really pletely asleep.
Then you begin to remain aware even in your sleep.
Then sleep bees merely a physical relaxation, not a state of spiritual darkness.
Then you sleep and also remain aware of the fact that you are asleep.
You turn in your sleep and know that you are doing so.
Then the current of awareness keeps flowing within.
The reverse happens too.
For example, a man falls into a a or bees unscious ets drunk.
In all these cases the man is unaware of what is going on outside or inside himself.
The knower, as well as that which is to be known, are both lost, lost in darkness.
Similarly, both disappear iate of ultimate sciousness as well, but they disappear in infinite light.
If you uand what I am saying, then, in brief, it means that the journey of attentioends from total sleep to total awareness.
Iween, it is divided at many levels.
A tree knows something too.
For a long time we had no knowledge of this fact.
When some people brought this to our attention for the first time, it seemed as if they were talking fi; what they said sounded like a story from the Puranas.
But now, even stists are providing proof that a tree knows as well, that a tree listens too.
The bark of some trees also has eyes -- not like ours of course, but heless, trees have the ability to see, to listen, to experience.
Retly, I was reading about some experiments ducted at the de la Warr Laboratory of Oxford Uy.
Through stific means they have brought certain astonishing experieo our attention.
One of the most amazing experiences was that seeds from one packet were divided equally and sown in two separate flower pots.
Both pots were given equal care and attention.
Then a holy man, a monk, was asked to pray before one of the two pots so its seeds should sprout early, so they should bear flowers and fruit and attain to their ultimate potential.
The same prayer was not made before the sed pot.
To everyones great surprise the seeds iher pot sprouted very late in spite of the fact that all arras for both pots were the same; there was not the slightest difference.
The gardeners were her informed of the differeniven any instrus to treat them differently.
heless, the pot which had been prayed over looked very distinguished.
The seeds in it grew early, bore flowers and fruit early.
All its seeds sprouted, while all the seeds of the other pot did not.
Whatever seeds grew in the sed pot took the normal time; their growth was slower.
And there was a marked differen the quality of flowers and fruit.
This experiment and many others were ducted in this laboratory, and to everyones surprise it was felt that plants are able to sense prayer too, that they are receptive to prayer too.
An even more surprising experiment took place, one which caused great excitement.
The holy man who was asked to pray was a Christian and he wore a cross around his neck.
As he prayed for a particular seed with his eyes closed and his arms raised, the seed hotographed.
And the photograph turned out to be spectacular, far beyond anyones prehension.
In the photograph of that seed the holy mans cross and raised arms were clearly visible.
What does this mean? There are very wide implications.
I believe these experiments will prove much more useful to mankind than the discovery of atomiergy.
The seed is accepting, the seed is receiving something too.
The seed has a sciousoo.
Indeed, it is asleep.
pared to man it looks even more asleep.
Ahere is a certain awareness in its state of sleep.
A rock looks even more asleep, but even its state of sleep tains a kind of awareness.
Not all rocks are absolutely rocks, and not all rocks are equally asleep.
Rocks have their respective individuality too.
It was the search for their respective singularity that led to the discovery of precious stones; otherwise they would not have been found.
Not just any stone is taken to be a precious stone.
Also, dont be uhe wrong impression, normally created by applying the law of eics, that certain things bee valuable because of their rarity.
This is not how these stones are valued.
It is as if a buddha is standing somewhere and an ordinary man stands near him.
If someone from Mars were to land oh and e across these two men, how would he differentiate between them? He her knows our language nor our culture nor our manners.
He will only judge by appearances.
If the Martiao spend an hour or so watg these two men, would he ever observe any distin betweewo? Returning to his pla, he would not be wrong if he told his fellow Martians he had seen two people who looked very much alike.
He had seen them both breathing, walking, talking, resting -- and all alike.
So when we see two pieces of stone, our uanding is similar because we are unaware of their individualities.
Precious stones are a great discovery of man.
Those who were able to read the stones ih, able to go deep in their research, to ect with them, found out that.
even with stohere are some which are awake.
Certain stones are more awake; certain others, more asleep.
People also came to know that certain stones are awake in a particular dire and therefore be used only for particular reasons.
Some unpreted events will start taking pla your life if you carry certain kinds of stones, make a charm of them, wear them in a necklaount one in y -- because such stones have their own lives too.
With the ownership of a stone of that kind is will iably occur, because now you are in a symbiotic relationship with the stone.
Without it suts would not happen.
There are stones which have a long history of misfortune.
Whosoever possessed such a stone found himself in difficulty, found it hard to get out of it.
And whehe stone passed to someone else, he got into trouble too.
There are stones which have a history of hundreds of years, and some of thousands of years, showing that whosoever possessed them was besieged by trouble.
These stones are still very much alive, still doing their job; they will cause trouble to anyone who possesses them.
Then there are other stohat have brought good fortuo those who owhem, and became more and more costly.
So stones have their own individuality, as do plants.
In this world everything has individuality, and this individuality depends on the degree to which a thing is awake or asleep.
In other words, to what extent the attention is active or inactive determihe individuality of a particular thing.
You look at it this way too: a dynamic attention means awareness, while a passive attention means sleep, unsciousness.
The ultimate passivity of attention is matter, the ultimate dynamism of attention is God.
Question 2
YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TWO STATES, ONE OF PLETE UNSCIOUSNESS AND THE OTHER OF ABSOLUTE AWARENESS.
ORAVELS FROM PLETE UNSCIOUSO ABSOLUTE AWARENESS.
THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DO WE REACH AFTER ATTAINING THE STATE OF ABSOLUTE AWARENESS? ALSO, FROM WHICH POINT DOES THE PLETE UNSCIOUSNESS BEGIN, AND WHERE DOES IT E FROM?
Actually, as soon as we use the words absolute or whole we o take a few ditions that go with it into at.
For insta is wrong to ask "Where does wholeness end?" because wholeness means that which ever e to an end.
Should it ever end somewhere it will not be whole.
It will remain fi that very point; right there it will cease to be whole.
When we ask, "From where does wholeness begin?" we are asking a wrong question, because the whole means that which has no beginning.
If it has a beginning then it ot be whole.
The whole, the absolute is beginningless and endless.
It her has a beginning before nor an end afterwards.
If there were ends on any side it would not be the whole.
Therefore, we t ask any questions about the beginning or the end of the absolute.
If one o ask a question at all, then one should only ask before he es to the question, "What is whole?" As such, the very meaning of whole is something about which all questions are meaningless.
Questions occur in our minds: "Where did this unsciousness e from? Why did it e? When did it e? Where will it end? Why will it end? When will it end? Where ience is this state of sciousness located? And where ience could the state of plete unsciousness be?" It is natural that questions such as these should arise.
The questions are perfectly sistent, yet totally meaningless.
One should not be uhe illusion that just because a thing is sistent it is also meaningful.
A thing be sistent a meaningless.
So the questions are absolutely perti but the answers will have no meaning, will solve nothing.
Whatsoever ahere may be only give rise to more questions of this nature.
So what do I io tell you?
There are certaiions you never ask a stist.
Why not show the same attitude towards a religious man? There are certain things a stist is never asked to explain.
Why are they asked of a religious man? A stist refuses to answer such questions, while the silly religious man makes the mistake of answering them.
All religions make this error.
By answering such questions -- questions which ot be answered in the first place -- they get themselves into trouble.
For example, if you ask a stist, "Why is a tree green?" he will answer, "Because the tree tains chlorophyll.
" And if you ask, "Why does the tree tain chlorophyll?" the stist will disregard the question -- it is a fact; thats the way it is.
He will point out, "The tree is green because it tains chlorophyll!" If you tio ask, "Why t the tree be without chlorophyll?" the stist will state frankly, "I am not the creator, and there is no ao this question!"
In this way, sce escapes falling into stupidities.
It leaves everything to the facts.
"This is how it is; these are the facts.
" The stist says, "When we mix hydrogen with oxygen, water is created.
" No one goes on asking him, "Why is it so? Why is water created by mixing hydrogen and oxygen?" He will simply make it clear.
"The questio arise," he will say.
"We know this much, that by mixing both, water is created; by not mixing them, water is not created.
This is a fact.
Beyond this, fi begins.
"
If we could give an explanation as to why sud-such a thing happens, then I would like to say that, in this world, there is unsciousness and there is awareness.
This is a fad as yet no way has been found to go beyond them.
And I dont think a way ever be found.
This is the ultimate fact.
There is darkness at one end and light at the other.
Eventually darkness disappears into infinity, and one never knows where it began, where its point of initiation was.
Light eventually disappears into infinity too, and one never knows the point of its disappearance.
And we are always in the middle; we only see a short distan either dire.
As we look backward we find darkness increasing, being more and more dense.
As we look forward we find darkness decreasing and light growing, being increasingly dense.
But we never see either the end of darkness or of light.
Nor do we see any beginning of darkness, nor any termination of light.
This is how we are situated -- in the middle.
No matter how far we look, this is all we see.
Even the most farsighted man has not seen farther than this.
What causes the difficulty? When we form a question, some fool turns up to a.
Once a question is formulated, someone or other is bound to e up with an answer for it.
This is how philosophy has e about.
Philosophy is made of foolish ao foolish questions.
And the questions remain, right where they always were.
There be different ao each question, because easwer reflects an individuals perception.
In ao the question, "Who created man?" someone say, "God created man.
" But so what? We ask, "Why did God create man? Why did he create him the way he did? Why did God create man in the first place?" This would leave the matter right where it is.
Finally one might say, "Well, this is the way he does it!"
If this is the answer we are going to get ultimately
Someone might say, "It is all maya; it is beyond prehension.
" On the one hand this man is saying that everything is beyond prehension, that it is all an illusion, maya; however, when he is talking about everything being an illusion, he is saying something which is actually ing out of his uanding.
He appears to have fully uood that everything is maya, that everything is beyond prehension.
If everything is indeed beyond prehension, then he o shut up; then he need not say all is maya.
How there be an answer if it is really beyond prehension? So one must keep quiet; there is o answer.
Some people say God created man so man attain God.
What foolishness! If this were really true then why didnt he create man as a god in the first place? Where was the o gh all this trouble? Someone else declares, "This whole thing goes on to fulfill the unfinished karmas of previous lives.
" But then it be asked, "There must have been a first life without any other life preg it.
Then what fruits were we reaping in that initial birth?" Obviously it was without cause.
In my view, no philosophy has ever provided any ao the ultimate questions.
All philosophies are fually disho.
But the dishoy is hidden very deep.
And ohis basic dishoy escapes your notice, the remaining structure will look very ving; you wont find any difficulty.
Once you have accepted a lie -- the first lie -- all the following lies will appear as truths.
Once a person believes that God is the creator, the matter ends right there.
But how do we know God is the creator? If this question arises even o means the matter has remained right where it is -- it has her begun nor ended.
In my view, religion should also be perceived as a sce.
Some time before his death Einstein was asked, "How do you differentiate between a stist and a philosopher?" Einstein replied, "I call that man a stist who, when asked one hundred questions, answers one and shows his ignorance about the remaining y-nine.
And about the one he answers, he will make clear that it is all that is known at this point.
It may ge with a new discovery iure.
It is not the final statement.
"
Sever makes any final statement.
Thats why theres a kind of hoy in sce.
So Einstein said, "If you ask a philosopher a hundred questions, he will give one hundred and fifty answers.
He will sider easwer absolute, as if no ge ever occur.
" Whatsoever a philosopher says is to be taken as clusive; anyone doubting it suffer the fires of hell.
For a philosopher, his theory is irrefutable.
The way I look at it, we should be able to create minds that are both stifid religious at the same time.
This is my approach.
Although I talk all along ion, my outlook is always stific.
Therefore, I have no ao the ultimate questions; there ot be any.
If an answer does e, then know well the question is no lohe ultimate question -- it must be a question somewhere iween, a question for which the answer has been found.
The matter will be argued, carried further.
The ultimate question is one which remains in spite of all answers.
The ultimate question means that no matter how many questions are raised, after you are through answering them, you will find the same question awaiting you, the question mark still staring you in the face.
You may just succeed in pushing the question a little further back -- thats all.
You may have seen a Japanese doll.
No matter how you toss it, it always stands upright.
The doll is called Daruma.
It is named after an Indian mystic, Bodhidharma.
From India, Bodhidharma went to a, and in Japahe name Bodhidharma became Daruma, and thats how the doll came to be known as the Daruma doll.
No matter what anyone did to Bodhidharma, he remained as he was.
This doll is modeled after him.
Regardless of how you throw it, toss it, it sta, in place.
The ultimate questions are like the Daruma doll.
like Bodhidharma.
Do what you will, they stay right where they are.
At the most, depending on how and where you throw them, their positions may ge.
You may keep tossing the doll for the rest of your life: you will be tired, not the doll.
It will keep standing upright, in place.
These are ultimate questions.
When we ask what existed before the absolute, the whole, and what exists beyond, the question bees meaningless.
I tell you only this much: darkness, unsciousness extends to the rear, while there is an expanse of light, of sciousness ahead of us.
I tell you this also: as darkness decreases, bliss increases.
And I mention this as well: with the increase in darkness, misery grows.
These are facts.
If you wish to isery you go back towards darkness and unsciousness.
If you wish to choose bliss, you move ahead towards light, towards the ultimate light.
And if you wish for her, you stand iween and indulge in thinking about what was before and what is ahead.
Question 3
AT THE DWARKA MEDITATION CAMP YOU SAID MEDITATION AND SAMADHI STITUTE A VOLUNTARY, SCIOUS ENTERING INTO DEATH, AND IN DOING SO THE DELUSION OF DEATH DISAPPEARS.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHO IS DELUDED? IS IT THE BODY OR IS IT THE SCIOUSNESS? SIHE BODY IS MERELY A MEICAL DEVICE, IT OT EXPERIENCE SUCH DELUSION.
AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SCIOUSNESS BEING DELUDED.
THEN WHAT IS THE CAUSE, THE BASIS OF THIS DELUSION?
The awareness of death
If a man die iate of sciousness, for him death exists no more.
In other words, if a man mao remain scious at the time of death, he finds he never died at all: death appears just a delusion to him.
Death proving to be a delusion does not mean, however, that death remains in some form as a delusion.
Rather, when a person dies fully scious, he finds there is h at all.
Theh bees a falsehood.
But it is natural for you to ask, "Who is deluded?" You are right in saying it ot be the body, because how the body feel delusion? It ot be the soul either, because the soul never dies.
Then who goes through the delusion? It is of course, her the soul nor the body.
As a matter of fact, the individual never feels the delusion of death, the illusion of death is a social phenomenon.
This o be uood in a little detail.
You see a man dying, and then you think he is dead.
Since you are not dead you have nht to think this way.
It is very foolish on your part to clude that the man is dead.
All you ought to say is, "I am not able to determine whether he is the same person in the way I knew him before.
" To say anything more than this is dangerous, is crossing the limits of propriety.
All one ought to say is, "Up to yesterday the man was talking, now he no loalks.
Before he used to walk, now he walks no more.
Up to yesterday, what I had uood as his life exists no more.
The life he lived up to yesterday is no more.
If there is any life beyond that, then so be it; if there isnt, thehat as it may.
" But to say "The man is dead" is going a little too far; it is going beyond limits.
One ought to simply say, "The man is no longer alive.
" As one knew someoo have life, he no longer has it.
This much of a ive statement is fihat what we knew as his life -- his fighting, his loving, his eating, his drinking -- is no more, but to say the man is dead is making a very positive assertion.
We are not just saying whatsoever resent in the mas no more, we are saying something has happened over and above this -- the man is dead.
We are saying the phenomenon of death has also occurred.
It might be fine if we said that the things that were happening around this man before are no longer happening.
We are not only saying that, but also that a new phenomenon has been added: the man is dead too.
We who are not dead, we who have no knowledge of death, crowd around the person and pronounce him dead.
The crowd determihe mah without even asking him, without eveing him vouch for it! It is like a one-party decision in court; the other side is absent.
The poor fellow has not even had a ce to say whether he is indeed dead or not.
Do you follow what I meah is a social illusion.
It is not that mans illusion; his illusion is altogether different.
His illusion is not of dying.
His illusion is how he expeain awake at the moment of death when he has lived all his life iate of sleep? It is obvious.
How one who is used to spending his whole day in a state of sleep, stay awake when he is actually asleep? This means that one who is already asleep even when he is awake, will most certainly be fast asleep in his sleep.
How one who ot see in the bright daylight see in the darkness of night?
Do you suppose one who failed to see what life is like even in his wakeful state, will be able to see what death is? In fact, as soon as life slips through his hands, at that moment he will be lost in deep sleep.
The fact of the matter is that, outwardly, we feel he is dead, but this is a social determination, which is wrong.
Here the phenomenon of death is beiermined by those who are not qualified.
No one in the crowd is a right witness because no one really saw the person dying.
No one has ever seen a person dying! Never has an act of dying been witnessed by anyone.
>All we have known is that until a given moment a person was alive, and then he was no longer alive.
Thats it; beyond this there is a wall.
So far, no one has ever seen the phenomenon of death.
Actually, the problem is that ohings are accepted for a long time, we stop thinking them over.
For example, you will immediately take exception if I say that no man has ever seen light.
But I maintain that no one has ever seen light.
We have, of course, seen lighted objects, but never light itself.
We say there is light in this room because the wall is visible, because you are visible.
An object shines in the light, but light itself is never seen.
Light is always an unknown source.
Certain things shine in it, and because of that we say there is light.
When objects do not shine we say there is darkness.
We have never seen darkness either.
Obviously, how could one who has never seen light have ever seen darkness? If light were visible one could uand, but how darkness be seen?
Darkness simply means, now nothing is visible.
The deeper meaning of darkness is, now nothing is visible to us.
It would be better to say.
"We ot see anything.
" This would be a statement of fact.
But to say "There is darkness" is absolutely wrong.
This way, we are turning darkness into an object.
So the right thing to say about darkness is, "I ot see anything.
" However, just because I am uo see anything does not mean there is darkness.
Saying "I t see anything" means the source that made everything shine has bee dull.
Now, sihings are not visible, it is therefore dark.
A person who has, all along, taken his life to be nothing but eating, drinking, sleeping, moving about, quarreling, loving, making friends, creatiy, all of a sudden, at the moment of death, even he finds life slipping away through his fingers.
What he had uood as life was not life at all.
They were just acts, visible in the light of life.
Just as objects are seen in the presence of light, the person, in the same way, had seeain things when the light within him resent.
He had eaten food, made friends, created enmity, built homes, earned money, risen to high position -- all these were things seen in the light of life.
Now, at the moment of death, he finds them slipping away.
So now the person thinks he is gone, he is dying, that life is lost forever.
He has seen other people dying before and the social illusion that man dies is stu his mind as well.
So he feels he is dying.
His clusion is also part of that social illusion.
He es to feel he is dying just as others before him have died.
He sees himself surrounded by his loved ones, his family aives g bitterly.
Now his illusion begins to bee firmed.
All this creates a hypnotic effe him.
All these people
.
the situation is just ideal -- the doctor at his side, the oxygen ready, the whole atmosphere of the house ged, people in tears.
Now the man seems certain of his death.
The social illusion that he is dying grips his mind.
His friends aives around him begin to cast a hypnotic spell on the man that he is just about to die.
Someone feels his pulse.
Someone else recites the Bhagavadgita or whispers the namokar mantra in his ear.
All of them thhly vihe man he is about to die -- that whatsoever has been done before with a dying man, they are now doing the same with him.
This is social hypnotism.
The man is now fully vinced he is about to die, that he is dying, that he is gone.
This hypnosis of death will cause him to bee unscious, frightened, horrified; it will make him shrink, feeling "I am about to die, I am about to die.
What shall I do?" Overe with fear he will shut his eyes, and in that state of fear he will bee unscious.
In fact, falling unscious is a device we use against things we are afraid of.
You have a stomach ache, for example, and if the pain bees unbearable you will fall unscious.
That is just a tri your part to switch off your mind, tet the pain.
When the pain is too much, falling unscious is a mental trick -- you dont want to suffer the pain any longer.
When the pai go away, the only other alternative is to switch off ones mind.
Ourns off so one remains unaware of the pain.
So, falling unscious is our unique way of dealing with unbearable pain.
Remember, however, there is nothing like unbearable pain: you only feel pain as long as it is bearable.
As soon as the pain reaches the point of being unbearable, yone; hence you never feel unbearable pain.
Never believe a word of it if someone says he is suffering from unbearable pain, because the person talking to you is still scious.
Had the pain been unbearable he would have been unscious.
The natural trick would have worked and he would have lost sciousness.
As soon as a person crosses the limit of endurance he falls unscious.
Even minor illnesses frighten us and we bee unscious -- what to say about the terrifying thought of death.
The very idea of death kills us.
We lose sciousness, and in that unscious state death occurs.
Hence, when I say death is an illusion I do not mean it is an illusion that happeher to the body or to the soul.
I call it a social illusion -- one which we cultivate in every child.
We indoate every child with the idea, "Yoing to die, and this is how death occurs.
" So by the time a child grows up he has learned all the symptoms of death, and when these symptoms apply to him he just closes his eyes and bees unscious.
He bees hypnotized.
trary to this is the teique of active meditation -- a teique of how to enter death sciously.
In Tibet this teique is known as bardo.
Just as people hynotize a man in his dying moment, similarly, people involved in Bardo give anti-hypnotic suggestions to a dying man.
In Bardo, people gather around a man in his dying moments and tell him, "You are not dying, because no one has ever died.
" They give him anti-hypnotic suggestions.
There will be no weeping, no wailing; nothing else will be done.
People will gather around him and a village priest or monk will e and say, "You are not dying, because no one has ever died.
You will depart relaxed and fully scious.
You will not die, because no one ever dies.
"
The person closes his eyes and the entire process is narrated to him: now his life-energy has left his legs, now it has left his hands, now he ot speak, and so on -- ahe man is told, he still is, he will still remain.
And all around him these suggestions are given.
The suggestions are simply anti-hypnotic.
That means, they are meant to make sure the person does not grab on to the social illusion that he is on the verge of dying.
In order to prevent him from doing that, people use Bardo as an antidote.
The day this world has a healthier attitude towards death, there will be no need for Bardo.
But we are a very uhy people; we live in a great illusion, and because of this illusioidote bees essential.
I believe there should be a wide application of Bardo in this try as well.
Whenever anyone dies, all his loved ones should make an attempt to shatter his illusion that he is dying.
If they could keep the person awake, if they could remind him at ead every point
Then the sciousness withdraws from the body, it does not leave all at once; all of the body does not die at the same time.
The sciousness shrinks inside and, bit by bit, leaves each part of the body.
Through various stages it withdraws, and all stages of this tra be reted to the dying man as a means of keeping him scious.
There be many ways of keeping a dying person awake.
For example, special kinds of aromas help a person stay scious, just as certain kinds of aromas, odors, make a person unscious.
Inse and benzoin were discovered mainly because they help to keep one awake.
A kind of musi be created around a person to make him stay scious.
And there be music which make a person fall asleep.
You e ausic which put you to sleep -- there be music which keep you awake as well! Certain words, certain mantras be uttered which help the person stay awake and not go to sleep.
Certain parts of a dying mans body be tapped in order to stop him from falling asleep and keep his sciousness alive.
He be made to sit in a certain posture to prevent him from falling asleep, to let him stay scious.
A Zen master was dying.
He gathered other monks around him and said, "I want to ask you something.
My time has e, but I feel there is no use dying the way everyone dies.
Many have died like that before.
Its no fun.
My question is: have you ever seen anyone die walking?"
The monks replied, "We havent seen anyone do it, but we have heard of a certain mystic who died walking.
"
The master said, "All right, fet it! Let me ask you this: have you seen any mystic dying while standing on his head?"
The people around him said, "We never ceived or dreamed of such a thing, let alone saw someone dying like that.
"
"All right then," said the master, "thats the way it will be.
" He stood on his head and died.
The crowd around the master became very scared.
The sight of an unknown corpse is frightening enough, but t down a corpse standing on its head was even more scary.
The master was a dangerous man.
The way he had positioned himself
Dead, no one dared bring him down and lay him on a bier.
Then someone suggested calling his elder sister, a nun living in a monastery nearby.
She was known to have set him right whenever he was mischievous as a young boy.
The sister roached and made aware of the whole situation.
She became very annoyed.
She said, "He has always been mischievous like that.
He hasnt given up his habits even in his old age.
So even while dying he couldnt refrain from playing a trick!" The y-year-old woman grabbed her staff and came.
Strikiaff hard on the ground, she exclaimed, "Now stop this naughtiness! If you have to die, die properly.
"
The master quickly came down and laughed.
"I was just having fun," he said.
"I was curious to see what these people were going to do.
Now I shall lie down and die in the ventional way.
" So he promptly lay down and died.
His sister walked away.
"Now, thats more like it," she said.
"Dispose of him.
" She didnt look back.
"There is a way of doing things," she said.
"Whatsoever you do, do it properly.
"
So our illusion of death is a social illusion.
The illusion be removed.
There is a teique to remove it; there is a systematic way to get rid of it.
If no one else removes it, then anyone who has practiced even a little meditation e out of it himself at the time of death.
If you have even had a little experieneditation: if you have even had a glimpse of the truth that you are separate from your body; if the feeling of disidentification with the body should even for a moment ever go deep within you, you wont be unscious at the time of death.
In fact, by then your state of unsciousness would already be broken.
You would be able to die knowingly.
To be able to die knowingly is a tradi in terms.
No one ever die knowingly, sciously, because he remains aware all the time that he is not dying, that something is dying in him but he is not.
He keeps watg this separation and ultimately finds that his body is lying away from him, at a distance.
Theh turns out to be merely a separation; it amounts to the breaking of a e.
It is as if I were to step out of this house, and the members of this household, unaware of the world outside these walls, were to e to the door and bid me a tearful goodbye, feeling that the man they had e to say goodbye to had died.
The separation of the body and the sciousness is death.
Because there is this separation, it is meanio call it death -- it is merely a loosening, a breaking of a e.
It is nothing more than ging clothes.
So, one who dies with awareness never really dies, hehe question of death never arises for him.
He wont even call death an illusion.
He wont even say who dies and who does not die.
He will simply state that what we called life up to yesterday was merely an association.
That association has broken.
Now a new life has begun which, in the former sense, is not an association.
Perhaps it is a new e, a new journey.
Do you now follow what I mean when I say death proves to be an illusion for one who dies with awareness? Illusion meah never was.
It was just a social belief created by those who did not know how to die, who were not dead, who had no knowledge of death.
And this belief has prevailed siernity, and will tio exist iure, because those who are not dead will forever pass judgment on those who are.
The dead never return with news.
The truth is that a meditative person, one who may have made a little headway iation, does not realize for a long time that he is dead.
He sees people around him and wonders why they are weeping.
The arras for taking his body for cremation, or the arras to bury him, are signifit only to remind him he is no longer alive, that he is no lohe same person.
This is the reason why in this try we burn all bodies except those of sannyasins.
The sole reason for this was that, if the dead body were to be saved, the spirit might hover around it for several months uhe false idea that the body was not dead, and try to find ways to ree.
Saving the body meant creating a little impediment for its new journey.
The spirit would have to hang around unnecessarily; hehe of immediate cremation -- so, at the cremation ground, the spirit could see that the affair is all over, that what it had taken to be its body no longer exists.
The spirit realizes it no longer has any link with the body, that the bridge is broken.
The matter is over, the whole thing is finished.
So keep in mind that the system of burning the body is not just a way of vag the house.
There are other important reasons behind it.
Actually the departing person finds it hard to believe he is dead.
How he? He sees himself the same as before, without the slightest difference.
Only a sannyasins body was never cremated because a sannyasin already knows he is not the body.
Thats why we could build a tomb over his body.
This ossible because the sannyasin had already realized he and his body were separate.
So there is no difficulty in preserving the body of a realized sannyasin.
But the same is not true with regard to an ordinary man, for his spirit keep wandering a long time.
It still try to figure out a way to reehe body.
It is possible to die in a state of awareness only if you have lived with awareness.
If you have learned how to live sciously.
you will certainly be able to die sciously -- because dying is a phenomenon of life; it takes pla life.
In other words, death is the final happening of what you uand life to be.
It is not ahat occurs outside of life.
Ordinarily, we look upoh as something which happens outside of life, or as some kind of phenomenon opposite to life.
No, in fact, it is the final occurren the series of events which take pla life.
It is like a tree that bears fruit.
First the fruit is green, then it starts turning yellow.
It turns more and more yellow until finally it bees pletely yellow and falls from the tree.
That falling from the tree is not a outside of the yellowing process of the fruit; rather, it is the eventual fulfillment of the yellowing itself.
The falling of the fruit from the tree is not aer; rather it is the culmination of the yellowing, of the ripening it has already gohrough.
And what was going ohe fruit was green? It was getting ready to face the same fi.
And the same process was going o had not even blossomed on the branch as yet, when it was still hidden ihe branch.
Even in that state it reparing for the fi as well.
And what about wheree had not been maed yet, when it was still within the seed? The same preparation was going on then as well.
And how about when this seed had not even been born and was still hidden in some other tree? The same process was going on.
So the event of death is but a part of the of events belonging to the same phenomenon.
The fi is not the end, it is just a separation.
Oionship, one order, is replaced by another relationship, another order.
Question 4
HOW DO YOU SEE DEATH IION TO NIRVANA?
Nirvana means, firstly, that one has realized totally there is h at all.
Sedly, it means one has also e to know that, in what we call life, nothing is attained.
Nirvana means awareness of the reality that what we uand as death is h at all, and that what we mean by life is not really life.
Do you follow what I am saying? Ohing: nirvana means that when a person knows death he will find there is h.
There is another phenomenon ected with this, and that is that one who sees life with full awareness will find that what everyone calls life is not life either -- just as death is a social illusion, that is a social illusion too.
Nirvana means the total realization of both realities.
If you only know there is no such thing as death, then you will tio take new births.
Life, in a sense, will go on.
In that case you will have known only half the truth.
The desire to live again, to have another body, to take a new birth will remain.
The day you e to know the other half of the truth, the day you e to know the truth in its ey -- that life is not life, that death is not death -- that day you will have reached the point of urn.
Then there will be no question of returning.
Do you follow me?
It is like saying farewell to a person who has died.
We see the body as his final resting place.
As long as he was in the body the man believed it to be his final abode as well.
So, from the outside, he will kno the door to firy.
If the steps of this house are broken, if there is no remaining link, then he will kno the door of another house, of another body -- because life only be experienced by being in the body.
So he will eventually enter into one or another house, another body.
This is how, as soon as the person dies, his spirit bees restless and begins wandering in search of another body immediately -- because it has always identified life with having a physical body.
It may not have occurred to you, but your last thought as you fall asleep at night bees the first thought when you wake up in the m.
Watch it a little.
The last thought of the previous night will bee your first thought m -- seven hours later.
The thought will wait for you to wake up.
It will wait ht on the doorstep of your sciousness in order to begin work as soon as you get up in the m.
If you have had a fight with somebody the previous night, then the very first thought the m will be about that fight.
If you slept with a prayer on your lips, then you will wake up in the m with the same prayer in your thoughts.
What occurred last night will be the starting point of the m.
The last thought, the last wish, the last desire of a dying man will bee his first desire after death.
He will immediately set out on the journey.
If he felt at the moment of dying that his body was beiroyed -- that he is dying, that he is losing his body -- then his spirit will frantically run all over looking for a passage for an instant birth.
So whatever is your last desire at the dying moment -- the very last desire, remember -- that will be the essence of your entire life.
Actually, even the last thought befoing to sleep is the abstract of your whole days happenings, the sum total of the entire day, the digest of it.
For example, a man runs a shop all day long, and at night he makes a summary of his days ats and theo sleep.
Similarly, the last thought before falling asleep is the summary of your whole days at.
If a persoo note his last thought befoing to sleep at night -- the very last thought -- he would be able to write a wonderful autobiography, inparable.
That would be the short, abstract story of your life.
It would taihing that is essential, and all that is noial would drop away.
If you were to he very first thou９9lib.ght each m, looking at fifteen thoughts collected over fifteen days would enable you to know everything about your life -- what you were, what you are, what you want to be.
The last thought in your dying moments is the quintessence of your entire life of seventy, eighty years.
The same will bee your potential for the life.
That will be your asset to carry into the birth.
You may call it karma, you may call it desire or whatsoever else you will; you may call it samskara, ditioning, it wont make any difference.
Rather, you should call it a built-in program of your life, applicable iure.
It is amazing, but when you soarticular little seed, why does it only give rise to the banyahe seed must have had a built-in program, otherwise this would not be possible.
It must have tained a blueprint.
How else could it grow leaves and branches, and why would they all be of a banyahe seed must have been programmed.
In it, that little seed must have had the entire plan.
If one could draw a horoscope of that seed, one could forecast how many leaves it would grow, how much fruit it would bear, how many seeds it would tain, how tall and wide it would be, how long its branches would be, how many bullock carts could fi and shelter u.
All these things be looked into iail, because all of it is hidden in that tiny seed.
Its like the blueprint of a building; it tains all that it will be someday.
At the time of death we gather the essence of our entire life.
We save whatsoever we sider signifit, and whatsoever we find useless we drop.
A man who has earned one huhousand rupees and donated a thousand rupees to the building of a temple, will not remember the temple in his dying moments -- but the safe taining y-housand rupees, that he will undoubtedly remember.
In ones dying moments the signifit will be saved, the nonsignifit will be thrown away.
The essential and the noial will be sorted.
At the time of departure all that is worthless will drop, and that which is meaningful will be packed up, carried over by you.
That will bee the basis of your journey; it will instantly bee your built-in program.
Now you will set out on a new journey, and your future birth will take place acc to this future program.
It will be a new voyage, a new body.
It will be a whole new set-up.
And this happens as stifically as anything else.
So nirvana means that a person has e to know that death is not really death, nor is life, life.
Once he has e to the realization of both, there is no longer any built-in program left.
He lets go of the program.
He lets go of both the essential and the uial.
Now he is ready to go all by himself, like the lonely flight of a bird.
He goes all alone, leaving everything behind.
He leaves behind the treasure as well as the temple.
He clears himself of the debts he owes to others as well as the debts others owe to him.
He foes good deeds as well as bad deeds.
In fact, he foes everything.
Kabir says, "I leave behind my cloak intact.
" He says he wore it with such care that no ats were left pending.
He took it off so totally that he did not have to review, to reevaluate his uanding of the real and the unreal, of the essential and the uial.
Kabir says, "I wore my cloak with great care and then put it aside as I found it, without impairing it in any way.
" In such a situation there ot be any built-in program for the future, because the person leaves everything in its virgin state.
He will not choose anything; he will not save anything, he will transd all.
Without harb a single desire for anything, he will let go of whatsoever he has earned in life.
Thats why Kabir says, "O swan, take off on the flight alone.
" Now the swan, his soul, is leaving all alone, apanied by no one -- her friend nor foe, her good deeds nor bad deeds, her scriptures nor does -- nothing.
So nirvana means one who has known that her was life indeed life, nor was death really death.
And when we know all that is not, we begin to see that which is.
Chapter 11
The Choice is Always Yours
2 August 1970 pm in Bombay, India
Question 1
AT THE DWARKA MEDITATION CAMP YOU MENTIOHAT ALL SADHANAS, ALL SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES ARE FALSE, BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER BEEN SEPARATE FROM GOD.
DOES THAT MEAATE OF UNSCIOUSNESS IS FALSE? IS THE GROWTH OF BODY AND MIND FALSE? IS THE CESSATION OF DITIONING FALSE? IS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MOVING FROM THE GROSS TO THE SUBTLE FALSE? IS ALL THE PREPARATION FOR THE JOURNEY FROM THE FIRST BODY TO THE SEVENTH BODY FALSE? IS THE LONG PROCESS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF KUNDALINI ALL A SHAM? KINDLY EXPLAIN.
First of all, when I refer to something as false, as untruth, it does not mean it is ent.
Even a falsehood has its owence.
One could not call it a falsehood if that were not true.
A falsehood has its owend so does a dream.
When we say a dream is false, it does not mean a dream has ence.
It only means that the existence of a dream is psychological, not real.
It is a whim of the mind, not a fact.
When we say the world is maya, illusion, it does not mean the world is ent, because if the world does then whom are you addressing? Who is talking? Why? When one calls this world an illusio least assumes that the speaker exists and so does the listener.
He also assumes that somebody o explain, and someone o uand.
At least this much truth is established.
So when we call this world an illusion, it does not mean the world does .
It means the world appears to have aence.
Calling this world maya simply means the world is not what it looks like; rather, it is merely an appearance.
It does not look the way it actually is, it appears like what it really is not.
For example, a man is walking dowreet when it is almost dark.
He sees a piece of rope lying there and, mistaking it for a snake, runs for his life.
Someoells him it wasnt a shat what he saw was all false, that he ran for no reason.
Now what does this mean? To say the snake was false does not mean the man did not see the snake.
He would not have escaped had he not seen it -- he did see the snake.
As far as the question of his seeing the snake is ed, the snake was there.
Since he saw
And, had the rope not been there, he could not have seen the snake in ay space.
So the rope undoubtedly gave credeo his illusion.
What he saw inwardly was different from what existed outside.
A rope was lying there ahought it was a snake.
He did not see the rope as a rope -- which it was; the rope appeared to him like a snake, which it was not.
So he did not see that which was, he saw that which was not.
Actually, that which did was superimposed on that which did.
So when you apply words such as falsehood, untruth, illusion, appearance, do keep ohing in mind: it does not mean something is ent.
Take, for instahis man who fled, believing he had seen a snake.
If you try and vince him there is no snake oreet he will refuse to believe you; he will insist he has seen the snake.
You may persuade him to go bad look once again, but he wont agree unless you lend him a stick for his safety.
You know very well there is no snake and carrying a stick is meaningless, but the man is sure of the snake and finds the stick useful.
So when you offer him a stick for his safety someone may ask, "If the snake is not really there, then why do you give him the stick? That shows you believe the snake is there as well.
" heless, you reiterate, "There is no she snake is false.
However, the man has seen it and is scared to go there again.
For him the snake is real.
" So you give him the stid tell him, "If there is a snake, kill it.
" If there is hen there is no question.
What man sees in life is not the truth of life.
Only when one is fully aware ohe truth of life.
Truth is adulterated with falsehood in the same proportion to whie is unscious.
Things appear distorted, perverted, to the same degree one is asleep.
For ohing, pears to us is not the reality.
So when one points out to a person who is asleep that everything is false, that it is illusion, he refuses to believe you.
He says, "How I believe everything is illusion? My son is sick -- how that be an illusion? I am hungry -- how I take it as an illusion? I need a house.
How I believe all these things are illusion? I have a body.
When someos me with a stone I hurt, my body bleeds and I feel pain.
"
Then what shall be done about it? Some device will have to be found to awaken this man.
And all these devices will be similar in nature to the stick.
The day he will wake up he will do the same thing with these devices that the other man did with the stick you gave him.
He went to where he had spotted the snake, found a rope lying there, laughed at himself and threw away the stick.
He said, "The snake was indeed false.
Now it is useless even to carry the stick.
" He may e bad be amazed at you for having had him carry the stick all that way unnecessarily -- the snake was not there.
What I call meditation, or kundalini, or the teique of spiritual discipline are essentially means of searg for that which does .
The day you find, for certain, that what you saw did not eve, is the day all teiques beeaningless, all means bee useless.
That day you will realize the illness was false and so was the cure for it.
Actually, there ot be a cure for a pseudo illness -- or there be? If the illness is false the cure ever be right.
A pseudo illness requires a pseudo treatment; that is the only way it be cured.
Two falsehoods e each other.
Thats why, when I say all teiques of spiritual discipline are false I mean it in the sehat what we are seeking was never lost in the first place.
The rope, in our example, was always a rope; not for a sed did it ever turn into a snake.
The rope was lying there all along.
What did happen, however, was that the man lost sight of the rope.
Not even for a moment did the rope ge into a snake, but for the man it became a snake -- a snake which did even for a sed.
Now this obviously creates a stalemate, a rather plicated situation.
It is indeed a rope but it looks like a snake.
The snake has to be killed and the rope has to be found -- without killing the she rope ot be found.
Without finding the rope the snake will not be killed.
So something has to be done.
A, in a case like this what do you think will result from doing anything about it? At the most we will e to see that that whiever was, was not there; and that which is, will be visible right before us.
And the day this realization dawns on us, will we say we attained something? Will we be able to say we lost the snake and found the rope? Not in the least -- because there was no possibility of losing the she rope was there all the time.
There was no question of finding it, it was there all along.
The rope was alresent, right there.
When Buddha attained enlighte people came to him and asked, "What did you attain?"
Buddha said, "The question is meaningless, I attained nothing.
"
"Does that mean your labor, all these years, was all in vain?" they asked.
"Your years of penance, years of seeking, did they not yield as?"
"If you ask me in terms of attai -- my efforts have certainly been in vain, because I gained nothing.
A I say to you: follow the same path I did, do what I did.
"
They said, "Are you out of your mind? Why should we do something which was so fruitless?"
Buddha replied, "I didnt achieve anything, of course, but I lost for certain, I lost something that was not really there.
I lost something which was not there at all, something I had believed to be there.
What I found was something I always had, which was already found, something which did not have to be found.
Being surrounded by lies, what I had assumed to be ent -- thats what I found.
"
Now what does this mean? How to vey that that which was already present was found again, that that which was already attained was found, that that which was tained was lost?
So when I say all methods of spiritual discipline are false, it does not mean that you dont have to do them.
I am merely saying that you are so deeply steeped in falsehoods that there is no other alternative but to use equally false methods in order to ralize them.
You have moved so mu the side of falsehood that even while ing back, this much ground -- the distance you have traveled going into lies -- will have to be covered.
For example, I walk ten steps into this room.
If I wish to get out of this room I will have to walk back at least ten steps -- in this very room.
Now if someoo persuade me to walk ten steps more in order to get out of it, I would find it very fusing, for in the first place I got ihe room because I walked ten steps.
Now if I were to take ten steps more, I would have walked twenty steps ihe room.
Actually, what someone o show me is the way to get out of the room without proceeding further ihe room.
Regardless, I will surely have to walk ten steps; although now my attitude will be different, my course will not be the same, I will not be fag the same dire -- my back will be towards what I was fag before, and vice versa.
We are living in lies.
In following a spiritual discipline, only the dire you face will ge.
We will have to live ihat is unavoidable.
Your back will be towards what you were fag before, and your face will be where your back was.
The fact remains, we will have to retrace the same route to the same extent we have walked ourselves forward into lies.
The day we return on the same path, the whole thing will look very amusing.
It is like giving an antidote to someone who has taken a wrong medie.
The antidote was not needed; it was only used because the man took the wrong medie.
Sihe poison, the wrong medie, has already entered his body, it is necessary to give the man another poison to teract the former one.
Remember, however, the antidote is a poison too.
Only a poison act against another poison.
The sed potion is a poison too, except that it is meant to work in the opposite dire.
You would be horrified if a physi were to tell you your body is poisoned and that he is giving you more poison.
You might cry out, "As it is, I am dying of poison.
Now you are adding more to it!" The doctor explains, "This is an antidote.
It is indeed a poison, but antithetical to the former one.
"
So when I say this world is a lie, then a sadhana, a spiritual discipline, ot be true.
How a true sadhana be applied to ter a false world? You ot use a real sword in order to kill an imaginary ghost -- you will hurt yourself if you do.
Make sure you have a false sword to kill an imaginary ghost.
You will obviously create a problem for yourself if you go to kill a ent ghost with a real gun.
The real gun cause you harm.
So if you o drive out a ghost it would be good to wear a talisman; it is her a sword nun.
It is a false cure, it is an antidote too.
It is perfect, a antithetical lie meant to ter another lie.
All spiritual disciplines are nothing but ways of getting out of the samsara, the mundane world.
And since I call this mundane world an illusion -- illusion in the sehat it is not what we uand it to be
So the question is: What we do to remove this illusion? We o retrace our steps to the same extent we have gone deeply into the illusion.
Why do I feel like reminding you of this? -- because a seeker stantly faces a danger.
And the danger is: he may use a talisman in order to keep the ghost away; however, in doing so, although he succeeds in saving himself from the ghost, he holds on to the charm tightly.
He finds the talisman the savior of his life.
Now he is as afraid of losing the charm as he was of the ghost.
Naturally.
How he afford to lose something that saved his life? So he is freed from the ghost but gets hooked to the talisman.
Thats why he o be remihat just as the ghost was unreal so is the talisman.
Now that the ghost is gone, he had better throw the charm away as well.
Again and again, I would like to remind every seeker that, whatever sadhana he may be following, basically it is an antidote for his getting himself into a falsehood.
And an antidote for a lie will iably have to be a lie.
Only a poison ter another poison -- for it works in the opposite dire.
It is essential t this point home to a seeker, otherwise he may succeed in dropping the samsara, but grab on to sannyas, to renunciation.
He may drop the marketplace but seize upoemple.
He may give up money but latto meditation.
It is dangerous to g to anything, because whatsoever one hangs on to bees a bondage -- regardless of whether it is money or meditation.
The day meditation is not he day it bees meaningless, that is when the sadhana bees real.
Obviously, one who has reached the roof should find the ladder useless.
If he still insists the ladder is useful to him and gs to it, then uand he has not yet reached the roof, he must still be standing somewhere on the ladder.
It is ceivable one may reach the t of the ladder a hold tight to it.
Should this be the case, then remember the man is still as far away from the roof as he was when he was standing on the first rung of the ladder.
He has not reached the roof yet.
In both cases he is far away from the roof.
You may climb almost the entire ladder, but if you stop at the last rung, it doesnt mean you have reached the roof -- you are still on the ladder.
And that makes the difference.
Initially you were on the first rung, now you are on the huh rung, but you are on the ladder heless.
And one who is on the ladder is definitely not on the roof.
If you want to be on the roof, you will have to do two things: you will have to climb the ladder, and after reag the roof, get rid of it.
Thats why I say, on the one hand, that meditation is useful.
And at the same time I also say that meditation is nothing more than an antidote.
Hence, I maintain, folloiritual discipline, and then drop it too.
So when I say both things simultaneously it obviously creates a difficulty.
It is natural you feel that on the one hand I say, do this, do that, and then I declare all sadhanas are false.
"If this is so then why should we follow them?" you naturally ask.
Yic says, "If one has to get off the ladder eventually, then why climb it in the first place?"
Remember, however, that one who doesnt climb the ladder stays off it, and one who has climbed it and stepped out on the roof is also off the ladder -- but both exist on totally different planes.
One will be on the roof while the other will be on the ground below.
Although her is on the ladder, there is a fual differeweewo.
One is off the ladder because he didnt climb it, while the other is off because he did climb the ladder and then got off.
Life is a great mystery wherein one o climb up certain things and climb down other things; wherein one o g to certain things and drop certain other things.
But the human mind says, "If you want to hold on to something then hold to it pletely; if you want to drop it then drop it absolutely.
"
This kind of reasoning is dangerous.
It ot help bring about any dynamism in life.
I am aware of both things, and I see the problem.
Some people are holding on to their riches while others are holding on to their religion.
Some are ging to the samsara, while some are holding tight to the idea of moksha -- but basically the holding remains.
Only he is liberated who hangs on to nothing.
One who is free from all ging, attats, blocks, demands, he alone knows the truth.
Only he know the truth who makes no ditions.
Even this much of a dition -- that you would rather be iemple worshipping than attending to your store -- prevent you from knowing the truth.
In such a case you will end up knowing only the truth that is born out of a lie -- such as the temple itself.
Even this much of a dition on your part -- that you would live only in a particular way, that you wish to live like a sannyasin -- if this too became a dition, you would never e to know the truth.
This would amount to holding on to the ladder after having climbed to the t.
Often it may have even occurred to you that "How the very ladder which helped me climb so high be thrown away all of a sudden?" So you want to hold fast to the ladder.
We find this happening all around us.
For example, a man begins to earn money so that he live a fortable life later on.
It takes him years to make money, and in the process he misses his rest and recreation.
How could he have succeeded iing his wealth otherwise? He had assumed at that moment he would earn a great deal and live in fort and ease later.
His aim was to live in fort which, without having money, was naturally impossible.
So the man was busy making money.
And when you have to make money you t afford to relax.
The only way to make money is to give up rest and relaxation for years at a time.
So lets assume this man gives up his holidays and vacations for the wenty to twenty-five years and earns a lot of money.
No doubt he creates wealth, but he loses the habit of relaxing.
Not relaxing at all bees a habit to him, and that creates the problem.
A practice of twenty-five years is behind him.
Now if you ask him to stay home and relax, he t do it.
He arrives at his offi hour earlier than his secretary; his staff quits at five oclock, he leaves at seven.
Apparently the man has fotten that the ladder he climbed was fetting off one day.
The objective was to get off at some level, and relax.
The idea was to earn enough so that someday he could quietly slip off.
His sole aim was to make money so he could retire.
Now he finds himself in a very difficult situation.
In the pursuit of earning money he has lost his ability to relax, he got hooked to the habit of not relaxing.
He thinks, how he relax? So he goes on piling up money.
He keeps on climbing the ladder, refuses to get off the ladder.
His roof never es closer.
He goes on climbing -- raising one ladder on top of another.
No matter how much you persuade him, "Its enough, now its time to get off," he persists by saying, "How that be possible? I will have to build the ladder before I sit down and relax.
" So he goes on building his ladder and keeps climbing.
It would not have mattered much had this been true only in regard to money.
The same thing happens with regard tion as well.
Our mind funs exactly the same way -- regardless.
A maers the world ion, and begins to renouhings.
He gives things up so he arrive at a point where his mind will be free of all attats.
His assumption is that as long as there is attat, there will be bondage.
So he says, "Leave everything, renounce everything that creates bondage!" He starts disowning his home, his business, his family, his wealth, his clothes -- he goes on dropping things.
Iy to twenty-five years his habit bees so solid that now he t give up the habit of renoung.
The habit hangs around his neck like a rock.
He tio find ways and means -- what to drop ? -- and his ladder goes on rising.
He begins to try to figure out whether to drop food, water, salt, butter, sugar, whatever.
He goes on playing with ideas as to what he should renounext -- whether he should give up sleep, or stop bathing.
He is tinuously looking for ways to renouhings.
Ultimately he even arrives at a point where he talks of giving up his life, begins to think in terms of itting suicide.
He gets ready to do santhara, the religious practibrag death voluntarily.
One who renounces and one who gs are of the same kind.
One is holding on to the ladder meant for renoung things, while the other has seized upon the ladder meant for latg on to things.
But none of them is willing to get off the ladder.
And in my view, truth lies where ladders cease to exist and you land on plain ground, where there is no lohe o climb up or down.
Truth lies where you drop your attat, where you drop your ditions, where you stop seeing things through your ditioned mind, where you begin to perceive things with a mind free of all ditioning -- thats where the truth lies.
Perhaps thats precisely what Jesus means
When Jesus was asked who would i the truth, he replied, "Those who are like children.
" Now what this mean, "like children"? What it means is: the one who looks at things without any preditioning.
You will be amazed if you watch how children look at things.
There is a differeween how we see things and how children do.
When we see, we are looking at something, we are looking for something, while a child just looks.
He doesnt look for something in particular; his eyes simply move.
Whatsoever is, whatsoever is visible, he just looks at it.
He is not attached to seeing a particular thing.
He is not fixed on the idea that what he sees should only appear in a particular way.
He sees whatsoever there is.
To put it rightly, his seeing is purposeless.
A child does not look with a purpose.
Thats why in the eyes of an adult you dohe innoce you see in the eyes of a child.
An adult sees things with a reason.
If you have money in your pocket, he looks at you in a particular way; if your pocket is empty, he looks at you differently.
If you happen to be beautiful, the man has a look of one kind; if you are not beautiful, he has a different look in his eyes.
He looks at you in a special way if he is ied in you; otherwise he looks differently, or doesnt look at you at all.
His seeing is purposive.
For an adult even the simple act of looking is not without purpose.
When a purpose enters your viee begins to look like a she rope ceases to exist.
Actually, just reflect, if you will, as to e appears to someone like a snake.
It is simply his proje -- the man is scared.
There is fear in his look.
That means, whenever he looks at things, he looks out of fear.
He is walking dowreet in the dark, and there is fear in his eyes.
He spots something lying on the road, it looks like something is moving.
He immediately believes it to be a snake, because he is looking out of fear.
He is guided by a purpose, he is looking through his unsind to see if there is any snake oreet -- and that makes him see a snake instead of a rope.
A child wont see a snake superimposed on a rope.
Often, what is possible is that if a says still, a child may take it to be a rope; he may not see it as a snake and may actually pick it up.
If there is any purpose, any expectation, any fear in what we see
Uand well, if you are seeing through the mind, you will distort the object of your perception.
So the question is, we see without the use of mind? Seeing without the mind is the ultimate state.
All our motives, our fears, our desires, our passions are stored in the mind.
Chekhov has written a short story.
Two poli were patrolling a street.
They saw a crowd gathered near a tea stall.
One man was holding a dog by his leg.
He was saying he would kill the dog because it had bitten him.
Everyone in the crowd was having fun and encing the man to kill the dog who was a menad had bitten many people before.
The poli also stood in the crowd.
Dogs harass poli too, they pay special attention to them!
So the poli were pleased to see someoaking care of the dog.
"You are doing the right thing.
Kill this dog; he is a great trouble to us at night," one poli said.
Right theher poli took his partner aside and said, "Watch it, I think it looks like thats our bosss dog.
" At ohe first poli, who had been urging that the dog be killed, went up to the man holding the dog, grabbed his collar and said, "Yue! What do you mean by drawing a crowd in the middle of the street and holding up traffic? What do you mean by creating this nuisance? e with us to the police station!" He immediately picked up the dog in his arms and begaing him.
As the poli started showing affe to the dog, and as the man holding the dog rehehe entire crowd grew very puzzled.
The crowd could not figure out what was going on -- the poli was ready to kill the dog just a while ago.
The moment, the sed poli looked at the dog a little more closely and said, "No, this doesnt look like our bosss dog!&quht away the first poli got rid of the dog and yelled at the man, "Take hold of this dog and kill him.
He is extremely dangerous.
" However, by the time the man got hold of the dog the sed poli once again expressed his doubt by saying, "I t be sure, but he does look like our bosss dog.
"
The story tinues like this.
The attitude towards the dog ges many times because many times a ge in purpose occurs.
The dog is the same, the man is the same, the poli are the same -- everything is the same.
The characters remain unged, but the story takes turns a few times because each time there is a ge in motive.
Sometimes he is perceived as the bosss dog, and sometimes not.
The poli ged their attitude at once when the dog was seen not to belong to their boss.
And they begaing it with a totally different attitude o erceived that the dog was owned by the boss.
This is the way we all live.
As long as the mis, we shall tio live like this.
So what I am saying is that sadhana
What is sadhana, spiritual discipline really? Sadhana means being free from this mind.
But once you have bee free, of what use will the sadhana be? You will o bury it along with your mind.
You will have to let go of the spiritual discipline as well, along with the mind.
You will have to tell your mind, "Take this sadhana with you.
I was following it because of you.
Now that you are leaving, kindly take this sadhana with you too!"
When a person is free from both the mind and the sadhana, free from the disease as well as the cure
Remember, if one is free from the illness alo still tihe cure then one is not really free.
Very often the illness does not prove to be as dangerous as getting hooked on the cure.
It feels rather easy getting rid of illness because the illness is painful.
One feels good about going through the cure, hene never wants to drop it.
But does that make the cure something worth hanging on to?
A cure is desirable indeed for a man who is ill, but what meaning it have for a person who is healthy? For a healthy person, a cure is totally worthless.
Since you are so determio embrace illness, you are forced to accept the cure too.
But if you stop insisting on falling sick, the cure will bee totally meaningless.
The illness and the cure belong to the same plahere is no differeweewo.
There ot be, otherwise they would cease to fun.
The cure exists on the same plane as the illness: the germs present in the drugs are opposite to the germs that cause illness.
It is true that the disease and the cure stand with their backs to each other; however, the plane on which they exist is the same.
I am not only talking against the disease, I am talking against the cure as well, because my experience is that, for the last thousands of years, a great deal has been said against the disease.
sequently, although people got rid of the disease, they latched on to the cure.
Those who got attached to the cure turned out to be even more dangerous than the ones who were ill.
Hence, both things o be sidered.
The illness and the cure both o be dropped.
Mind aation both have to be given up.
Samsara and religioh to be renounced.
One o arrive at a point where nothing is left -- either to hold on to or to drop.
Then, only that which is, remains.
So when I talk about all these teiques -- whether it is about kundalini, chakras, the seven bodies -- they are all part of a dream.
The fact is, you are already dreaming, and you wont be able to e out of it until you have rightly uood what the dream is all about.
It is necessary we have a right uanding of the dream in order to e out of it.
A dream, a lie, has its oweoo.
It has its own pla this world, and there are means to get rid of it.
But ultimately, both are wiving up.
Hence I say to you, both are false, the samsara as well as the sadhana.
If I were to say one of them is true, how will you drop it? Then you will hold fast to it.
"How truth be dropped? Truth has to be embraced," you might say.
So you may not hold on to anything, so you may not have any ging, so you may not bee subject to any plexes, so you may not bee attached, I say to you: her the samsara is true nor is the sadhana.
The falsity of sadhana is for the purpose of ing the untruth of samsara.
When both falsehoods attain parity aralize each other, then what remains is the truth.
That truth is her of this world, the samsara, nor of the sadhana.
That truth is outside of both, or before both, or beyond both, or transding both.
It exists when both are not.
Thats why I am talking about a third type of man who is her worldly nor a renunciate.
When somebody asks me, "Are you a sannyasin?" I find myself i difficulty, because if I say I am a sannyasin, I see myself caught in the same duality which exists between a worldly man and a monk.
Similarly, when someone asks, "Are you a worldly man?" then too I face the same difficulty, because if I say I am a worldly man, I once again find myself fag the duality that exists between a worldly man and a renunciate.
So either I should say I am both simultaneously -- which is meaningless
.
because if, at the same time, I am worldly and a renunciate both then the whole meaning is lost.
The meanied because of the duality: the meaning was in the diy.
Leaving the world meant being a sannyasin; not accepting the life of a renunciate meant being a worldly man.
So if I say I am both, the words lose their meaning.
The same difficulty arises if I say I am not both, because we have no idea there is something beyond the two, that there be a third.
People say, "Either you belong here, or there.
Either affirm that you are alive, or admit that you are dead.
How you say both are not true? That wont be acceptable.
"
The only way we live is by dividing things into two -- either this or that.
We either see darkness ht -- there is no room in our lives for dusk, which is her.
Grey has no pla our lives.
We divide thiher into black or white, while the reality sists mostly of grey.
When grey bees a little de turns into darkness; when it bees sparse it turns into white -- but there is no room frey.
Either you have a friend or an enemy -- there is no third pla between.
As a matter of fact, the third place is the really true place -- but it has no room in our language, our way of thinking, our way of life.
Suppose you were to ask me, "Are you my friend, or an enemy?" If I answer, "I am both," you will have difficulty in following me.
How could I be both? If I say I am her, eve turns out to be meaningless, because my answer carries no sense.
And the truth of the matter is that a healthy man will either be both or her.
These are just two ways of expressing the same thing.
In such a case the man will her be a foe nor a friend.
And in my view, it is only then that he will be a human being irue sense of the word.
He will her have enmity with anyone, nor friendship; he will her follow any act of renunciation, nor will he have any attat to samsara.
I am looking for this third type of man.
What I am talking to you about is only for the purpose of breaking your dream.
And if the dream is already broken, then what I am saying has no meaning.
Let me tell you a story.
Once a Zen master got up from his sleep.
He was a great believer in analyzing dreams.
Dreams are, of course, very useful; they give muformation about man.
And since man is a liar, only a lie such as the dream tell us about his lies.
When you see a man in the marketplace, in the middle of the day, he is not as authentic as he is in his dream -- in a dream which is totally a lie.
If you e across a man telling his wife, with folded hands, that she is the most beautiful woman in the world -- just look into his dreams.
His wife hardly ever es into his dreams -- other women you will find most certainly.
His dream will tell you more exactly about him.
A dream, which is essentially a lie.
Since man himself is a lie, a lie will have to be used to find out the truth about him.
Had the man been authentic, his life itself would have revealed who he is.
Then there would be o go into his dreams; his face would show it.
An authenti would tell his wife, "You dont look too beautiful to me, the woma door looks very beautiful.
" That such a man does among us is beside the point, but if there were to be such a person, dreams would stop ing to him.
A husband who tell his wife, "I feel no love for you today.
I am attracted to the woman walking dowreet" -- a man who be so simple and direct -- will stop dreaming.
The other woman no longer need e in his dream, he has taken care of the business during the day.
The matter is over, the dream is no more.
A dream is a lingering phenomenon.
Whatsoever did not happen during the day, what you couldnt say, couldnt do, remains dormant within and then attempts to revive itself at night.
Sihe man lived all day long ihe very lies will keep appearing as realities at night in his dreams.
Thats why the entire field of todays psychology -- whether it be of Freud, Jung or Adler -- is the psychology of analyzing dreams.
It is strange we have to resort to analyzing dreams in order to uand man.
Dream analysis has bee the means to know a man.
Just think: what does this mean? If you visit a psyalyst, he doe?snt show much about you, he bees ied in your dreams -- because, as you are, you are a lie.
It is useless to ask anything about you, hehe o sult your dreams.
Your refle es through clearly, your picture emerges sharply in the dreams -- which are false.
So the psyalyst wants to peek into your dreams.
The whole discipline of psychology is based on the analysis of dreams.
The Zen master was very keenly ied in dreams too.
He used to ask his disciples, the seekers, about their dreams, because it ossible a seeker might e and say he wished to find God, but instead might dream of finding a diamond mine.
Iy he might have nothing to do with God.
It is also possible he might be seeking God so that some day he might ask him the whereabouts of the diamond mine.
This is how his dream tells what his real search is all about.
The master would ask his disciples to keep a diary of their dreams.
If people were to write holy in their biographies only about what happened when they were asleep and leave out the time they were awake, the world would bee a much better place to live in, and we would e to know much truer facts about men.
The daytime world is full of lies.
The phony man plans it very well.
At least in the dream a kind of truth exists, because the dream is unplanned: it happens on its own, it has its owy.
If we were to uhe dreams of all the holy men, we would find a great many of these holy men of no worth.
Most of them would appear to be criminals -- of course, criminals of the kind which do not it crimes in the marketplace, but in their minds.
One m the master had just got up when a disciple of his happeo pass by.
The master called him and said, "Last night I had a dream.
Interpret it for me, will you?"
The disciple said, "Please wait, let me go and bring the interpretation!"
The master asked, "Youll go and bring the interpretation?" But he waited.
The disciple went inside, brought a jug of water, and said, "Here, just wash your face.
Now that the dream is broken, whats the sense in interpreting it? Please wash your face so that whatsoever little illusion, whatsoever little trace of your dream that may still be left be ed away.
"
The master said, "Sit beside me.
I like your interpretation.
"
Then another disciple passed by and the master called him and said, "Last night I had a dream.
This fellow has given a little interpretation.
Here is a jug filled with water.
Would you give any further interpretation?"
The disciple said, "If you will wait for just one minute I will be back soon.
" He went running and brought a cup of tea.
Addressing the master he said, "Please have this cup of tea and the whole matter will be over.
Now that you are up from your sleep and have washed your face, why do you want to get me into the trap?"
The master asked him to sit beside him and said, "I liked what you said.
But had you tried to give an interpretation to my dream, I would have thrown you out of the ashram.
You saved yourself, you saved yourself by a hairs breadth.
When the dream is broken anyway, then whats the point in interpreting it? The interpretation is valid only as long as the dream is happening.
"
So all my explanations are explanations of dreams, and the explanations of a dream ever be true.
Do you follow what I am saying? How an explanation of a dream have any real meaning whatsoever when the dream itself is rue? An explanation of a dream, however, be helpful in putting ao the dream -- and should that ever happen, you will wake up.
And the day you wake up, you wont say the dream was true; you wont say the explanation was right, you will say it was just a play whided.
And you will say there were two sides to the game: one of indulging in the dream, the other of destroying it.
Indulgen the dream is samsara; explanations that break the dream make up sannyas -- although, basically, both are happenings of the dream state.
Samsara signifies indulgen the dream, while sannyas is an effort to destroy the dream -- but both happenings are of the dream.
When the dream is over, there will be her samsara nor sannyas.
Then whatsoever will be, will be the truth.
Question 2
IS SADHANA A NATURAL GROWTH, OR IS IT A JUMP OUTSIDE THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS OF NATURE? IF SADHANA IS NOT A JUMP AND TRANSDENCE OF THE NATURAL EVOLUTION, THEN IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE REACH SPIRITUAL HEIGHTS ALL BY ITSELF? IF IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURSE OF EVOLUTION TIO MOVE AHEAD, WHY WERE THE GREATEST SPIRITUAL CULTURES OF THE PAST LEFT BEHIND IN THE WHOLE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS?
There are many things that o be taken into at.
The first thing.
As soon as we see man separate from the universe, questions such as these begin to e up.
For example, if we heat water to a hundred degrees, on the huh degree the water takes a jump and turns into vapor.
The heating of water, as well as the water turning into vapor by taking a jump, are natural phenomena.
This is not an unnatural event.
Had there not been a natural law for the water to take a leap and turn into vapor, by itself the water hadnt the means to bee vapor.
If nature had not been equipped to make the water heat up to a hundred degrees, the water itself did not have the capacity to heat up to a hundred degrees.
However, if water has sciousness it either save itself from heating or it give itself up to the fire -- and iher case it would be a natural phenomenon.
What I mean to say is, nothing unnatural ever happen in this universe.
In fact, that which ever happen is the unnatural.
Only what is natural takes pla this universe.
There is no way for anything unnatural to happen; whatsoever happens is natural.
If man is evolving spiritually, it is because of his natural potential.
If he is jumping out, then that too is his natural potential.
His choice whether to jump or not to jump is a natural possibility too.
This means there are multi-potentialities in nature.
Actually, our mistake is that we use the word nature in the sense of a sientiality.
Nature is a cumulation of infinite possibilities.
Within these possibilities the heating of water to a hundred degrees is a natural happening, and the freezing of water at zero is also a natural happening.
A natural phenomenon such as the freezing of water at zero does not e the natural phenomenon of water turning into vapor at a hundred degrees.
It is not that o is natural while the other is not -- both are natural.
Darkness is natural and so is light.
Falling down is natural and so is rising up.
There are infinite possibilities in nature.
We are always standing on the crossroads from where an infinite number of paths emerge.
And the iing thing is that whatsoever we choose, the capability to choose will itself be a gift from nature.
Even if we were to choose a wrong path, nature will bring us to the very end of it.
Nature is very cooperative.
If we choose the road to hell, it begins to clear the way and invites us to proceed.
It will not stop you.
Why would nature stop you from turning water into ice, if you wish to do so, and have you rather turn it into vapor? Nature will be happy to clear your way if you wish to go to hell, or heaven: whether you wish to live or die, nature will always be willing to cooperate.
To live is natural, to die is natural, and your ability to choose either of the two is natural too.
If you grasp this multidimensionality of nature, you will have no difficulty in uanding what I am saying.
Suffering is natural, and so is happiness.
To live like a blind man is natural, and to live with open eyes is natural too.
To be awake is natural, and to stay asleep is natural as well.
Nature tains endless possibilities.
And the iing thing is that we are not living outside of nature, art of nature.
Our choosing is also due to the natural capability we have within us.
As the individual bees more and more scious, his ability to choose bees more and more profound.
The more unscious an individual is, the less profound is his ability to choose.
For example, there is no way that water lying in the sun ot turn into vapor -- it would be difficult for it not to.
The water t decide whether to bee vapor or not.
If it stays in the sun, then it is sure to bee vapor, and lying in the cold, it is sure to bee ice.
This, the water will have to live through, although it will have no knowledge that it is living through it, because its sciousness is low, or not at all, or dormant.
Trees in Africa rise hundreds of feet in search of the sun.
They grow i.
Trees in India wont grow to such heights, because in India there arent forests that thick.
In a dense forest the tree has to grow higher and higher in order to survive.
It o overe other trees i so it receive the sunlight.
The tree would die if it didnt find the needed height.
It is a matter of life ah for the tree.
The tree has to exercise its choice a little.
In a dense forest the trees will widen less; instead, they will grow taller, bee ical.
In a thick forest it is dangerous for a tree to grow wide; that will cause it to die.
The branches of the nearby trees will get entangled with each other and the trees wont be able to reach the sun.
So if the tree has to reach the sun it t grow its branches wide, it has to grow tall.
This too is a trees choice.
If you were to plant the same tree in a try where there are no dense forests, its height would be shorter.
There are trees which actually move a few feet every year.
This means there are trees which move their roots as we move our feet.
They strehe roots that lie in the dire where they wish to move, and relax the roots of the area they wish to abandon.
This is how they move forward a little.
A sy area makes this movement easier.
There are trees that are ivorous.
They lure birds, trap them, and ohe birds have landed ohey close their leaves.
These trees have developed quite a system for luring birds.
They have leaves the size of a plate.
The platelike leaves tain a very fragrant juice, and the fragraurally attracts birds from far away.
As soon as the bird arrives and sits on the leaf, the leaves from all around close in on the bird, press it, and the tree sucks its blood.
Now it is difficult to accept that the tree is not exerg a choice.
It certainly is, and it is making some plans as well: it is on the lookout for something.
Animals make eveer choices -- they run, they move swiftly.
heless, as pared to the choices made by man, their choices are very ordinary.
Man faces much greater choices because his sciousness is much more evolved.
He chooses not only through his body, he chooses through his mind as well.
He not only chooses to travel oh, he also chooses to travel vertically, in space.
That too is within his power to choose.
Although this area has not been researched yet, I feel, however, that in the near future sce may discover there are trees which have suicidal tendencies -- trees who may not be choosing to live, who may be wanting to stay short in the dense forest aually die.
This is yet to be discovered.
Among human beings we see clearly that there are people who are suicidal -- they dont choose to live; they keep looking for ways of dying.
Wherever they see a thorn, they rush towards it like a madman; flowers dont appeal to them.
Wherever they see defeat they are drawn towards it as if hypnotized, but when they see victory they look for scores of excuses.
People find thousands uments against the possibility of growth, but where they are certain of decay people keep moving head on in that dire.
All choices are open to man.
The more san bees, the more his choices will lead him towards happiness; the more unscious he is, the closer he will move towards misery.
So when I say to you, you will have to make a choice
There are ways to bee vapor, but you will have to reach to the point where vapor es into being.
There are ways to bee ice, but you will have to e to the point where ies into being.
There are ways to live, but you will have to explore the order of life.
There are ways to meet death, but you will have to find the order of death.
The choice is yours.
Furthermore, you and nature are not two separate entities -- you are nature.
So what this means is, natures multidimensionality is of two kinds.
Mahavira has used a term which is worth sidering.
The term Mahavira has used is anant-anant -- infinite infinities.
There is already a word anant, infi means infinite in one dire.
The word anant-anant means infinite in infinite dires.
It is not that the infinity is only in a couple of dires -- it is in all dires; there are infinities in all infinities.
So this universe is not just infinite.
Rather, one should say the universe sists of infinite infinities.
What I am saying is, first, there are infinite dires, and nature provides the opportunity for all of them.
There are infinite choices and nature makes all of them available too.
There are an infinite number of people who are ierminable parts of nature itself.
And eae has a free choice whether to choose or not to choose.
All of this, however, is not being trolled from above -- it is regulated from within.
This infinity, or one should say this infinite infinities, is not like someone pulling an ox forward with a rope tied around its neck.
Nor is it like someone lashing and shoving the ox from behind.
Rather, its like spring water which has burst forth through its own inner power and is flowing.
her is anyone pulling it forward, nor is anyone pushing it from behind; her is anyone giving it a call, nor is anyone f it to move ahead.
It has a tremendous power, tremendous energy.
And what is the energy doing? It is bursting forth, it is flowing.
Thats its inner expansion.
So there are infinite dimensions, infinite choices, infinite parts making choices.
But there is no troller-type God supervising from above.
There is no God sitting above and giving dires; there is no engineer.
Rather, the infinite energy within is the only source that causes everything to expand.
So there are three planes.
One plane sists of the state of unsciousness, where, because of unsciousness, whatsoever happens just happens.
The choice is almost none.
The sed plane, where choice exists, is the human plahe plane of sciousness.
Here, whatsoever happens, happens because of our choice.
Here, we t hold anyone else responsible for it.
If one is a thief, it is his choice; if one is ho, that too is his choice.
On this plane whatsoever one is, it is ultimately his choice.
On the human plane whatsoever occurs, it is because of choice.
Sihis plane sists of the state which is half-scious and half-unscious, we occasionally choose things we dont want to choose.
This is very iing.
To say that we occasionally choose things we didnt wish to choose in the first place sounds very trary, but in fact we do so every day.
You dont want to get angry, but you do get angry.
What does this mean? It means that the anger arises from your unscious part, while the thought about not wanting to be angry es from the scious part of you.
Your scious part says, "Dont be angry," while the unscious part goes on being angry.
You remain divided in two.
One half of you is joined with the lower world -- the world of rocks and mountains where everything is in a state of unsciousness.
The other half is awakened.
It is filled with sciousness and is ected to the world that lies ahead -- the world of wholeness, the world of the divine, where everything is fully scious.
Man is iween, and thats the reason he is in a state of tension.
It would be better if we say man is the tension itself -- half of him being pulled to one side, half to the other.
In other words, he does not have any individuality.
He is schizophrenic.
He sleeps at night and bees part of nature; he wakes up in the m and begins his jourowards the divine.
When he is in a rage he is blind with anger; when he works on a mathematical problem, he does so with great awareness.
No one has been heard to say, while doing arithmetic, "I wao add two and two to make four, but I added them up as five.
" But as far as anger is ed, a man admits he didnt want to be angry a became angry.
Obviously there does exist a gap betweeate of anger and finding the solution to an arithmeti.
Perhaps arithmetic is a part of our awakeate, while anger is a part of our unscious state.
This is the reason why man is in tinuous ay, why he is allagued by worries, tension, anguish.
He is always in misery.
He does what he does not want to do, and he ot do what he really wants to do.
This is how he is always in tension.
Man is swinging like a pendulum all the time -- sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right.
Thats why you t trust him -- now he is to the right, now he is to the left.
You t be sure about him because the man moves bad forth like the pendulum of a clock.
Beyond the human plane lies the third plane -- that of total awakening.
There is no choi this plaher.
However, there is a differeweeate of no-choice of the first plane and that of this plane.
The first plane sists of the unscious state.
The chooser is not present, hehere is no question of making a choice.
What a man who is asleep choose? He will tio remain asleep.
Even when his house is on fire he wont be able to decide whether to stay in o out until he wakes up.
There is no choi the world of unsciousness, because the chooser is asleep.
The world of sciousness, of awareness -- which I call God -- is the awakeate of nature.
As soon as a maers this fully awakened world, there is no more choice here as well.
Choice is not there because the man is fully awake.
He uionably sees that which is right, hence he has no reason to choose.
The situation for choosing arises only when things appear hazy; that is, when one is in a quandary, whether to do this or that; when one is caught iuation of either/or.
This shows he is uo see clearly; everything looks hazy to him.
Both things seem worth doing, and both things dont seem worth doing as well -- hehe choice.
If one is able to see precisely what is worth doing and what is not, then where is the question of choosing? Then all choosing ends.
Then one does what is worth doing and leaves what is not worth doing.
Hence, on this plane a man ot say he did something he never wao do -- the questio arise.
He t even say, "I regret what I have done," because the questio arise at all.
He ot even say he itted a mistake which he never should have -- that too is out of the question.
There is no choivolved in what a fully awakened person does.
He acts only upon what he sees, upon what is worth doing.
It is not that he feels he has to do it.
Whatsoever o be do happens.
So there is her any choi the plane of total awareness, nor any choi the plane of total unsciousness.
Choice exists on the human plane, which sists of half sciousness and half awareness.
Here it is all up to you -- you go iher dire.
You are standing in the middle of the bridge -- you either turn baove ahead.
It always looks easier to turn back.
Why? -- because the place to which we return is knowory.
We e from there; the place does not hold much of a threat.
The terrain is familiar.
Moving ahead always looks dangerous because we dont even have any sense of dire.
Thats why man drinks, bees unscious, regresses.
This shows he is giving up on being a human.
This way he makes it evident, in fact, that, "I want to get out of the bother of choosing.
I want to reach a point where one doesnt have to make any choice.
I want to remain in a state of stupor -- where I may remain lying in a gutter, languishing on the roadside, talking filthy if I want to, not talking filthy if I dont want to.
I want to be in a dition where whatsoever is happening is happening, where I dont have to make any choice.
"
So man arrives at a point where he no longer has to bear the tension and burden of making a decision.
Hence all the intoxits pull man back from the bridge.
They call him, "e back, you were fine in your previous location.
" You will have to raise sciousness in order to move forward, because as you move ahead on the bridge, youll beore and more aware -- only then will you be able to advance.
Moving ahead means only ohing: beore and more aware.
This too is a matter of choice, and it is up to you and up to everyone else what to choose.
You t make anyone else responsible for it, because there is no oting up above who be blamed for causing you to make a wrong choice.
There is nobody up there.
The sky is empty.
There is no goddess, no divine being sitting up in heaven whom you drag into the court and say, "We were moving along on a right path; you made us go astray a little.
" You wont be able to say, "Things would have worked out better had you kept yourself out of it.
"
There is no one you address like that; hehere is no way to do it.
Ultimately the individual is responsible.
He is responsible for the good as well as the bad.
There is no one else you hold responsible, who answer why a certain thing happened -- there is no o all.
Of course those who have gone ahead say, g loudly, "Dont turn ba fear, because much joy lies ahead of you.
Once you reach there, all worries, all restlessness, all misery es to an end.
" They say this, shouting aloud, but their voices sound strao us because the place from where they speak is unknown to us.
"How we attain bliss?" is how it appears to us.
If, advang this far, so much pain has been our lot, how much more of the same will not e to us if we move even further ahead? So a man feels he should turn back to where misery did .
Everyone says how blissful childhood was, so if man could, he would immediately return to the state of childhood.
Since he ot, he stays where he is.
Man says there was no misery in childhood.
He may even go a step further and say, "It was so blissful being ihers womb.
" If he could, he would love to be back there, but he ot.
So he moves on ahead.
We choose tress in life; we return to the unscious state; we find ways of being unscious -- if thats what we want.
We dont even uand the language of the voices that e from afar because we have no idea what bliss is.
We dont even know what sort of thing it is that people call bliss.
We are familiar with what misery is -- all too familiar, as a matter of fact.
We also know the more we tried to attain happiness, the more we found misery.
Now we are afraid lest, in our quest for bliss, we land ourselves in more trouble.
Since we came aore misery trying to find happiness, we take the state of bliss to be more or less similar to the state of happiness -- perhaps as a little more inteate of happiness.
But we are afraid of fag trouble as well.
The fact remains that in attempting to gain happiness we entered pain, so now, in an effort to find bliss, the fear is we may have to face even more trouble, eveer misery.
So we hear these voices ing from far away, and with folded hands we salute and say to the people of the other shore, "Yods, you are avataras, you are tirthankaras, yreat! We will worship you, but we want to go back!"
We are afraid of the unknown.
The fear is we will lose whatever little happinesses we have collected; they seem to be dropping away as we move ahead.
The reason is we have built our houses on the very bridge that was only meant to be crossed.
We have started living there.
We have settled down there, we have tur into our living room.
Now when someoells us to move ahead, we feel worried about losing the things we have gathered around us.
It bees obvious that moving ahead means leaving behind whatsoever we now have.
So we say, "Let the time e.
When I am old, wheh is at hand, when all I have begins to drop, thats when I will e forward right away.
Then there wont be anything to worry about.
" But the closer we e to death, the strohe grip bees.
As death approaches we close our fists more tightly.
Thats why an old man bees utterly miserly; a young man is never so miserly.
An old man bees a miser in every way.
He holds tight.
At the time of his departure the old man bees paranoid lest everything he is holding on to might slip through his hands.
He holds his possessions firmly, lest his grip loosen.
This very ging to things so firmly turns oo an ugly old man; otherwise, the beauty and grace of an old man be matchless.
We are aware of beautiful children and we know of less beautiful young people, but beautiful old men are very rare to find.
Only on a while does one e across someone who has grown into a beautiful old man.
Otherwise, ordinarily, with the increasing miserliness and holding fast to possessions, everything starts being uglier and uglier.
An open hand looks beautiful, a closed fist looks ugly.
Freedom is beautiful, attat is slavery.
Everyohinks he will give up his attats sometime iure, at the right opportunity.
He waits until the last moment as go only wheh finally snatches everything away.
Since man never likes to let go of things, it hurts when they are taken away.
There is no pain in parting with things voluntarily.
Now this whole matter of moving ahead is essentially our own choice.
An impetus be given towards making this choice; there are laws for that too.
The bridge is already there; it is natural too.
Do you see my point? The bridge is ready to take you forward too; it allows you to go ahead.
This too is nature.
And the bridge is ready to provide you passage to move backwards.
This too is nature.
Nature is prepared to greet you under every dition.
On all her doors is a Wele sign -- which is dangerous too.
Not a single door has a sign, No Admission; ead every door has a Wele sign.
Hehe choice is in your hands.
Its sheer passion on the part of nature that it does not prevent you from entering any door.
You are free to go wherever you feel like.
The door to hell says Wele, and so does the door to heaven.
Which wele sign to choose is ultimately your decision.
In that case you wont be able to hold nature responsible for putting out the wele sign.
Nature has put the sign everywhere.
Nature had no problem, it did not create any hindrance.
To weleans to allow freedom.
That means, intrinsically, nature is absolutely free.
We are a part of nature, hence we are absolutely free.
We are doing what we want to do.
Nature is assisting us in all our as, but the choice is always ours.
Dont misuand me when I say the choice is ours because, essentially, art and parcel of nature.
Putting it in ultimate terms, it means we are the infinite possibilities of nature itself; we are the infinite openings of nature.
Basically it is nature which, seeking through its infinite parts, knocks on its infinite doors -- chooses, wanders, goes astray, and reaches.
But this is a very circular way of putting things -- there are no nooks and ers.
And the problem is that all the ways of nature are circular -- none of its modes is angular, none of its courses is square.
All its stars, moons, plas and satellites are circular.
Their movements in space are circular.
The entire system in nature is circular.
This is the reason we find the circle used in many religious symbols.
So nature is a circular phenomenon.
You start from anywhere and reaywhere you like -- the choice is always yours.
O is uood that the choice is always yours, then one use the laws of nature in a right manner.
For example, while walking oreet you also make use of the law of gravitation.
If the earth did not have gravity, you wouldnt be able to walk on the earth.
By the time you lift your other foot, if the first foot did not remain steady on the ground ao lift on its own, where would you end up? Where would you stand? When you lift your left foot, the earth holds the right foot -- thats how you are able to lift your left foot.
The earth holding the right foot is responsible for your left foot lifting.
Should the right foot also lift at the same time, youve had it! While the earth holds the right foot, you lift the left foot.
You put the left foot down and nature holds it until you have lifted the right foot.
This is how gravity works.
But gravity also works when a man jumps from the roof.
At that moment the earth weles him and pulls him down too.
Just as the earth pulls the left and the right foot, it pulls the jumping man too.
Now, when the bone of the falling man hits the ground, it breaks.
We plain, "What kind of nature is this? It broke the poor mans bone!" But nature simply does its job.
It says, "Wele to you, e a your bone broken.
"
The same law works.
The same gravity which helped you walk will break your bone and make you a cripple.
heless, you wont be able to hold it responsible, because nature merely does its job.
It does a totally perfect job; it never falls short.
Its faultless.
Whether you move your feet, or break your neck -- whatsoever you wish to do, the law of nature works as always.
Keeping this law in mind, you have to choose whether you wish to break your bone -- then you may jump from the roof.
If you wish to walk, you will o lift your feet appropriately.
You will have to watch that you dont go against the law of nature.
To me, sce has only one meaning.
The application of sce does not mean we have quered nature -- there is no way to quer nature.
Sly means that we have discovered certain ways and means of living in accord with nature.
Thats all it means.
Put quering aside.
The question is, who is going to quer whom?
The fact is, we have discovered the ways of living in accord with nature.
For example, nature was willing to run this fan a long time ago.
We took so long to put the fan in the right plad make it work.
Do you follow me? The breeze was always ready to blow from outside.
We preve by raising the wall; we did not make a window.
But if you did make a window, would that mean you quered the breeze? You simply gave way to the breeze.
The breeze was always ready to pass through.
Our being able to run the fan and burn the light with electricity does not mean we have found victory over nature.
We simply learhe way to be in agreement with nature.
Now we fix our bulbs and switches, lay out electric wires in such a way that electricity pass through them.
In fact, electricity was always ready to pass through them.
Our act simply amounts to opening the window.
Sce stands for the search for natures laws favorable to the external world.
Religion stands for the search for natures laws agreeable to the inner world.
There are certain laws of nature that exist ier world.
If we to these laws, nature bees agreeable; if we go against them, it bees disagreeable.
In a way it is wrong to say nature bees agreeable or disagreeable; the right way to put it is whether we are able to take natures help or not.
Rather, one should say that if we duct ourselves in a mahat nature be helpful to us, we stand to gain from it.
If we duct ourselves in a mahat nature ot be helpful, we stand to lose from it.
For example, you are walking with an umbrella over your head and the wind is blowing against you.
Now if you bend it forward, no harm will be done, but if you place it backward on your shoulder, the wind will turn it i.
Here nature will not be at fault.
You did not place the umbrella agreeably to the wind -- thats all youll be atable for.
In both instanature was w in the same way.
It ressing against the umbrella when you bent it forward, but its force was towards you.
It also pressed against the umbrella when it was resting on your shoulder, but this time it was being pressed away from you.
So although the pressure was the same, the difference was in how you had positiohe umbrella.
Similarly, there are inner laws of nature too.
A man who lives with anger has his umbrella resting on the shoulder.
Now that will cause him difficulty -- all his inner umbrellas are bound to fall apart.
A person who spreads love is plag his umbrella forward; he is being agreeable to nature.
One who has learned how to love has actually mastered one law of the inner sce.
He has learhat love brings agreeability, harmony in the inner life; whereas anger creates discord, disharmony within.
This is very much like the law of gravity.
In anger you break y, in love you mend it.
Nature is willing to work in both instances, depending upon what you wish to do.
In anger, man wants to jump from the roof.
Meditation is the ultimate agreeability of the inner life, the uttermost harmony, the most profound of all.
Meditation means that, from within, one is now in plete harmony with the ultimate law of life.
The word Lao Tzu has used for it is beautiful.
He calls it Tao.
Tao means the law.
Or the name given by the Vedic seers is also appropriate.
They call it rit.
Rit means the law.
Similarly, dharma also means the law.
Dharma means your inner nature, the law.
Dharma means: if you act acc to the law, you will attain happiness.
adharma, an unrighteous act, is that which would go against the law and cause you unhappiness.
This is the principle of inner sce.
Meditation, iimate sense, in the innermost sense, means to be agreeable -- agreeability.
In other words, one who is agreeable in every way, one who is nowhere in flict with life; one who is at no point separate from life; one who has bee harmonious with all the laws of life, he attains to the ultimate truth, the ultimate life, the ultimate bliss.
We exist uhe same law too.
But fighting against the very law, we end up in ultimate bondage -- fighting against the very law.
Its kind of like this: there are people who uand the value of gold and make ors out of it, and there are others who do not uand its value and make shackles out of it.
There is a law that works on gold.
There is a law that governs the moulding, the casting of gold.
Now whether you make ors or s is entirely up to you.
One who totally establishes ones agreeability with the inner law of nature attains dharma.
One who totally es to an agreement with the law of nature iside world attains vigyana.
These words are so beautiful they are worth uanding.
What is achieved through dharma we call gyana.
What is gaihrough sce we call vigyana.
Both words are very meaningful.
We do not use any prefix befyana, we do not put any adjective before it.
Vigyana means a specialized knowledge; gyana means just knowledge, natural -- not any special knowledge.
Religion means having an uanding of how to bee spontaneous, how to be oh the inner nature of life.
He is just knowing -- not a specialized knowledge.
Vigyana is a specialized knowledge.
It has to explore ead every dire in order to find out what would be agreeable to this law of nature and that law of nature.
There are millions of laws w iside world.
Obviously, the more you go inside, you ultimately end up with only one law.
And the laws keep on increasing as we move more and more ier world.
It is like drawing lines away from one point.
They will be o the point in, but as they move away from the point their number will go on increasing, their distances will go on increasing.
This is similar to the sun rays that spread all around.
They are one on the sun, but in moving away from it, the one bees two, four, a thousand, millions, and billions -- they go on spreading.
Their distances bee greater and greater.
Vigyan, sce, is a specialized knowledge -- knowledge of ead every ray, hence specialized.
Once sce gets hold of one ray, it will find out all about it.
As I was telling you yesterday, sce means to know more and more about less and less.
But in that case the ray will keep on being thinner and thinner -- the greater the distahe narrower it will be.
Thats why sce bees more and more narrow.
Religion expands, it bees more and more vast, it keeps on being formless until advaita, nonduality, oneness remains at the end.
Then there wowo left.
Hence, I say to you, there be many sces, not many religions.
Religion only be one because it is knowledge -- not a specialized knowledge.
If we uand this, then it would mean that the laws exist, that we exist, and what we do with the laws and with ourselves -- that capacity to choose -- also exists.
Whatsoever we do, we have the capability of living it through as well.
Now, this is the way it is.
One who is intelligent, however, tio work towards enhang the dire of bliss.
One who is determio choose stupidity tinuously goes on diminishing the capacity to attain bliss.
There is no one up there to be held responsible; the entire responsibility rests with man.
Hence my emphasis on sadhana, and my telling you repeatedly: get on with it, take a jump; the laws are firmly rooted.
You are already on the diving board, but just standing there.
The o is waving down below.
You take a jump.
The sun is hot, the heat is intense, you are sweating, and the cool o is rolling below.
You , of course, take a jump and be in cool waters.
You are standing on the diving board.
If you are willing to jump, the diving board is ready to help you; it has springs, they toss you below.
But you are standing there sweating in the sun.
The diving board, the springs, are shedding tears beh you.
If you care to take the jump, they are anxious to help you.
But since you are not taking the jump, the diving board is quiet.
The cool o down below is watg you sweat.
Given this state of affairs, you will have to choose decisively, you will have to make the decision.
It is fine if you wish to wait, there is no problem.
But make a decision: "I want to wait.
I dont want to be in cool water, I want to stand in the heat, I want to sweat.
I dont want to jump, Ill stay right here.
" Make this your choid then wait.
I believe, if you did this, thehat decisive act would show you have grown.
At least you made a decision.
But you are a very straype of people.
You say, "We dont want to jump in the o.
We would like to ehe cool water; we know the sun is hot and we are sweating profusely, but we t take a jump right now.
We do wish to jump, to leap forward, but please wait.
How we rush into it? We will do it tomorrow, or the day after.
"
This stops yrowth.
By and by it makes you i; you get stu the place where you are.
You bee used to this sweating, the heat, and to the nonsehat you would like to jump -- but tomorrow.
You will say the same thing tomorrow as well, that you would like to jump the day.
Then you will get used to saying this, you will keep oing the same thing, and all the laws of nature will atiently.
The sun will tio shine, he will wele you and invite you to enjoy him.
While we go oing, the o will keep calling, "e if you like, its your pleasure.
The cool waters are ready to receive you.
" The diving board will keep saying, "I am ready to bounce, but you o make a choice first -- you o take off.
" This is how the situation is.
In my view, the real harm is not because of the fact that you are suffering from misery, it is due more to the reality that your misery is not the product of your decision.
Suffer decisively! The suffering should be your decision too.
If one wants to steal, then he should do so decisively, by being a thief.
He should make it clear, "I io be a thief, and I want to say to all the holy men they should stop all their nonsense.
It is of no use to me; none of their talk has any meaning for me.
If they want to be holy, thehem be.
I have decided to be a thief.
"
So remember, pared to a person who has bee a holy man without his own decision, a man who has bee a thief through his own decision would live a far superior life.
.
Because the decision enhances his sciousness, the decision lends weight to his being, the decision raises his level of responsibility.
When he makes the decision he bees responsible.
Being himself the deaker, when he decides, when it bees his own choice, will is created.
And when will is created, the sciousness is awakened.
Then it t remain asleep any longer.
Your making the decision alone will bring ao the state of unsciousness, because a decision erge in an unscious state.
Lag decisiveness, you will simply go on drifting here and there, pushed by the society.
The father enrolls you in a school, so you go there.
The mother finds you a job, so you take that job.
The wife asks you to stand on your head, so you stand on your head.
Then the children surround you; you are more and more fined.
You are just pulled and pushed from all sides.
So if you stay indecisive, the state of unsciousness will beore and more densed.
There is no harm if one has to make a decision -- even for the wrong reasons.
As I see it, there is only one wrongdoing -- not to make a decision.
And there is only one virtue -- to be decisive.
So be decisive.
It doesnt matter if you decide to be a thief, but make the decision with a total mind -- then you wont stay a thief for long.
One who decides with a total mind attains so much scioushat he o loeal.
He es to suderstanding that to him stealing seems foolish.
Even when people bee holy men or women, they do so because they are somehow pushed into it.
Somebodys wife dies aurns into a holy man.
A womans husband dies and she ends up being a holy woman.
A man files bankruptd bees a holy man.
Someones father is about to bee a renunciate; the son has no choice but to follow his father -- the father initiates him too.
Now this is meaningless, this doesnt serve any purpose.
A deust be there.
For one who lives decisively every moment, his sciousness will tio grow every moment.
Make decisions in small matters, and learn how to stick to them.
Let me mention something briefly, and then we will clude this talk.
Gurdjieff used to have his follh a small experiment.
As such, it was a very small exercise, but it used to prove very effective in raising sciousness.
It was called the stop exercise.
For example, if Gurdjieff were to address people sitting here, all of a sudden in the middle of the talk he would say "Stop!" It would mean everyoting here would freeze -- your hands, head, legs, the whole body would remain motionless, like a statue.
He would keep watg, and if anyone moved he would say, "t you muster enough will to stay as you are for a while?"
It so happehat once, along with his followers, he was experimenting in Tiflis.
They were staying in a tent outside the village.
A al was situated nearby.
It was dry at the time; the water had not run through the al yet.
Three of the seekers were crossing the dry al when suddenly Gurdjieff called from ihe tent, "Stop!" All the three stood in the middle of the al, motionless.
Meanwhile, somebody released the al waters.
The al began to fill up, while Gurdjieff stayed ihe tent.
The seekers stood there, unmoving.
Dauntless, the three remained until the water reached their waists.
As the water began rising further up, they became worried.
They couldnt utter a word because that would have meant breaking the "Stop" and.
Gurdjieff was still ient; they were not sure whether he evehe al was filling up.
Perhaps he didnt even know his disciples were standing in the middle of the al.
They couldnt figure out what to do.
They kept their ce until the water came up to their necks.
When it began rising even further, one of them exclaimed, "This is foolishness!" and jumped out of the al.
The sed one held out until the water reached his nose, in the hope Gurdjieff might call off the stop exercise.
Then he felt it was dangerous to hold on any longer, and he jumped out of the water too.
The third young man stood there without budging.
The water went over his head.
Gurdjieff came running from the tent, jumped in the al and brought the man out.
Gurdjieff asked how he had felt i that moment wheer went over his head.
He said, "The thing I was waiting for happened.
But it happened only when I stood firm in my resolve.
The sciousness I attaio wheer went over my head was simply the ultimate.
Now I doo learn anything further -- my resolve has e to its pletion!"
This man stood firm in his resolve even in the face of death.
Gurdjieff said, "This lanned by me.
I had the al water released.
I wao see if you were capable of something more than merely stopping the movements of your hands a.
" He dismissed the other two seekers and told them o think of ing back -- all.
He told them they didnt have any busihere.
The greater the iy of will, the more profound the feeling of resolve, the more ones sciousness es closer to being total.
If you show your absolute will even for a single moment, that very moment you attain to a total sciousness.
All the preparations are geared toward attaining this total sciousness; they are meant for creating that absolute will.
Hence, in my view, it is always good to make a choice.
If God is having us dance like puppets -- making some as sinners and others saints -- then the whole thing bees useless, absolutely useless.
Not only does everything bee useless, even God himself turns out to be very foolish.
What kind of craziness is this? If God alone is the deaker, and if he alone creates someone good and someone bad -- makes one man Rama and the other Ravana -- then whats the point? Thehing bees nonsense, carries no meaning.
No, the individual is the deaker -- there is no one imposing a decision on you from above.
The moments when the decision es from within you are the moments of awakening.
Twenty-four hours a day, a seeker will look forward to making even ordinary decisions -- it doesnt matter how insignifit they are.
One should remain in searaking just minor, very ordinary decisions.
Right from the m you should be tinuously anxious to find opportunities for making decisions.
And whenever such opportunities arise
The opportunities e your way all the time, all kinds of opportunities
If you make decisions every moment, in a few days you will find your sciousness shooting up within you like an arrow.
You will find it rising, gaining speed every day, simply through very ordinary decisions.
What we have named as sacrifice, austerity -- and who knows what other foolish words -- are all nonsense.
If ever they had any validity, if ever any man had even made a meaningful application of them, that meaningfulness lay in their will.
Someone decides, for example, that he will for a day.
Now, the value of this does not rest as mu the act of ing, as it does in his ing to a resolution.
If this mas even on his mind, the whole thing is finished, it bees totally useless.
ing means not only abstaining from eating physically, but eveally.
If a man could mindfully stay without eating food for twelve hours, he would have gone a long way in maintaining his resolve.
ing is not signifit by itself -- it simply works as a peg for the man to hang his will on.
After twelve hours the quality of his being is sure to ge.
When I see a man has fasted for years ahe quality of his being has not ged, I know he must have beeing in his mind, otherwise the quality would have ged.
He has been fasting all through his life -- going through this fast and that fast -- a nowhere does he show any ge of quality.
The man has remaihe same.
He is like one who sets a lod then es back again to check whether it is locked or not.
I know such a man.
He lives across from my house.
He fasts, worships regularly, but he is a man of such poor will.
I have watched him many times.
He will lock his door, walk ten steps, then e bad shake the lock to be sure.
I asked him, "Why do you do this? You locked the door yourself!"
He said, "Often I am not sure whether I locked it or not, so I e back to double check.
And whats the harm in cheg at least once?"
I said, "Having already checked once, doesnt it occur to you the sed time whether or not you have indeed gone bad seen to the lock?"
He said, "How did you know? It does occur to me indeed.
Not only o twice, even three times I feel like going bad cheg the lock -- but I feel embarrassed to do it.
"
Here is a man who fasts, but he does not know what fasting means.
The purpose of fasting is t decisiveness, t a deaking power.
Having made the decision once, a man should not turn back.
And whosoever makes such a decision -- which proves to be a point of urn -- in the life of such a man nothing remains asleep, everything is awakened.
Chapter 12
The Distance Makes the Difference
3 August 1970 pm in Bombay, India
Question 1
IN ORDER FOR OO STAY AWAKE AT THE TIME OF DEATH, OR IN ORDER FOR OO SUCCESSFULLY EXPERIENCE A SCIOUS DEATH IATI?ON, PLEASE EXPLAIN IAIL HOW A SEEKER SHOULD WORK ON THE FOLLOWING: THE BODY SYSTEM, THE BREATHING SYSTEM, THE STATE OF BREATHING, THE STATE OF ONES BEING, CELIBACY, THE STATE OF ONES MIND.
Before one remain scious in the moment of death, first one o prepare to stay scious in pain and suffering.
Ordinarily, it is not possible for one who bees unscious even in misery to stay awake at the time of death.
One o uand what it means to bee unscious when in misery.
That will make one uand what it means to be scious in misery too.
Being unscious when one is in misery means one has identified oneself with the misery.
When you have a headache, you dont feel any distaween the headache and yourself; you dont remain just a distant watcher.
Rather, you feel as if you are in pain.
When you have a fever, it doesnt feel as though the body is hot, somewhere at a distance from you, instead you feel as if you have bee hot.
This is identification.
When your foot is hurt and wounded, you dont feel just the affected foot; rather, you feel as if you are hurt and wounded.
Basically, we dont feel any distaween ourselves and our bodies.
We live identified with the body.
When hunger arises, one doesnt say his body is hungry and he is aware if it, instead he says, "I am hungry.
" But this is not the truth.
The truth is, the body is hungry and he is aware of it.
He is simply the ter of awareness -- tinuously aware of whatsoever is happening.
If there is a thorn hurting the foot, he knows it; if there is a headache, he knows it; if the stomaeeds food, he knows it.
Man is sciousness, sciousness which is tinuously aware.
He is not the experiencer, he is simply the knower.
This is the reality.
But our state of mind is not that of the knower, it is that of the experiencer.
When the kurns into being the experiencer; when he knows not, but rather bees identified with the act itself; when he does not remain a witness watg from a distance, but rather bees the partit i, that is when the identification takes place.
Then he bees oh the act.
This identificatios him from waking up, because in order to be awake, in order to be aware, a certain distance is required, a space is needed.
I am able to see you only because there is a distaween you and me.
If the whole distaween you and me were to be removed, I wouldnt be able to see you.
I am able to see you because there is a space between us.
If this entire space were somehow eliminated, it wouldnt be possible for me to see you.
My eyes see you, because there is a spa between but my very eyes are uo see themselves.
Even if I o see my figure, I have to bee the other in a mirror; I have to be at a distance from myself -- only then I see my refle.
Seeing the refle in a mirror means my image is at a distance, and now it is visible to me.
All that a mirror does is present your image at a distance from you.
The intervening space thus created enables you to see.
In order to see, a distance is needed.
For one who lives identified with the body, or thinks he is the very body, there exists no distaween him and his body.
Ohere was a Mohammedan mystic called Farid.
A man came to see him one m and raised the same question you have asked me.
He said to Farid, "We have heard that when Jesus was crucified he did not cry out, scream, row miserable.
We have also heard that when Mansoors limbs were cut off, he was laughing.
How this be? This is impossible.
"
Farid didnt say a word.
He laughed, and from the uts offered to him by his devotees, he picked up ohat was lying nearby and gave it to the man.
Farid told him, "Take this ut.
It is not ripe yet.
Break it open, but make sure you keep the kernel from breaking.
Break the outer shell and brihe unbroken kernel.
"
The man said, "This is impossible.
Because the ut is uhere is no space between the kernel and the outer shell.
If I break open the shell the kernel will break too.
"
Farid said, "Fet this ut.
Here is another.
Take this o is dry.
There is a space between its kernel and the outer shell.
you assure me you break only the shell and leave the kernel intact?"
The man said, "Whats so difficult about this? I will break the shell and the kernel will be saved without any problem.
"
Farid said, "Tell me why the kernel will be saved.
"
The man replied, "Because the ut is dry, there exists a distaween the shell and the kernel.
"
Farid said, "Now dont bother about breaking open the ut; set it aside too.
Did you get your answer or not?"
The man said, "I was asking you something else, and you have gotteo talking about a ut.
My question is, why didnt Jesus cry out when he was crucified? Why didnt he weep? Why didnt Mansoor writhe in pain when his limbs were cut off? Why did he laugh? Why did he smile?"
Farid answered, "Because they were dry uts, while we are wet uts -- there is no other reason than this.
"
The reason why Jesus didnt weep when crucified, and Mansoor didnt suffer pain, but rather laughed and smiled, is because they had totally disidentified themselves with their bodies.
There was no other reason than this.
It was not really Jesus who was being crucified.
Jesus was watg his body being crucified from within, and this he did from the same distance as the people standing around him -- outside, away from his body.
No one from the crowd screamed, none of them cried, "Dont kill me!" Why? -- because there was a distaween them and Jesus body.
Within Jesus too, there was a distaween the element that watches and his body.
Hence Jesus also didnt cry out, "Dont kill me!"
Mansoors limbs were amputated and he kept laughing.
When someone asked him, "What makes you laugh when your limbs are being cut off7" Mansoor said, "I would have cried had you dismembered me, but it is not me you are chopping off; the one you are doing it to, you fools, is not me.
I laugh at you because you are taking this body to be Mansoors, just as you take the bodies you are in to be your authentic selves.
You will obviously suffer painful deaths.
What you are doing to me is nothing but a repetition of the mistakes you have itted iing your own selves.
Had you been aware you are separate from your bodies, you wouldnt have tried to cut my body.
You would have known that you and your body are two different things.
Then you would have realized that by cutting up the body, Mansoor is not cut.
"
The greatest preparation for enterih in a scious state is to first enter pain sciously, because death does not occur often, it does not e every day.
Death will e only once, whether you are prepared for it or not; there ot be a rehearsal for death.
But pain and misery e every day.
repare ourselves while going through pain and suffering -- and remember, if we do so while fag them, it will prove useful at the time of death.
Hence, seekers have always weled suffering.
There is no other reason for it.
It is not that suffering is a good thing.
The reason is simply that suffering provides the seeker with an opportunity for self-preparation, self-attai.
A seeker has always thanked God for the suffering he undergoes, for the simple reason that, in moments of misery, he gets a ce to disidentify himself from his body.
Remember, sadhana, spiritual discipline, is a little difficult to follow when you are happy.
It is easier when you are miserable, because in moments of happiness one doesnt want to have even the slightest feeling of separation from ones body.
When you are happy the body feels very dear to you; you dont feel like beiached from it for even an inch.
In moments of happiness we move closer to the body; he is not surprising that a seeker of happiness bees a materialist.
It is also not surprising if a person who is tinuously seeking happiness believes himself to be nothing more than his body, because in happy times he begins to exist like a green ut instead of a dry one -- the distaween him and his body tio narrow down.
In moments of pain one wishes he were not the body.
Ordinarily, a man who takes himself to be nothing but the body also wishes he were not the body when his head hurts or when his foot is injured or when his body aches.
He tends to agree with monks all over the world who go about saying that, "It would have beeer if I were not the body.
" Feeling the pain in his body, he bees eager to somehow find out he is not the body too.
Thats why I say to you, the moments of pain beoments of spiritual disciplihey be turned into moments of sadhana.
But ordinarily, what do we do?
Ordinarily, during times of suffering, we try tet pain.
If a man is in trouble, he will drink alcohol.
Someone is in pain and he will go and sit in a movie theater.
Somebody is miserable and he will try tet his misery with prayers aional songs.
These are all different ways and means tet pain.
Someone drinks; we say this is oactieone goes and watches a movie, this is another.
A persoo a cert; this is a third way of fetting pain.
Somebody goes to the temple and drowns himself in prayers and hymns; this is a fourth strategy.
There be a thousand and orategies -- they be religious, nious, or secular.
Thats not a big question.
Underh all this, the basic thing is that man wants tet his misery.
He is intetting misery.
A person who is out tet misery ever wake up to misery.
How we bee aware of somethiend tet? Only with an attitude of remembering we bee aware of something.
Hence, only by remembering pain we bee aware of it.
So whenever you are in misery, take it as an opportunity.
Be totally aware of it, and you will have a wonderful experience.
When you bee fully aware of your suffering, when you look at it face to faot esg the pain, you will have a glimpse of your separateness from it.
For example, you fell, were injured, hurt your foot.
Now try to locate the pain iry to pinpoint the exact spot where it hurts, and you will be astoo discover how you have mao spread the pain over a much wider area, away from the inal spot where its iy is not so much.
Man exaggerates his suffering.
He magnifies his misery, which is never actually that much.
The reason behind this is the same -- identification with the body.
Misery is like the flame of a lamp, but we experie as the dispersed light of the lamp.
Misery is like the flame, limited to a very small se of the body.
But we feel it like the very extended light of the lamp, c a much larger area.
Close your eyes and try to locate the pain from inside.
Remember too, we have always known the body from the outside, never from within.
Even if you know your body, it is known as others see it.
If you have seen your hand, it is always from the outside, but you feel your hand from within too.
It is as if oo remain tented with seeing his house only from the outside.
But there is an inner side to the house as well.
Pain occurs at the inner parts of the body.
The point where it hurts is located somewhere ierior of the body, but the pain spreads to the outer parts of the body.
It is like this: the flame of pain is located inside, while the light radiates outward.
Since we are used to seeing the body from outside, the pain appears to be very spread out.
It is a wonderful experierying to see the body from inside.
Close your eyes and try to feel and experience what the body is like from within.
The human body has an inner wall too; it has an inner c as well.
This body has an inner limit too.
That inner frontier certainly be experienced with closed eyes.
You have seen your hand lifting.
Now, close your eyes sometime and lift your hand, and you will experiehe hand rising from within.
From the outside you have known what it is to be hungry.
Close your eyes and experience hunger from within, and for the first time you will be able to feel it from inside.
As soon as you get hold of the pain from within, two things happen.
One is, the pain does not remain as widely spread as it inally seemed to be; it immediately ters on a small point.
And the more intensely you trate on this point, the more you will find it being smaller and smaller.
And an incredible thing happens.
When the point bees very small, you find to your amazement it appears and disappears, goes off and on.
Gaps begin to appear iween.
And finally, when it disappears, you wonder what happeo it.
Many times you miss it.
The point bees so small, that oftehe sciousries to locate it, it is not there.
Just as pain expands in a state of unsciousness, iate of awareness it narrows down and bees small.
In such a state of scioushe feeling will be that although you have gohrough so many painful experiences, although you have lived through so much suffering, yet, in fact, the miseries were not really that many.
We have suffered exaggerated pains.
The same is true with regard to happiness.
The happinesses we have been through were not as many as they seemed to be; we have ehem in an exaggerated form too.
If oo enjoy ones happiness with awareness, we would find that happiness bees very small too.
If we were to live through misery with the same kind of awareness, we would find it bees very narrow as well.
The greater the awareness, the narrower and smaller the pains and miseries.
They bee so small that, in a deeper sehey turn out to be meaningless.
In fact, their meaning lies in their expansion.
They seem to be enpassing oire life.
However, whehrough great awareness, they go on narrowing down, ultimately being so meanihey dont have anything to do with life as such.
The sed thing that will happen is, when you look at your misery very closely, a distance will be created between you and the misery.
In fact, whenever you look at a thing, immediately a distance is created between you and the thing itself.
Seeing causes the distance.
No matter what we look at, a distance immediately begins to take place.
If you look closely at your misery, you will find a separatioween the misery and you, because only that which is separate from you be seen.
Obviously, that which is inseparably oh you ot be seen.
One who is aware of his misery, one who is filled with sciousness, one who is full of remembrance, experiehe misery as somewhere else, and he is somewhere at a distance.
The day a man es to realize the differeween himself and the misery, as soon as he es to know his pain is happening somewhere at a distahe unsciousness caused by misery ceases to exist.
And once a person es to uand that the sufferings as well as the happinesses of the body occur elsewhere, that one is merely a knower of them, his identity with the body is severed.
Then he knows he is not the body.
This is the initial preparation.
Ohis preparation is plete, then it is easy to enter death with awareness.
Not only easy, but it will happen most certainly.
As such, we are not afraid of death really.
After all, even to be afraid of death, one o be familiar with death.
How we feel afraid of something we know not.hing about?
So, we have no fear of death really; rather, in our minds death exists in the form of a disease.
Thats the idea we have of it.
When even minor illnesses leave us in so much trouble -- the foot hurts and we suffer so much, the head hurts and we suffer so much -- what a torture it will be wheire body will hurt and fall apart!
The fear of death is the sum total of all our illnesses.
Death in itself, however, is not an illness.
Death has nothing to do with illness -- it is not eveely ected with it.
It is a different matter if illnesses precede death, but there is no cause-and-effect relationship betweewo.
It is beside the point that a man dies following an illness, but one need not be mistaken and think that illness causes death.
Perhaps the reverse is the case.
Because a man es close to death, he grabs on to illness.
No one ever dies of illness.
As death approaches, he begins to catch illnesses.
As death draws near, his body bees weak, his receptivity towards siess increases.
He bees vulnerable, he begins to look for illnesses.
The same illness would not be able to affect him were the man closer to life.
Perhaps it would not have been able to catch hold of him.
Do you know there are some moments when you are more receptive to illnesses, while there are some when you are not? In moments of disappoi and sadness a person bees vulnerable to illness, while a man full of hope and optimism bees uive to it.
Even illness does er you without your willio accept it -- your inner acceptance is needed.
Heno matter how many medies are given to them, those who are of a suicidal mind ever be cured.
Their minds remain uive to medications.
Their minds go on seeking illnesses, inviting diseases with open arms, but keeping their doors very tightly closed as far as medications are ed.
No, no one ever dies of illness.
Rather, one bees vulnerable to illnesses because of approag death.
Thats why illness occurs first, theh follows.
We normally think what happens first is the cause, and that which follows it is the effect.
Thats erroneous thinking.
Illness is not the cause.
Invariably the cause is death.
The illness is merely the effect.
So the fear of death in our minds is really the fear of illness.
First of all, we create the fear of death by adding up all our illnesses.
The sed thing worth remembering is that all the people we have seen dying, we have not really seen them dying, we have only seen them falling ill.
How we ever see anyone dying? Death is su utterly inner phenomenon, no one be a wito it.
Think twice before you ever testify to seeing sud such a person die, because it is a very difficult thing to see someone dying.
To this day it has never happened on this earth.
No one has ever seen anyone dying.
Only this much has been seen: a man fell ill, grew more ill, and more and more ill, and one day it became known that the man is no longer alive.
But basically, no one has ever seen when a person died.
No one has ever been able to pinpoint at whient a person died, and what exactly happened in the process of dying.
The only thing we have seen is a man bei free from life.
We have not seen a boat toug the other shore; we have only seen it leaving this shore.
We have seen a sciousness move away from the shores of life, and then after a certain point we have lost sight of it.
The body that remains with us is no longer alive, as it was until yesterday, and so we think the man is dead.
For us, death is an infere is not ahat occurs right before us.
We have seen sick people, we have seen the suffering of a dying man -- the cramping of his limbs, his eyes rolling up, his face def, his jaws g; we have seen that perhaps the man wants to say something but ot -- we have seen all this.
We have with us the sum of all this; it has bee part of our collective mind.
Whatsoever has been happening at the time of death over millions of years, we have collected it all.
We are afraid of that.
We are alshtened of fag the same difficulties at the time of our death.
Hence, man has devised very clever means.
He has dismissed the fact of death from the whole idea of life.
We create cemeteries outside the town so that we are not reminded of death more often.
Really, ideally a cemetery should be created in the middle of the town, because there is nothing in life more certain thah itself: everything else is uain.
Other things may or may not be.
The only thing whie believe in definitively is death.
Death is the most certain thing; no one doubt its existence.
We doubt the existence of God; we doubt the existence of the soul; we doubt life itself, but there is no way to doubt death.
Death is.
That which is so certain ut outside the town.
If a funeral passes by, the mother calls her children to e ihe house, because somebody is dead.
Actually, if someone is dead everyone should be asked to e out so they watch the greatest fact of life passing by.
Everyone is bound to pass through death.
There is o deny it.
But we are so scared of death we dont even want to mention it.
I have heard
An old woman came to see a monk and said.
"The soul is indeed immortal.
" Old people often talk about the immortality of the soul for no other reason than the fear of death.
Thats the only reason why we find such a large number of old folks in temples, mosques, churches.
Why arent young people and children ied in going to these places? It will be a while before they get the news of death.
It will take a little time.
They afford to deh for now; they fet it for a while.
How an old man fet death? He gets reminders every day.
One day he finds his legs refuse to walk, another day his vision fails, sometimes his ears lose their hearing power.
He receives hints from all around that, one by one, parts of his body seem to be giving in to death.
Now he begins to rush towards the church, the temple, the mosque.
He is not ed with God; he goes there simply to make sure that, even though what he has uood life to be is ing to an end, will he perish too?
It is strahat societies which believe in the immortality of the soul are more frightened of death than ones which do not believe in the souls existence.
Take our try, for example.
Fes we have been firm believers in the immortality of the soul.
A, no ra earth is more cowardly than ours, no people are more dead than we are.
A nation which proclaims the soul is immortal suffers in slavery for a thousand years.
How strange! One wonders how a nation which declares the soul is immortal and which is inhabited by eight hundred million souls, live in slavery uhe domination of three million.
Those who believe the soul is immortal, that it ever die, what fear they have of being slaves? What fear they have of fighting the enemy? What fear they have of fag death by hanging? How guns and ons frighten them? But no, something else is involved here.
Believing in the immortality of the soul is not the same as knowing the immortality of the soul.
Believing in it is just a strategy for erasing the fear of death, for falsifying it -- the same as creating a cemetery outside the town.
Every day people open their scriptures ahe teags on the immortality of the soul so that they be absolutely sure there is h, so that they carry the hope that they will survive -- so there is o worry.
They assert, "The body will die, but we will still survive!"
Who are you asserting as your existeher than the body? You have no knowledge of it.
You announce, "The body may die, I will tio live," and the fact is you have absolutely no idea who you are other than the body! You dont know what it is that will survive when the body is no more.
If you should ever really think, "Who am l?" you will e to know that you know nothing about yourself except that you are the body.
So the old woman said to the monk, "I believe the soul is immortal.
The soul is indeed imperishable.
What do you say?"
About the immortality of the soul, the monk answered nothing.
He merely looked at the woman, took her hand in his and said, "What do you think about death? Not much time is left.
"
The woman was annoyed.
She said, "What kind of ominous talk is this? Please dont say such things.
Being a monk, a good man, you should not talk about suinous things.
"
The monk said, "If the soul is immortal, then how death be ominous? Death be inauspicious only if the soul is mortal.
"
But the woman tinued, "Drop this and talk about something else.
Talk about God, talk about moksha.
I havent e to hear you speak about death.
"
Actually, people go to monks precisely to hear things which somehow fort them and alleviate their fears.
They want someone who tell them, "You are not going to die.
" They want to be told, "You are not a sihe soul is eternally pure, uncorrupted.
Did you say you are a thief? Fet it, no one is a thief.
Did you say you are a black-marketeer? Thats all nonsense.
the soul ever engage in black-marketing?"
The result is, all the black-marketeers gather around monks who keep saying, "The soul is pure, without blemish.
It has always been incorruptible, it ever be defiled.
" And the man sitting in front, an old thief, nods his head in agreement and says, "You are absolutely right, your holiness! How true, your holiness!" He wants to believe, he wants someoo assure him that the soul is absolutely pure, so he be free from the bother of being pure, so he wont have to be worried about being impure -- so there will be no more fear.
We o have a good uanding of the reality on which this mental dition is fually based.
We are not afraid of death, we are afraid of illness.
And we are afraid to part with what we call life.
For example, you push me out of this house.
I have no idea what lies outside this house -- whether there is a big palace, a forest, a desolate place, a desert -- I havent the fai idea.
I am not sure whether I will be happy or unhappy outside the house.
I dont know at all.
Although outside the door lies the unknowhe fear of leaving the house makes me miserable.
The house was dependable, known, familiar.
It is frightening to leave the familiar and go into the unfamiliar.
The fear is not really of the unknown, because I have absolutely no knowledge of the unknown.
The fear is having to leave the known.
You will be surprised, but the mind is so possessed by the known that we find it difficult even to let go of our known illnesses.
It is even difficult to give up our known miseries.
Most physis hardly ever cure your illness, they merely persuade you to drop the illness.
Most medies do nothing to your illness, they simply give you ce to get rid of it.
Retly, a well-known stist ducted many experiments in this area.
He took twenty patients suffering from the same illness.
Ten of them he treated with medie, while he kept the other ten only on water.
The iing thing was that the patients in both categories recovered together.
Now what does this mean? What it means is simply that it is her a question of medie nor of water.
The big question is that of persuading a man to drop his illness.
If water does this work, theient be cured by water.
If homeopathic sugar pills succeed, then he is cured by the pills.
If a charm proves effective, then it cure too.
If a patient has faith in a pinch of ash given by a fakir, then it cure him too.
Faith ier of the Ganges also does the trick.
Everything works.
Even a highly intelligent man such as Aristotle has proposed remedies which make us laugh.
He was, one should say, the father of logic.
He has proposed incredible cures; he could not have suggested them had they not been effective.
The cures did work.
For example, he has written that when a woman is in labor, apply horse dung oomad the pain will stop pletely -- a wise and intelligent man like Aristotle says this.
it ever be possible that a woman get over the pain of labor by applying horse dung oomach? But apparently it did work.
The reason why a woman recovered from her labor pains is that basically a pregnant woman never has a pain iomach, she simply creates it while giving birth to a child.
The more frightened a woman is of giving birth the more her pain grows.
And as she bees fearful of the pain, she tracts the entire reproductive system.
The child pushes its way out of her body, while the woman goes on trag the whole system.
This creates a flict betweewo, and the flict causes pain.
Thats why most babies are born at night -- seventy pert of the babies -- because the mother wont allow the birth to happen in the daytime.
She remains alert during the day and hihe birth from happening.
Hehe baby is forced to take birth at night wheher is asleep, when she is unaware.
Therefore, seventy pert of the poor babies are uo take birth in the daylight; they have to be born in the darkness of night.
There is a man called Levin.
He teaches women to cooperate with their labor.
He asks them to cooperate during childbirth, and has succeeded in having thousands of women deliver babies without any pain.
He her applies horse dung, nives an iion, nor ties a charm about a woman, ns any from a guru -- he does nothing of the sort.
He merely persuades the woman to cooperate.
He advises women, "Allow the child to take birth without creating any hindrance; cooperate with the child.
Be filled with the feeling of giving birth to the child.
That will be enough, you wont have any pain.
"
There are hundreds of tribes where women do not gh any labor pains.
They go on w in the fields, and wheime es they give birth to the child.
The mother places the infant in a basket and resumes her work in the field.
Man does not even give up those illnesses he has been suffering for so long, he holds tightly to them.
People even insist on keeping their s.
This fact came to light during the French revolution.
Some of the most dangerous prisoners were kept in a large prison.
They were senteo life impriso.
Their s were o be taken off; they were to remain in them forever.
Only when they died would the shackles be removed.
The revolutionaries broke down the prison walls and brought the prisoners out of their cells.
The prisoners had given up all hope of ever ing out.
Some were imprisoned for twenty years, some for thirty, and some were in there for fifty years.
They had bee almost blind.
Their s had almost bee parts of their bodies; one could not say they were separate from their bodies.
There was no longer any separatio between their bodies and the s.
Do you think s tied around ones hands for fifty years would remain separate? They are bound to bee part of ones hands.
The man fets the s are not part of his body.
He takes care of them in the same way he does his hands.
He s and shihe s every m as he does his body -- after all, the s are to stay with him his whole life.
If this is the case, then the whole matter is over.
So when the revolutionaries began cutting the s off these prisoners, many of them objected.
They told the revolutiohat without s they will feel very unfortable outside.
But revolutionaries are always very pigheaded.
They havent learned yet that you t be stubborn with people.
If you force people to give up their existing s, they will put on new ones.
So the revolutionaries forcibly cut the s and released the prisoners.
What followed was incredible.
By nightfall, more than half the prisoners returned, saying they didnt like it outside, they felt they were naked without their s on them.
Obviously, if you remove the many golden ors worn by a woman, she will feel naked, weightless.
She will feel as if she has lost something, as if she has lost weight.
So the prisoners said, "Give us our s back.
We couldnt take a nap iernoon without the s on us, how could we?" Even the sound of those s became part of their psychological state.
The added weight of s had bee so much a part of their psyche, their subscious, that even while ging sides ihey felt it.
Man bees so tied to the familiar that he feels hurt even breaking his s.
We are caught in the familiar, which we take as life.
It is because of the grip of the familiar that we are so scared of death.
In the first place, we have no knowledge of death.
And the first principle for awakening is awareness of misery, so that one know one is separate from the body.
The sed thing is the ability to witness.
It has never occurred to us that
Sometimes, walking in the middle of the marketplace, suddenly give a little jolt to yourself, and for two minutes just stand still.
Just watch without doing anything -- simply be a witness.
The moment you stand as a watcher in the middle of the street, suddenly you will be severed from your surroundings and out of them.
The moment you bee a wito something, you transd it, you jump out of it.
But it is very difficult to stand on a street and be a witness.
It is not easy to be a witness even while watg a movie.
The darkness in the movie theater bees quite ve for people watg the movie.
One cry in that darkness without any feeling of embarrassment.
If we examihe handkerchiefs of people as they leave the theater, we find out what went on inside, hoeople cried.
We know very well nothing really takes pla the s, it is just a s.
We also know perfectly well that what we see on the s is merely an appearahat nothing is happening there.
It is simply a play of light and shadow, just a work of rays projected from the rear of the theater.
The s shows nothing except pictures.
A, everything es off on the s, and we dont remain a witness even to the s; we bee a part of it.
Dont be uhe illusion that while watg the film you really remain a watcher.
Dont be mistaken.
You bee a partit too; vou dont remain outside the film.
Once you are ihe theater, for a short while you enter into the film as well.
You begin to like someone in the film, and you dislike someone else.
You feel sorry for somebody, while you feel happy about someone else.
After a little while you bee identified, you bee a partit in the film.
It will be indeed difficult to remain a witness in life if we ao do so while watg a film.
As such, life is nothing more than a film.
If you look a little deeper, life is not very different from a movie.
If you look even more deeply, you will find that just as the work of rays appears on the movie s, the work of electricity appears on the s of life.
Life is made up of a profouwork of electricity.
It is a great interplay of eles.
If the human body were to be dissected in every way, at the end you would find nothing except eles.
If we were to break down the wall of this room and look for the element it is made of, we would find that what is ultimately left is nothing but electricity.
Then what is the big difference?
Really, what is the differeween a movie s and the s of life? We find the interplay of eles on the movie s too.
The only difference is, on the movie s the pictures are two-dimensional whereas on the s of life they are three-dimensional.
But thats not much of a problem.
It wooo long before other dimensions, now lag in films, will be met.
Just as I see you now, someday one will be able to see people on the s exactly like that.
Without any difficulty, it will soon bee possible for an actor to step out of the s and walk around in the movie theater.
It wooo long.
Its just a matter of developing the teique, which is not too difficult.
If a three-dimensional man move around on the s, his stepping just te off the s and walking around the hall is simply a matter of a little adva in teology.
Its not too difficult to foresee a film actress stepping from the s, shaking hands with you, or caressing you.
Now, the reverse is happening: the heroine does not step out of the s; rather, you ehe s and pat her.
You be saved this trouble! Its not good to cause you so much bother: you need not gh the invenience.
It will bee possible for you to remaied in your chair and the heroine will e and caress you!
What goes on in life anyway? What transpires when I take your hand in my hand? When I hold your hand in my hand, you see it either as an expression of love or of enmity.
It is just a matter of interpretation.
In both cases the hand is held; the difference arises only ierpretation.
When a hand is being held, in a moment both things happen without much difficulty: initially the holding of hands take place with the feeling of love, while in the end, the feeling of enmity may set them apart.
This is not difficult to ceive.
So much ge es about in a sed.
When I hold your hand, you take it as my expression of love.
But what is actually happening? Really, what is transpiring? If both our hands were to be examined, what seems to be going on? Some eles are pressing against some other eles.
And the iing thing is, my hand ouches yours.
A spaevitably remaiweewo.
And sometimes it shrinks.
When there is a distahe space bees visible.
As the distance shrinks, the space bees less and less visible.
If the distance bees too narrow, the space disappears.
So when one hand is holding the other, there is always a space betweewo.
The pressure works on that very spaot on your hand.
And in effect, the pressure of that empty space works on your hand.
We interpret this pressure of the empty space as either love or enmity.
It is all a matter of interpretation.
However, if one could bee a witness and watch this holding of hands, an incredible thing happens.
When someone holds your hand, dont be in a hurry to see it as either love or enmity.
Just remain a wito the holding of hands, and you will feel a total transformation in your sciousness.
When someones lips are pressed on yours, fet about love etcetera, simply bee a witness for a moment.
You will have such a strange experien your sciousness, one you may have never had before.
Then it is possible you may laugh at yourself.
As long as you laugh at others, you are not a witness.
The day you laugh at yourself, you bee a witness.
From that day on you begin witnessing.
People all over the world laugh at others, only a sannyasin laughs at himself.
And one who laugh at himself has begun to see something.
Ahing is, be a witness in life -- anywhere, any moment.
For example, while eating, suddenly bee a watcher for a moment: watch your hand pig up the food; watouth chewing the food; watch the food reag your stomach.
Stand at a distand simply watch.
You will suddenly find the taste has disappeared.
All of a sudden, the act of eating will take on a different meaning.
You will find that you are ing -- food is being taken and you are merely watg.
There is a wonderful story.
The story is
Once a monk arrived oskirts of the town where Krishna lived.
It was the rainy season and the river was flooded.
The monk was oher shore.
The women of the village were anxious to feed the monk, but the river stood in the way.
On their way they stopped by to see Krishna.
They asked Krishna, "How are we to cross the river? The current is very strong, boats ot cross.
The monk has been without food for the last few days.
Occasionally we receive some news about him.
He is waiting oher side, which is covered with thick forest.
We must bring him food.
Please show us a way to cross the river.
"
Krishna said, "Go to the river and tell her if the monk has never had any food in his entire life, if he has always been on a fast, she should make way for you.
" Sihese were Krishnas words, the women believed him.
The wome ahead.
Addressing the river they said, "O river! If the monk has been on a fast for all of his life, then please give way so we bring him food.
"
The stoes that the river gave way.
The women crossed the river ahe monk.
The food they had brought was more than enough, but the monk ate it all.
When it was time to return, they realized all of a sudden they had not asked Krishna the key to finding their way back.
Now they found themselves i difficulty.
Earlier they had said to the river that the monk had been fasting his whole life, how could they say the same thing now? The monk was not an ordinary eater; saying he was on a fast was far from the truth -- he had ed all the food the women had brought.
The monk didnt even wait for the women to offer him sed or third helpings.
There were overs.
The women became very ed.
The monk asked, "Why do you look so troubled? What is the matter?"
The women said, "We are i difficulty.
We only khe device for ing here, we dont know the key that will take us back.
" The monk asked what the device was that had brought them to him.
The women said, "Krishna told us if we wao cross the river, we should tell the river that if the monk is on a fast, it should make a way for us.
"
The monk said, "So what is the problem? The same device will wain.
The key which lock also unlock, and the one which unlock also lock.
Use the same key again.
"
The women said, "How we use it now? You have already eaten the food.
"
The monk burst into laughter, a striking sound on the bank of that river.
The women were very puzzled.
They said, "Here we are in trouble, and you are laughing!"
The monk said, "I am not laughing at you, I am laughing at myself.
Go ahead ahe river the same thing you said before.
The river must have uood my laughter.
Go and tell her once again.
"
With great fear, great hesitation and uainty, they approached the river and said, "O river, please give way if this monk has not had any food his whole life.
" They knew inside what they were saying was not at all true, but the river did make way for them.
The women were very puzzled.
The miracle they had seen ing to this shore was nothing pared to what they saw on their way back.
They went straight to Krishna and said, "This is too much! We thought you performed the miracle when we crossed the river the first time.
But it is really the monk who performed the miracle.
It was all right what we said on our way to see the monk, and it worked.
But we said the same thing on our way bad the river gave way!"
Krishna said, "Of course, the river was bound to give way, because only he is a monk who never eats.
"
"But we saw him with our own eyes dev all the food we carried with us.
"
Krishna said, "Just as you were watg him eat, the monk was watg himself eat as well -- he was not the doer of his a of eating.
"
This is only a story.
Dont ever try to cross a river like this, you might put some monk in trouble unnecessarily! No river will give way.
Ahe fact remains, if we could also see ourselves in all our as not as a doer but as a watcher, in all our as, then dying is an act too -- the final act.
If you succeed in keeping yourself removed from your as, you will be able to stay removed at the moment of death too.
Then you will see.
The one who was eating until yesterday; the one who was attending to his business, walking dowreet; the one who quarreled, fought, loved, it is he who is dying.
Then you will be able to wate additional act, the act of dying.
Exactly as other acts involved loving, running ones business, being in the marketplace, dying will also be an act.
You will be able to see the same person who did all these other things dying.
There was a Mohammedan fakir by the name of Sarmad.
A very sweet but strange iook pla his life.
As has always happehe maulvis, the priests, filed a suit against him.
The priest has always been against the mystic.
Sarmad was summoo appear in the emperors court.
Mohammedans express their belief through a sutra, a maxim, and that is, "There is only one God; other than him there is no God.
There is only one messenger of God and he is Mohammed.
" But the Sufi mystics drop the latter half of the sutra.
They repeat, "There is no od than the one God," but they drop the other half, "There is only one messenger of God and he is Mohammed," because they believe there are many messengers of God.
Thats why the Mohammedan theology has always been against the Sufis.
Sarmad was even more dangerous.
He would not eve the Sufi sutra fully.
He had even dropped half of that too.
That sutra is, "Other than the one God, there is no God.
" Sarmad used to repeat only the latter half "
.
there is no God.
" Now this was too much.
It was okay to drop Mohammeds hat would not have made him an atheist, it would have simply amouo his not being a Mohammedan.
However, just because one is not a Mohammedan does not mean one ceases to be a religious person.
But what you do with a man like Sarmad? He said, "There is no God!"
Sarmad was brought to the court.
The emperor asked, "You say there is no God.
Is it true?"
Sarmad answered, "I do say so.
" And he proclaimed in a loud voice, "There is no God!"
The emperor asked, "Are you an atheist?"
Sarmad said, "No, I am not an atheist.
But I have not known any God as yet, so how I say God is? I say only as much as I know.
In this sutra, so far I have e to know only one half of it, that there is no God.
I dont know anything of the other half.
The day I e to know it, I will let everyone know.
How I lie about it if I dont know? A religious man ot lie.
"
It was a difficult situation.
He was ultimately executed, beheaded in front of the Jama Masjid in Delhi.
This is not a story.
Millions of people watched him executed.
As he was beheaded at the front door of the masjid, the mosque, and as the head started rolling doweps of the mosque, a voice came out of the rolling head, "There is only one God.
There is no God other than the one God.
"
His lovers standing in the crowd said, "You crazy Sarmad, if you had to say it, why didnt you say such a simple thing before?"
Sarmad said, "How one know him until one has lost his head? Now that I know, I say there is God, that no God exists other than him.
But how could I have said this without knowing?"
There are truths we e to know only by passing through them.
The truth of death is one of these.
But in order that one may know death, one o prepare while one is still alive.
The preparation for death has to be done while one is still alive.
One who fails to do so, dies a wroh.
Living a wrong life may be fiven, but dying wrongly ever be fiven, because it is the ultimate point, it is the very quintessehe finale of life.
Some mistakes itted here and there in life may be overlooked, but a mistake at the last moment of life will bee firmly and permaly established forever.
And the iing thing is, you repent for the mistakes itted in life -- they be rectified -- but there is no way one rectify his mistake, repent and ask fiveness for it after death.
Death bees the final seal.
Hence, a life lived wrongly may be excused, but a wroh ot be.
Remember, how one who has lived wrongly in the first place die rightly? After all, life is bound to e to an end; it is life which will ultimately reach a point from where it departs.
In fact, whatsoever I was during my lifetime, I shall depart as the sum total of that at the final moment of death.
At that moment everything in my life will stand before me cumulatively.
At the moment of death I will be the sum of my whole life.
Let me put it this way: life is a spread out phenomenoh is a densed one.
In other words, life is a vast expanse, while death is the total, cumulative, densation of this whole expanse -- the abridgment of it.
Death is very atomic.
Everything has e together iom; thats why there is no other phenomenoer thah.
But it occurs only once.
This does not mean, however, that you have not died before.
No, it has occurred many times before, but it occurs only on one lifetime.
And if you have lived this life remaining asleep, theh also takes pla the state of sleep.
It es anew in the life, and again occurs only once.
So keep in mind, one who dies a scious death takes a scious birth in the life -- that bees the other part of his dying.
And the life of one who dies and takes birth sciously funs on a totally different plane.
For the first time, he is able to grab hold of the entire meaning of life, of the whole purpose of life, of the heights ahs of life, precisely and sciously.
He is able to grasp the whole truth of life.
So, I have mentiowo things.
First, in order that you may have a scious death, bee alert to the suffering, be aware of９９ｌｉｂ? it.
Dont run away from pain, dont escape from misery.
The sed thing I said, while moving around and perf your day-to-day activities, sud-denly stop and bee a witness for a moment.
Then resume your activity.
If you bee a witness even for a few moments iy-four hours, you will find all of a sudden what a big madhouse this world is, and how, by being a witness, you step out of it.
When someone swears at you, immediately you bee such a recipient you lose sight of the person swearing at you.
As soon as he swears at you, you receive it.
In fact, you receive it even before the words leave his lips.
You receive the whole of it before the swearer has even mao plete it.
Actually, you receive twice as much as is sworn at you.
Even the person swearing is taken aback to see how you received more than he swore.
You pletely fail to see what is happening.
If you could really see
ime when someone swears at you, bee a watcher, dont be a receiver.
Just be there and watch the person swearing at you.
It will cause you to laugh at yourself, and the laughter will be liberating.
You will laugh at your being the stant recipient of profanities all through your life.
Perhaps you may even thank him and go your way.
Doing so, you may leave the poor man guessing, because su act would be beyond his prehension.
He would be totally at a loss.
In a period of twenty-four hours, whatsoever may happen -- in anger, in hate, in love, in friendship, iy, while walking, resting, whatever -- watch it sometimes for a moment, just for a moment.
Give yourself a jolt just for one moment and watch whats happening with awareness.
At that moment dont be a recipient, simply be a watcher of whatever is happening.
Such calm will surround you in that moment: you will bee so very aware, because at that moment you will be filled with meditation.
That very moment of awareness is the moment of meditation.
If one could carry owo experiments, then the rest of the things you have asked will follow.
For instance, you ask, "If a seeker practices celibacy, will it help ih? Will he attain awareness?" In fact, he alone attain celibacy who bees a witness, not otherwise.
One who indulges is sure to remain sexual.
An indulgent person means one who is lustful.
He wants to indulge in sex.
If one could be a witness, lust and sex would slowly and gradually disappear from ones life.
If a man could bee a witness during intercourse, perhaps he would never enter into it again, because everything would seem so meaningless, so worthless.
Everything would look so childish that he might e to feel, "Whats going on? Whats happening? Whats all this anyway? How have I mao do this up to now? Why has all of this such a hold over me?" But since we dont bee a witness, we keep oing it.
Actually, dont ever be a witness if you wish to tinue repeating your mistakes.
Every mistake will the itself.
Then again, every mistake has its own season, just goes on recurring.
If you could keep a daily record of your life for a few months, you would immediately find yourself to be one of those eriodically mad.
Just this afternoon I received a letter from a friend.
He bees insane every six months, and for the other six months he remains sane.
He ofteo ask me why this happens to him.
I said, "You are able to know the difference because the duration of your sane and iates is clearly defined.
This is not so with other people.
They remain insane half a dozen times and are sane half a dozen times during the day, hehey are not able to figure it out.
You stay insane for a solid period of six months and remain sane for another whole six months.
The trast is very clear.
" Ordinarily, a person goes mad ten times a day and behaves normally the other ten.
her does he know nor do other people know when he is sane and when he is insane.
If, for a few months, you could keep a plete record of what goes on in your life, it will immediately bee clear to you that all things repeat themselves.
For example, anger recurs at almost the same time each day.
Each day, you not only feel hungry at a fixed time, you get angry at a fixed time too.
You feel hungry exactly at eleven oclock.
As soon as the clock strikes eleven or twelve or one iernoon, whatever, you feel hungry.
At whichever time you take your meals, you feel hungry at that particular time.
The body tells you it is hungry.
In the same manner, you feel angry, sexual, loving, at a set time.
These are all huoo, and they arise at a fixed time.
You go oing the same mistakes, because you have ried to realize the fact that whatsoever you do is all meical routine.
And occasionally, this creates a problem.
For example, you are hungry and there is no food around.
Only then do you e to know you are hungry.
If you find food when you are hungry, you will never know what hunger is.
The matter is taken care of.
Similarly, when you are angry and there is no one around to vent yer upon, only then you know what anger is.
But you do find someone around.
Sometimes it happens that you are hungry and there is no food around, but it is very rare that you may not find anyone on whom you air yer.
And when there is no o hand, a person takes his anger out on inanimate objects.
If nothing else, he bangs his fountain pen, swearing at it.
If this man ever bees aware of what he has done, what will he think of himself? What will this man think, really?
A great deal of research is being done in America to find the psychological causes for car acts -- in a large number we seem to be responsible.
In a state of anger, a man presses the accelerator harder without being aware of it.
Perhaps, mentally, he may be pressing his wifes head, or his sons throat, but in that particular moment his foot is on the accelerator.
In this case the accelerator is a substitute for his wife or son.
He goes on pressing and fets he is driving a car.
In fact, he is riding on his anger, but no one knows what he is doing.
The danger is obvious.
The car has nothing to do with this mans ahe car has no knowledge of his anger.
So far, we have not been able to create a built-in system, such that the car will refuse to move if the driver is angry.
We have not been able to develop any such meism.
The man presses the accelerator, and the car takes it to mean he wants to raise the speed.
The car doesnt know it o go slow at that moment.
It doesnt realize the man is in a dangerous situation, that the man is uo see anything at that moment.
Within a period of twenty-four hours, the moments of ahe moments of sex, keep recurring.
We move in a set pattern like a mae.
If you wake up and see, you may ask, "Am I really living, or am I just moving in a circle like an ox at a wheel?" Living, obviously, ot be similar to being an ox at a wheel.
How there be any life in moving round and round like an ox at a wheel? The ox simply moves meically.
Has this ever occurred to you?
I was reading a book about a marvelous man who has done a wonderful experiment.
He observed that you e across a man oreet and he says, "Hello, how are you?" and you answer, "I am fihank you.
" You may not have realized that the maher cared to listen to your reply, nor had he asked the question with the i of hearing your answer.
He must be wanting to ask something else.
Si would have looked a little odd to start off abruptly, he began by asking, "How are you?"
Even on the phohe man asks, "How is your health?" -- although he couldnt care less about your health; he has never been ed about your health, nor will he ever be.
Heno matter what reply you give, he is never going to listen to it.
He will skip your answer and start talking about something else.
So the man decided to perform an experiment.
One m, someone called him on the phone and asked, "Hello, how are you?" And the man answered, "My cow gives a lot of milk.
"
The other fellow said, "Thats good! How is your wife?" Hearing this, the man found out that no one really listens to what you say.
We take things absolutely meically.
I was reading someones biography.
This man has traveled all over the world.
In whichever try he went, he had to fill in all kinds of forms.
He couldnt uand why he had to undergo the torture of filling out all these forms.
So he started filling in absurd details.
He did this everywhere he traveled.
No gover questioned him.
He would write his age as five thousand years, and no one objected.
Who reads these forms? Who bothers? Who is ied? Nobody cares.
Life goes on absolutely off guard, meically.
All answers are meical.
Someone asks, "How are you?" You answer, "I am okay.
" Even puters do this job.
One puter asking, "How are you?" Another puter answering, "I am okay.
" Thats how it is going on really.
There is no sciousness, no alertness, no awareness -- nothing.
One o bee a little aware of all this.
One o be a witness.
Just stop for a moment.
Make any moment the moment to bee alert.
Give yourself a sudden jerk and look around in amazement.
Just remain a watcher.
If you prepare yourself iwo areas, you will bee less and less angry.
because a witnessing sciousness ever be angry.
In order to be angry, one has to bee identified, one has to bee unscious.
A witnessing sciousness will go on attaining to celibacy because it ot be ed by sexual desire.
A man of witnessing sciousness ever overeat, hence he doeso take a vow to diet.
Although we are not aware of it, food in itself is not the cause of our overeating.
The reason lies much deeper.
For example, there is a man who overeats.
Now he is not even aware of why he overeats.
Has it ever occurred to you that when you are angry you eat too much? Have you ever kept at of it? Have you ever noticed sciously that you eat more when you feel the lack of love? Have you ever kept any record of it? Have you ever discovered sciously that when ones life is filled with love, one does much? When a mas his beloved, he loses his appetite.
The hunger disappears in moments of love.
But when love is absent, he begins to eat voraciously.
Why? There is a meical system, a long lasting psychological ditioning at work behind it.
A child receives both love and food from his mother.
The very first experience of love for a child is that of receiving food.
If the child does not receive food from the mother, he feels a lack of love; when she offers him food he feels love.
So food and love are not two separate things in the childs initial experience; food and love are synonymous for him.
For a child, the first experience of food and love is one and the same.
If a mother loves her child a lot, he drinks less milk, because he is always assured that he will have milk anytime, that he need not worry about the future.
Hence, he doesnt find any y to overfill his stomach.
So a child whose mother loves him a great deal will take less milk.
A mother who does not love her child, who feeds him milk unwillingly, indifferently, who is alushing the child away -- that child drinks more milk, because he is not sure.
The mother may give him milk after a while, or may not.
Who knows how long he may have to remain hungry?
Lack of love prompts the child to take in more food, while the abundance of love makes him take in less.
This bees part of his psychological ditioning.
Whenever love flows in his life, he eats less.
He begins to overeat when love stops ing to him, although now the e is not so apparent, now it is just a meical routine.
Hence, people who feel a lack of love start overeating.
But if you bee aware of it, you will be greatly amazed.
The question is not of taking a vow to eat less when you are overeating, the question is that something like love has not happened in your life.
If you realize this, then you are able to catch hold of the root causes of the fual problem.
Where does the trouble lie? What is really the matter?
One man suffers from overeating.
He goes to a temple and vows before a muni, a monk, to eat once a day.
However, he now es twice or three times more food during his once-a-day meal.
He suffers from huhe whole day and plates food the whole time.
He turns into a maniac.
Then he no longer remains just hungry, he goes crazy.
He develops a craze for food.
Then for twenty-four hours food bees his sole .
Now in this try there are thousands of monks who live, brooding twenty-four hours a day about food.
They are maniacs, they are mad.
They dont realize what they have doo themselves, what kind of madhey are into.
They are preoccupied with the thought of food all the time, as if that is the only subject left in the world to worry about, as if brooding about food from dawn to dusk is the only obje life.
They think the problem will be taken care of if they work out the eating arra exactly as they want it to be.
When he was in America, Vivekananda had said, "My try would not have been ruined had ion not bee a religion of the kit.
That caused its disaster.
" a religion remain worth its name if it turns out to be a religion fio the kit? The reason why this happens is because we dont wake up and see our inner ditioning -- what we do, and when.
For example, there is a man and he is an alcoholic.
People are after him: they want him to give up drinking.
The man wants to give up drinking too, but he never cares to figure out why he goes on drinking anyway.
Why does he wish to bee unscious? There must be something in his life he wants tet all about, something which he would rather not remember.
There is something in life he would like to draw the curtain on.
If this man could bee aware of the thing he is trying tet, perhaps some solution might be found.
But instead he puts a cover on it.
He goes on putting cover after cover, because there is something hidden behind it which he does not want to be exposed.
Then his life bees a tinuous running about to cover things, and everything turns out a lie.
Finally, a day arrives when it bees difficult for the mao figure out why he had waet things in the first place.
He himself will have fotten all about it.
He himself will have no idea when and why he started drinking.
A man goes on puffing, dragging on a cigarette the whole day.
Someone may ask, "What the reason be? Why does he go on inhaling and exhaling smoke like that? There must be a secret behind this taking in aing out smoke, because it is hard to imagine people all over the world smoking for nothing.
"
If he watches closely, a smoker find out what makes him smoke a cigarette.
Whenever he feels lonely, whenever he is without pany, he immediately goes for a cigarette.
He uses the cigarette as a panion, a rather inexpensive panion.
It causes no problems.
You put it in your pocket, carry it wherever you like.
You sit alone and start w on it anytime.
Its an occupation.
In a ses an i occupation; you are not causing any harm to anyone.
You are harming yourself, more or less.
You are just throwing the smoke out; you are just being occupied -- thats all.
Once I was traveling in a train.
When traveling by train, it is my habit to sleep quietly as much as I .
A man traveling with me in the same partment was bothered very much by my sleeping.
He tried to wake me up several times.
When I got up after six hours, took a bath, and got ready to go back to sleep again, the man could tain himself no longer.
He said, "What in the world are you doing? I have read the same neer ten times, opened and shut this window several times, and here you are sleeping blissfully.
I have never smoked as many cigarettes.
It would be good if you stayed up.
"
He was right.
Man is lonely even in a crowd.
There are so many people around -- the wife, the sons, the daughters, the father, the mother, the whole family, such a mob, and everything else
A man is lonely.
So far we have not been able to eliminate mans loneliness, so he goes on doing something or other to escape his loneliness.
He smokes, he plays cards.
He plays cards not only with others, but even with himself.
The craziness reaches its limit when a man plays both hands.
You find even the most intelligent man doing this.
It seems even the so-called most intelligent man is not really intelligent.
Why? One will have to bee aware of this state, one will have to witness it.
If this man, who plays both hands, could be filled with awareness for a moment ahe whole thing as a witness, would he not laugh at himself as you just did? Indeed he would laugh.
He would wonder, "What is happening? What am I doing to my life?"
If this should bee apparent, then one doesnt have to take a vow or an oath.
Then one doesnt have to renounything; things which are worthless drop by themselves.
If a man grasps the root causes and goes on being deeply aware of them, he reaches the point from where the causes be rooted out without any difficulty.
Remember, you will be in trouble if you begin pruning the leaves of a tree, because once a leaf is pru is replaced by four new leaves.
The tree believes you are ied in grafting, it is not at fault.
The tree feels maybe you want four leaves, thats why you are pruning one, so it produces four leaves.
When you see the four leaves, you panid prune all four of them.
That gives rise to sixteen new leaves!
No, things are to be rooted out -- simply pruning the leaves wont help.
We have no idea of roots, we merely go on playing with leaves.
There are people who take a vow of celibacy.
Once a friend of mine and I were guests in Calcutta.
Our host was a seventy-year-old man, one of the most ho people I have known.
fiding in me one day, he said, "Please tell me, what shall I do? I have taken a vow of celibacy three times in my life.
"
What the old man said was fine, but the amazing thing was that my friend became very impressed by him.
He exclaimed, "Three times?"
I told m