The first question:
MAN certainly is a biocomputer, but something more too. About ninety-nine point nine percent of people it can be said that they are only biocomputers and nothing more. Ordinarily one is only the body and the mind, and both are composites. Unless one moves into meditation one cannot find that which is something more, something transcendental to body and mind.
The psychologists, particularly the behaviorists, have been studying man for half a century, but they study the ordinary man, and of course their thesis is proved by all their studies. The ordinary man, the unconscious man, has nothing more in him than the bodymind composite. The body is the outer side of the mind and the mind the inner side of the body. Both are born and both will die one day.
But there is something more. That something more makes a man awakened, enlightened, a Buddha, a Christ. But a Buddha or a Christ is not available to be studied by Pavlov, Skinner, Delgado and others. Their study is about the unconscious man, and of course when you study the unconscious man you will not find anything transcendental in him. The transcendental exists in the unconscious man only as a potential, as a possibility; it is not yet realized, it is not yet a reality. Hence you cannot study it.
You can study it only in a Buddha, but even then studying is obviously very difficult, just very close to the impossible, because what you will study in a Buddha will again be his behavior. And if you are determined that there is nothing more, if you have already concluded, then even in his behavior you will see only mechanical reactions, you will not see his spontaneity. To see that spontaneity you have also to become a participant in meditation.
Psychology can become only a real psychology when meditation becomes its foundation. The word "psychology" means the science of the soul. Modern psychology is not yet a science of the soul.
Buddha certainly has denied the self, the ego, the "I", but he has not denied the soul and the self and the soul are not synonymous. He denies the self because the self exists only in the unconscious man. The unconscious man needs a certain idea of "I", otherwise he will be without a center. He does not know his real center. He has to invent a false center so that he can at least function in the world, otherwise his functioning will become impossible. He needs a certain idea of "I".
You must have heard about Descartes' famous statement: "COGITO ERGO SUM - I think, therefore I am."
A professor, teaching the philosophy of Descartes, was asked by a student, "Sir, I think, but how do I know that I am?"
The professor pretended to peer around the classroom. "Who is asking the question?" he said.
"I am," replied the student.
One needs a certain idea of "I", otherwise functioning will become impossible. So because we don't know the real "I" we substitute it by a false "I" - something invented, composite.
Buddha denies the self because to him "self" simply is another name for the ego, with a little color of spirituality, otherwise there is no difference. His word is anatta. Atta means "self', anatta means "no-self". But he is not denying the soul. In fact he says when the self is completely dropped, then only you will come to know the soul. But he does not say anything about it because nothing can be said about it.
His approach is via negativa. He says: You are not the body, you are not the mind, you are not the self He goes on denying, eliminating. He eliminates everything that you can conceive of, and then he does not say anything what is left. That which is left is your reality: that utterly pure sky without clouds, no thought, no identity, no emotion, no desire, no ego - nothing is left. All clouds have disappeared... just the pure sky.
It is inexpressible, unnameable, indefinable. That's why he keeps absolutely silent about it. He knows it that if anything is said about it you will immediately jump back to your old idea of the self If he says, "There is a soul in you," what you are going to understand? You will think that, "He calls it soul and we call it self - it is the same. The supreme self maybe, the spiritual self; it is not ordinary ego." But spiritual or unspiritual, the idea of my being a separate entity is the point.
Buddha denies that you are a separate entity from the whole. You are one with the organic unity of existence, so there is no need to say anything about your separateness. Even the word "soul" will give you a certain idea Of separateness; you are bound to understand it in your own unconscious way.
Hamid, your friend says that: MAN IS A BIOCHEMICAL COMPUTER AND NOTHING MORE.
Can a biochemical computer say that? Can a biochemical computer deny the self, the soul? No biocomputer or any other kind of computer has any idea of self or no-self. Your friend is doing it - certainly HE is not a biochemical computer. No biochemical computer can write a thesis on artificial intelligence! Do you think artificial intelligence can write a thesis about artificial intelligence?
Something more is needed.
And he is absolutely wrong in thinking that Buddha says also the same thing:
... THAT ALL THINGS ARE COMPOSITE AND THERE IS NO SELF NO SOUL, NO SPIRIT, NO "I".
He is wrong to think that Buddha agrees with his viewpoint - not at all. Buddha's experience is of meditation. Without meditation nobody can have any idea what Buddha is saying about. Your friend's observation is from the standpoint of a scientific onlooker. It is not his experience, it is his observation. He is studying biochemical computers, artificial intelligence, from the outside. Who is studying outside?
Can you conceive two computers studying each other? The computer can have only that which has been fed into it; it cannot have more than that. The information has to be given to it, then it keeps it in its memory - it is a memory system. It can do miracles as far as mathematics is concerned. A computer can be far more efficient than any Albert Einstein as far as mathematics is concerned, but a computer cannot be a meditator. Can you imagine a computer just sitting silently doing nothing, the spring comes and the grass grows by itself...?
There are many qualities which are impossible for the computer. A computer cannot be in love.
You can keep many computers together - they will not fall in love! A computer cannot have any experience of beauty. A computer cannot know any bliss. A computer cannot have any awareness.
A computer is incapable of feeling silence. And these are the qualities which prove that man has something more than artificial intelligence.
Artificial intelligence can do scientific work, mathematical work, calculation - great calculation and very quick and very efficiently, because it is a machine. But a machine cannot be aware of what it is doing. A computer cannot feel boredom, a computer cannot feel meaninglessness, a computer cannot experience anguish. A computer cannot start an enquiry about truth, it cannot renounce the world and become a sannyasin, it cannot go to the mountains or to the monasteries. It cannot conceive of anything beyond the mechanical - and all that is significant is beyond the mechanical.
A policeman starts chasing a car after noticing that the driver is a computer, a robot - wearing a hat, smoking a cigar and driving with one hand hanging out of the window.
He finally succeeds in stopping the car. He approaches it and sees to his surprise that there is a man sitting next to the computer.
"Are you mad?" exclaims the officer, "letting your computer drive?"
"Excuse me, officer," replies the man, "I asked him for a lift!"
Yes, in stories it is possible, but not in reality.
Mr. Polanski enjoys playing with cuckoo clocks. One rainy Sunday morning he takes his cuckoo clock apart and puts it back together again.
At twelve o'clock the family gathers, waiting for the pretty little bird to sing its song... nothing happens.
They wait till one o'clock - no cuckoo. At two o'clock they are still waiting for the bird to appear.
Finally, at three o'clock, the little door opens and the cuckoo comes out.
"Dammit!" it squeaks. "Do any of you guys know the time?"
The second question:
SURRENDER is not possible at all if you believe, because belief is of the head and surrender is of the heart. Belief means you are convinced logically, intellectually, that what is being said is right.
The ARGUMENT appeals to you. Belief has nothing to do with the heart; it is absolutely of the mind, a mind phenomenon. Belief is not a love affair.
Belief means intellectually you are convinced because you cannot see any argument which can destroy it; all the arguments that you can manage prove it. But deep down there is bound to be an undercurrent of doubt. Belief cannot destroy doubt, it can only cover it up. It can cover so perfectly that you MAY forget about the doubt, but it is always there. Just scratch a little bit any believer and you will find the doubt there. That's why believers have always been afraid of listening to anything that goes against their belief.
The Catholic Church goes on prohibiting the Catholics: not to read this, not to read that. They go on putting books on their black list which are banned for the Catholics. The Vatican library has thousands of tremendously beautiful documents with it - for thousands of years they have been gathering - of all those scriptures that they have burned, banned, prohibited. But they have kept a few copies in the Vatican library just as a historical past, and what has been done in the past and what has been destroyed in the past - some proofs of that. Anything that went against Christianity was destroyed.
The same has been done by Mohammedans, by the Hindus, by almost all the believers of the world.
Why this fear? - because they are all aware of the fact that the believer is not free of doubt; the doubt is there and anybody can raise the dust again. Somehow they have managed it to settle, somehow they have covered the wound, but the wound has not healed; it is there, and underneath the cover it goes on spreading.
People believe in God, but does that mean their doubt has dropped? If the DOUBT IS no more there, what is the need of belief? Belief is an antidote, it is a medicine. If you are healthy no medicine is needed: if there is no doubt in you no belief is needed.
Belief is very superficial; it divides you. The believer is only the superficial part of you and the remaining part, the major part, the nine-tenths of your being, remains full of doubts. There is turmoil within every believer and he is afraid, really afraid to come across something which may disturb his belief - and anything can disturb his belief.
Communists are not allowed to read anything against communism. In Russia, government does not allow anything that goes against communism. Why this fear? The fear is because they know that if things against communism come into their country, people will start thinking again; their doubts will arise.
Anna, the first thing you have to understand is: believing is of the head and surrender is of the heart. Surrender is not a belief, it is not an intellectual conviction - it is just the ultimate in love. You CANNOT give any proofs for your surrender; you can give thousand and one logical proofs for your belief, but for your surrender you cannot supply a single proof. And whatsoever you say will look absurd to yourself; it will fall short. Surrender has a transcendental beauty, and belief is so ordinary and the proof is so mundane.
That is the trouble why people feel a little embarrassed if you ask about their love. If you ask a man why he has fallen in love with a certain woman he will feel a little embarrassed. You are asking something which cannot be answered, hence the embarrassment. Why...? He can manage to say something, but neither he will be convincing you nor he himself will feel that it is worth saying. He can say the woman is beautiful, that's why... but these are all rationalizations, not reasons for his surrender.
Surrender has no reasons, no motives at all. Surrender simply means a happening, not a doing.
Belief is a doing - you do it, you make every effort - but surrender happens from the beyond. You are simply possessed by it.
Lovers know it, how they become possessed. If you say, "Because the woman is beautiful," the other person can say, "But nobody else has fallen in love with her. And she has been beautiful even before you had met her, and she is beautiful, but I have not fallen in love with her. How come you have fallen in love with her?"
In fact, that is a rationalization, it is not true. Somehow he is trying to save his face. He does not want to say that he does not know why it has happened - it has simply happened. He does not want to accept that he is living something irrational, that he has allowed something illogical to happen to him.
The reality is: the woman looks beautiful because you have fallen in love with her, not vice versa.
It is not because of her beauty that you have fallen in love. otherwise the whole world would have fallen in love before you. Just the opposite is the case: she looks beautiful to you because you are in love. Love beautifies.
And falling in love with a man or a woman is the lowest kind of love. When you fall in love with a Buddha or a Christ or a Krishna it is the highest kind of love, the crescendo. It is just far out! It is outlandish! You cannot even give any reasons for your ordinary love - what reasons you can give when you fall in love with a Master? There are no reasons at all.
Just the other day Vivek was telling me a joke. She said, "Osho, do you know why the Jews have short necks?"
And I said...(OSHO SHRUGS HIS SHOULDERS)
And she said, "Yes, that's why!"
When you love, what you can say except shrug your shoulders? And if you go on shrugging your shoulders the whole day you will have a short neck!
Anna, you ask me: IS IT POSSIBLE TO SURRENDER WITHOUT BELIEVING?
Not only it is possible without believing, it is only possible if there is no believing. With belief there is no possibility - belief is a false substitute. Surrender happens out of trust, and trust and belief are not synonymous.
That is where Anna is confused: she thinks trust and belief are the same - they are not. Belief is of the head, trust is of the heart. Belief has arguments about it, trust has no arguments. Belief is intellectual, trust is supra-intellectual. You cannot say a single word in favor of your trust, and if you say you can be immediately refuted very easily. Any fool can destroy your argument for trust, because in fact there is no argument possible.
You say, Anna: MY HEART SAYS TO ME THAT TO SURRENDER AND TO BELIEVE IS THE SAME.
It is not the heart, Anna, it is the head. You are confused. You don't know what is the heart and what is the head - and this is the case with almost everybody. People live through their heads. Even if they love, they love via the head. They say, "I think I am in love." I think - that comes first and then comes love. It is not a question of thinking at all; whether you think or not does not matter. If you are in love, you are in love. Love does not come via the head.
You say: My heart says to me that to surrender and to believe is the same.
No, it is your head which is telling you that both are the same: to believe is to surrender. This is the language of the head - belief is the language of the head. Surrender belongs to a totally different dimension; it has nothing to do with belief. That's why belief can be disturbed, but surrender cannot be disturbed.
And this has been my experience of working with thousands of sannyasins: almost always it happens that whenever a man comes to me his approach is intellectual. There are a few exceptions, it is not an absolute rule; but it can be said that almost ninety-nine percent men are head-oriented, and when a man comes to me he comes through logical conviction. Listening to me, trying to understand me, if he feels convinced he becomes a sannyasin.
But his sannyas has not much value. Any day he can drop the sannyas. Anybody can destroy his belief because it is based on logic, and logic is just a game. If you come across a person who is more logical than you he will destroy your proofs.
I have never come across a single proof which cannot be destroyed. In fact, to prove anything is difficult. to disprove is very easy. If you say, "The sunset is beautiful." it can be argued it is not, and more easily. Anybody can object, anybody can say, "Give me the proof! What do you mean by beauty? What is beauty? And how can you prove that this sunset is beautiful?" And you will be at a loss. You know it is beautiful, but that knowing is not of the head, that knowing is of the heart - and heart Cannot argue, it simply knows.
The problem is: the head has all the questions and the heart has all the answers. The head has all the doubts and the beliefs and the heart has only the trust. That is the flavor of the heart.
There is a beautiful story of Chekhov,. a parable:
In a village there was one man who was thought to be an utter idiot, and of course he felt very offended. He tried in every way to convince people, but the more he tried the more it became known that he is a fool.
A mystic was passing through the village, and the idiot went to the mystic and said, "Somehow save me - my life has become impossible! The people of this place think I am an idiot. How can I get rid of this? - because it is torturing me day and night. It has become a nightmare! I am afraid even to face anybody in the town, because wherever I go people start laughing. I have become a laughingstock! Only you can show me the way. What should I do?"
The mystic said, "This is very simple. From tomorrow morning you start asking people such questions which cannot be answered."
He said, "For example, what?"
The mystic said, "If somebody says, 'Look, how beautiful is the rose!' you immediately raise the question: 'Who says? What is the proof? What is beauty?' If somebody talks about time, immediately ask, 'What is time?' If somebody asks about God, ask him, 'Give me the proof!'
Somebody talks about love, don't miss the opportunity - just go on asking! Don't make any statement from your side. You simply ask the questions and make people feel embarrassed, because these are the questions nobody can answer!"
And within seven days the man was thought by the villagers as one of the greatest geniuses, because now he was not making any statement so he was not available for you to refute. He was simply denying others.
That is the whole art of atheism: just go on saying no, and nobody can convince you. Yes comes from the heart, and the head is very efficient in saying no. And nobody can prove... nothing can be proved by the head. And higher the value, the more difficult it is to prove.
When men come to me they come through the intellect; their sannyas is not very reliable. But when women come to me... and of course, again there are exceptions, but very few, the same proportion.
Ninety-nine percent women are going to remain sannyasins.
That's why I have given my commune totally to be disciplined, to be controlled by the women sannyasins - for the simple reason because their approach to me is through the heart; they are more reliable. One percent men are reliable, one percent women are not reliable - they can drop sannyas. But ninety-nine percent women are reliable: they come through the heart. Nobody can refute their hearts. Their approach is through trust and love.
Anna, you have to understand the difference between the head and the heart. It will take a little because the society has made everybody confused. Everybody is in a mess - nobody knows where is the heart and where is the head.
Just be here - she is new - soon you will be able to feel the difference clearly.
You say: I CANNOT FEEL THE DIFFERENCE.
Yes, right now it will be difficult, but become a little more silent. In silence the distinction will come very loud.
You say: I WANT TO BELIEVE. I NEED TO BELIEVE!
That's why it is difficult for you to make the difference. You are desperately in need to believe, you are afraid not to believe, because you don't know anything about trust. Once you know of trust, who bothers about belief? Who cares? Belief is nobody's need. It is the strategy of the priests imposed on you that belief is a need - it is NOT a need. Trust certainly is a need, is a nourishment, but belief is just artificial food, maybe very colorful, but not nourishing.
You say: IF YOU SAY THAT MEDITATION IS THE SOURCE AND I DO MEDITATION, I BELIEVE YOU, I TRUST YOU.
Please, trust but don't believe. And of course, meditation is the way, the source - that's why I have given you the name Dhyan Anna. Dhyan Anna means meditation, prayer. Through meditation you will come to prayer Prayer is the highest form of love, of trust. Through meditation one finds the heart, and prayer arises. And through meditation ultimately one finds the being. And the moment you have found the being there is nothing more to be found... you have come home.
The third question:
ONE THING of great import has to be understood first. Jesus became enlightened only at the last moment on the cross. Hence his statements that he has made before that experience are not of an enlightened person - close, very close, approximate, but as far as truth is concerned there is nothing like approximate truth.
This thing has not been told to Christians at all, that Jesus became enlightened at the very last moment. On the cross he became enlightened, on the cross he became a Christ.
To me the cross is important not for the same reasons as it is for Christians. To them the cross is important because Jesus was crucified, and the cross has become the symbol of crucifixion. To me that is absolutely wrong - that is a kind of life-negation, that is worshipping death, that is making too much fuss about crucifixion.
I call Christianity "Crossianity" because it is not concerned with Christ, it is more concerned with the cross. I also love the symbol of cross, but for a totally different reason: not because of crucifixion but because Jesus became enlightened on the cross, he became aware of the immortality of his ultimate being. To me it is not crucifixion, not death, but the beginning of eternal life.
At the last moment Jesus says to God, "Have you forsaken me?" And that shows that he was still living in the mind, expecting, desiring, hoping - even from God. There were a few expectations that at the last moment some miracle would happen. Not only the people who had gathered there were expecting a miracle looking at the sky - that a divine hand will appear and Jesus will be raised to ultimate glory; he will be saved at the last moment - but Jesus himself was also waiting.
He says, "Have you forsaken me?" What does it mean? It is a complaint, it is not a prayer. It is frustration, it is disappointment. And disappointment is possible only if there was some deep desire, some longing to be fulfilled. God has failed him - he has not come to his rescue. He was hoping.
And these are the signs of an unenlightened person. These are symbolic of the ego, of the head, of the mind, of the very process of the mind.
But he was a man of great intelligence too: immediately he recognized that what he is saying is wrong, the very desire is wrong. One should not expect anything from the universe, one should not feel disappointed. one should not feel frustrated. This is not trust! This is not a love affair! This is not an absolute yes, it is a conditional yes: "You fulfill these conditions, then of course I will be grateful. But because conditions have not been fulfilled I am angry." There is anger in his voice; there is anxiety, disappointment.
But he understood the point, and immediately he corrected it. A single moment... and he is no more Jesus, he becomes Christ. Suddenly he looked at the sky and said, "Forgive me! Let thy kingdom come, let thy will be done - not mine. Let thy will be done!"
This is surrender. He has dropped the mind, he has dropped the ego and all the expectationS. "Let thy will be done." In this egoless state he became enlightened. But unfortunately it happened at the very last moment, and he had no time left.
Buddha lived for forty years after his enlightenment, hence whatsoever he says has a totally different significance than what Jesus says in the New Testament. It is poetry, beautiful, but still he is groping in the dark, making every effort to reach to the light, but he reached to the light at the very last moment. He could not say a single word. He died enlightened, but he could not live enlightened.
He died too early - he was only thirty-three. If you understand this, then your question will be very simple.
You ask me, Dieter: YOU CAN READ IN THE BIBLE THAT JESUS WARNED ABOUT OTHER MASTERS COMING IN THE FUTURE.
That is the fear of an unenlightened person, the fear that somebody may replace him, that somebody may come and may convince people of other things. That fear is perfectly understandable in an unenlightened person, because he is jealous. There is fear that once he is gone his teaching may be destroyed. He is too much concerned about the future.
The unenlightened person lives in the past or in the future, and Jesus did both the things in the New Testament. He is talking continuously about the past; he is trying to prove that "I am the Messiah you have been waiting for. I am the man who has been predicted by the prophets of old. The Old Testament has simply prepared the way for me!" He is too much concerned about the past. He is too much concerned in convincing the Jews that he is the expected Messiah. Who cares?
People have asked me, "Buddha, we have heard, is going to come back after twenty-five centuries.
Twenty-five centuries have passed. Are you the Buddha?" Why should I be? I am just myself! Why I should be the Buddha? He did his thing, I am going to do my thing. I am not anybody's carbon copy!
Why should I be a Buddha? If he wants to come, that is up to him, but I am nobody's incarnation.
Hindus have asked me that "Krishna says, 'Whenever there is need I will come.' Are you that one?"
I am not, absolutely not! I am just myself. If Krishna has to fulfill his promise he will come!
Jesus is too much concerned about the past. In fact, that concern brought him the whole trouble. If he had not bothered about being the Messiah Jews may not have crucified him, because then they started asking about the signs that the Messiah has to give, and then they started asking that "You have to fulfill this and you have to fulfill that - only then we can accept you, that you are the Messiah."
And then he went into unnecessary argumentation, but his whole effort was to prove that "I am the expected Messiah." This is concern for the past, and only an unenlightened person is concerned about the past.
And he is very much concerned about the future also. He warns about other Masters coming in the future. "And beware of them," he says, "because they will distract you; they will distract you from the path" - the path that he has shown. He is making sure that no follower is taken away from the fold even when he is gone. This is too much businesslike!
And the reason is that he became enlightened at the very last moment and he had no time to correct.
to change his statements. His statements were made in an unenlightened state.
That's why you find his approach towards God very childish. He calls God ABBA - papa, daddy!
There is no daddy - daddy is dead! It is childish. It is the need of a child, because the child cannot be without the father. hence God becomes the father.
And a strange thing has happened: now Christian priests are called fathers. A monastery is defined by someone: a place where unwed fathers live They don't have any wife, they don't have any children, and they are fathers. What kind of fathers are these? But if God can be a father without a wife, then of course they can also be fathers without wife. Catholic priests being called fathers.
Catholic nuns being called mothers, sisters, Mother Superiors! People who have renounced life, renounced families, are still clinging to some ideas of the family. Now God becomes the father, but the father is needed.
Jesus remained a little childish in his approach towards God. Buddha has a maturity, tremendous maturity. He is so mature that he can say there is no God. Existence is enough, more is not needed. There is no creator, creation is enough. Creation itself is divine creativity; it is the process of creativity.
This fear of Jesus simply shows the fear of a Jew businessman! He is afraid his customers may to go somebody else. H is making sure that even in the future the customers never leave the shop!
He will be gone, that much is certain, sooner or later he will be gone, but he is making sure that his priests will go on dominating the world; his representatives, his popes, will go on and on always dominating the world.
The very idea to dominate the world, to change the whole world into Christianity, is in some subtle sense an ego trip, an ego number. But it is understandable from an unenlightened person; you cannot expect more than that.
And you ask me: DO YOU THINK HIS WARNINGS WERE ALSO INCLUDING YOU?
The future is absolutely unknown. Nobody knows the future; not even the enlightened person knows about the future. That is the beauty of the future: it is unpredictable. Yes, few inferences can be made, but they are only inferences.
But all the religions have tried to prove that their founders are all-knowing, omniscient. Jains say Mahavira is omniscient: he knows whole past, whole present, whole future. And that is sheer stupidity, because it is a well-known fact - Buddha has mentioned it, they were contemporaries - that Mahavira is known to have begged from a house where nobody had lived for years: and he was standing in front of the house with his begging bowl!
And he was told by the neighbors that, "That house is empty and has been empty for years! And you are an omniscient person - can't you see that there is nobody in the house?" And he knows all about the future - he does not know about this house in front of him! In fact, if people have not lived in that house for many years, even an unenlightened person will be able to infer, looking at the situation of the house - the dust that has collected, the doors that are closed for years - that nobody lives here. You can see easily whether people live in this house or not. Where people live the house has a different quality, aliveness; where nobody lives the house is dead.
Buddha also mentions, just jokingly, about Mahavira, that once he was walking on the road early in the morning. It was a winter morning, too much mist was there, and he stepped on the tail of a dog!
And when the dog barked, then he became aware that there is a dog. And he knows all about the past and all about the future!
Nobody knows about the future or about the past. The enlightened person knows only himself, and that's enough. Knowing himself, essentially he knows everybody - essentially, remember, not in details. Essentially he understands everybody because he knows himself. Knowing himself he knows your potential, your possibility. Knowing himself he knows that you are in darkness. Knowing himself he knows how he has reached to his light, and he can help you to reach to the same light.
But the enlightened person knows only himself and nothing more. He knows himself totally.
absolutely, his whole being is full of light, but that does not mean that he knows everything about the whole existence and past and future, all. That is sheer nonsense! Because of this nonsense so many problems have arisen for religion.
The Bible talks about the earth as if it is flat. That was the problem: that in the Middle Ages the scientists who discovered for the first time that the earth is a globe, circular, round, got into trouble because they were going against the Bible, and the Bible is omniscient. How can you dare to say something against Moses, against Jesus and all the prophets? - because they talk about the earth as flat.
The Bible thinks that the sun goes around the earth, and one can understand why, because we all see the sun moving, in the morning rising and in the evening setting. We see the arc of the sun going around: it is a common inference.
When for the first time Galileo discovered that this is wrong, this is only apparently so, it is a visual illusion, the truth is just the opposite - the EARTH goes around the sun, not the sun around the earth - he got into trouble. He was very old when he discovered it, seventy or more, and very ill.
When his book was published he was called by the Pope. He went there, and he must have been a man of great understanding... I love that man. Many have condemned him for this same thing, but I don't condemn him. I respect him for the same thing for which he has been condemned for three hundred years or more.
The Pope asked him that, "Have you written this?"
He said, "Yes, I have written."
The Pope said, "This goes against the Bible. Are you ready to change it? Otherwise you will be killed or burned alive!"
He said, "I am perfectly ready to change it. You need not take so much trouble of burning me - forgive me. I declare that it is the sun who goes around the earth, not The earth. But remember, my declaration will not make any change - the earth still will go around the sun! Who bothers about Galileo?" He said, "Neither the sun will listen nor the earth will listen. But if it is offensive to you, I am perfectly ready to change it!"
People have thought that he was cowardly; I don't think so. He had a sense of humor! He was not a coward, but he was not stupid - that much is certain. It would have been stupidity to insist for such a small thing. Why bother about it? He was not suicidal - that much is certain. If he had been suicidal, if he had carried some idea of suicide in him, then this was a good chance to become a martyr. Then suicide takes spiritual color: one becomes a martyr, a revolutionary.
But he laughed at the whole thing like a joke and he said, "I will change it immediately - I declare!"
But he reminded the Pope that, "My declaration won't make any difference at all - nobody listens to me."
There is the point which he made clear at the end and he corrected with a footnote. And in the footnote he wrote that. "Although I am correcting it because it goes against the Bible - and I am the last person to disturb anybody's religion - but the truth is the earth goes around the sun."
These people... if you try to look into the Vedas, into Gita, into the Bible, into the Koran, you will find thousand and one things which are absolutely wrong, but I can understand why they are wrong.
They were writing thousands of years before, and at that time that was the general notion; they were simply talking in that way.
Even today although we know that the earth goes around the sun, our language still carries the old idea - sunrise, sunset - and I think it is going to remain forever; we will not change the language.
What does it mean now? It means nothing! There is no sunrise and no sunset, because the sun never goes around the earth, so what do you mean by rising and setting? But the language carries the old idea because the language was created in those days.
Neither Jesus knows nor Mahavira nor Buddha nor anybody else about the future, but the followers try in every possible way to make their Master omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent! And these are all ego trips. And if the Master himself is yet unenlightened he will pretend himself.
Jesus certainly says that, "Be alert, cautious. because there will be many who will come and who will speak in such a way, in such a convincing way that you can be distracted from the right path."
He is simply afraid. Otherwise, the right path should not be afraid at all.
The truth is going to win. It is not Jesus or Krishna or Buddha or Mahavira who are going to win: it is always the truth which wins. So why be worried? But to keep people imprisoned these warnings help; these warnings make people afraid.
He knew nothing about me, he cannot know. I don't know anything about the coming Masters in the world, and I will NOT make you beware of the coming Masters. I would like you to enjoy all the Masters you will find in the future. Don't miss a single opportunity. Enjoy the truth from whatsoever source it comes. The question is of being with truth, not with me. If you are with truth you are with me. Truth is nobody's possession; it is neither mine nor Christ's nor Buddha's.
In Buddha's time Buddha was the most clearcut expression of truth, that's why people were with him. In Jesus' time few people were with Jesus because they could see something beautiful in him.
And this has been always so. It you are with me you are not with ME - you are with truth. Because you feel truth being imparted, communicated, showered on you, that's why you are with me. So wherever you find truth in the future when I am not here, nourish yourself from it. Don't cling to persons. Persons are insignificant, truth is significant.
And you ask, Dieter: YOUR MESSAGE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE TEACHINGS OF]ESUS.
It is bound to be so, because two thousand years have passed. HOW I can be exactly the same as Jesus and WHY should I be? There is no need. In two thousand years much has changed:
the language, the people's understanding, the people's approach. Man has become more mature.
Jesus speaks in a very childish way.
Of course, the people, the Masters who will come after me will be speaking in a far more better way than I am speaking, obviously, because they would have learned more. As time passes better and better expressions will be available. But we start clinging and that creates trouble.
Jesus spoke in HIS context, I am speaking in MY context. He could not speak in the way twentieth century will understand. I cannot speak in the way that Jesus had chosen because those people are no more here for whom he was speaking. A different humanity is here; a far more mature, far more ripe humanity is here.
Man has come of age. Now to talk about God as the father is foolish; after Sigmund Freud it is foolish. Jesus had no idea of Sigmund Freud; I have lO take care of Sigmund Freud too, because Sigmund Freud will say that talk about God as father is simply a projection, and he is right. It is your longing to belong to a father figure, it is your childish desire to be dependent on somebody - you don't want to be independent. Now after Sigmund Freud I cannot speak in the same way as Jesus spoke. But the ultimate experience is the same, the expression will be different.
What Jesus experienced at the last moment on the cross I have experienced, but that experience is of absolute silence. To bring it into language, to create methods to help others to experience it, certainly I am in a far better position than Jesus or Buddha or Mahavira. Naturally, the Masters who will follow me will be in a far better position than me. They will have a far more accurate approach towards truth, because the man is continuously growing. Man is not deteriorating, man is growing, man is reaching to higher peaks.
And you ask: HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ENLIGHTENED MASTERS CAN SAY SO MANY CONTRARY THINGS?
They only APPEAR contrary - because the language changes, expressions change, ways and methods change; otherwise they are not contrary. And a man like me is BOUND to be not only contrary to Jesus and Buddha and Mahavira: I am going to be many times contradictory to myself for the simple reason that I am trying to bring all the religions in a higher synthesis; different approaches have to be joined together. I am creating an orchestra.
Buddha is a solo flute-player. Of course when you are playing flute solo it has a consistency, but it is not that much rich as when the flute becomes part of an orchestra. Then it has a totally different kind of richness, multidimensionality. But then you have to be in tune with others; you have to be continuously alert not to fall out of step. Somebody is playing a tabla and somebody is playing the sitar and you are playing the flute; all the three have to be in harmony. And of course they are three different instruments, VERY different from each other, but to bring them into harmony can create a higher kind of music.
Jesus is a solo player, Buddha too, Mahavira too. In the past it was bound to be so because they all lived into small worlds. Buddha never went out of Bihar, just a small province of this country; Jesus was confined, Krishna was confined. Now the whole world has become a small village, a global village. You can see it - the whole world has gathered here! Buddha was not so fortunate; he was surrounded by Biharis. Jesus was surrounded by Jews. Krishna was surrounded by Hindus. They could only be solo players; they were bound because their listeners, the people they were working with were of a certain tradition.
Now I am working with all the traditions together. Jews are here and Hindus and Mohammedans and Christians and Parsis and Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists. All traditions have gathered here. It is a unique experiment in the whole history of humanity; it has never happened in this way.
Even people who are moving into different countries are still carrying their solo instruments.
For example, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, although he works in the West. But the method that he calls Transcendental Meditation is a very old Hindu method of chanting a mantra; it is neither transcendental nor meditation; it is just an old rubbish of chanting a mantra! Any word will do; you go on repeating it continuously. It creates a state of autohypnosis and nothing more. Although he is working in the West, but he is using only an autohypnotic method invented thousands of years before by the Hindus.
Now there are Zen monks working in America, there are Zen centers in America, but what they are doing there is the old method of Buddha. There are Sufis working in the West, but they are using the method invented by Jalaluddin Rumi, one thousand years old.
I am using ALL the possible methods, and when all these methods meet of course there is going to be great contradiction. If you don't understand you will see only contradictions and contradictions. If you understand then you will understand the harmony of all these instruments together.
People are doing Vipassana and doing the Sufi dancing and doing Yoga and doing Tantra and using Zen methods, zazen and other methods. And not only the old methods - they are doing all that is happened into this century after Sigmund Freud, all the psychological methods, all the psychotherapy groups.
This is a meeting of the whole world. It is a universal religiousness that I am creating here. It is bound to be multidimensional if you understand. If you don't understand, if you still cling to a certain tradition, then it will look contradictory to you.
The last question:
THE DIFFERENCE between experiencing and indulging is that of awareness; there is no other difference. no other distinction. If you are not aware, it is indulgence; if you are aware, it is experiencing - the SAME thing. It may be eating food, it may be making love, listening to music.
enjoying the night sky full of stars - whatsoever it is. If you are not consciously there, if you are not a witness to it, if you remain unconscious, mechanical, robotlike, then it is indulgence. If you are aware, then it is experiencing. And experiencing is beautiful, indulgence is ugly. But remember the distinction that I am making.
In the past all the religions have labeled things; I am not labeling things. They have labeled things:
"This is indulgence and this is experiencing." I am not labeling things - things cannot be labeled.
Things are the same.
Buddha eating his food and you eating your food: as far as the outer, objective viewpoint is concerned both are doing the same. You are eating, Buddha is eating. What it is? Buddha is experiencing, you are indulging. The difference is not in the act, it is in your awareness. Buddha eating is eating as a witness, and he will eat only that much which is needed because he is totally aware. He will enjoy food, he will enjoy more than you can enjoy, because he is more aware. You will not enjoy the food: you simply go on stuffing it, you don't enjoy. And you are not there at all to enjoy, in fact; you are somewhere else, always somewhere else. You are never where you are - somewhere else. You may be in the shop, you may be in the field, you may be in the factory, you may be talking to a friend: physically you are eating, but psychologically you are not there.
Buddha is there totally: physically, psychologically, spiritually. When he is eating he is simply eating.
A Zen Master, Rinzai, was asked, "What is your sadhana? What is your spiritual practice?"
He said, "Nothing much, nothing much to brag about; it is very simple: when I feel hungry I eat and when I feel sleepy I go to sleep."
The man said, "But that's what we all do!"
Rinzai said, "There you are wrong - take your words back - because I have lived like you, I have both the experiences. I have lived like a robot - the way you are I have been - so I know the difference. You eat when you are not hungry, you eat because it is time to eat, you eat because the food is delicious, you eat because you are invited to eat. You don't care what is the need. You sleep because it is a habit; whether you need it or not is not the point. And while you are eating you are not only eating, you are doing thousand and one other things - maybe making love in your fantasy.
And when you are asleep certainly you are not doing only one thing, sleeping - you are dreaming.
The whole night your mind goes on and on creating dreams upon dreams."
So I don't label, Tapodhana, anything as experiencing and indulging. The question is of awareness.
Two drunks in a tavern see a bug fall down on the bar. The first drunk says, "A bug."
The other nods and says, "A bug."
The first peers again and says, "Ladybug."
The other drunk says, "Damn good eyesight!"
A talkative drunkard at a circus looked mystified at a contortionist as the performer went through his act. Unable to control himself, he cried, "What is the matter? You look like I am drunk!"
There is a story about a small youngster who was abandoned by his parents in Yellowstone National Park. He was raised by a pack of wild dogs. Years later he was found walking on all fours, eating raw meat and living in the open. He was put in school where in one year he breezed through grammar school, high school and college. The day after he got his Ph.D. he was killed - chasing a car.
Even if you get your Ph.D. you are going to chase the car - unconscious habit! Knowledgeable you can become, but that is not going to transform you; you will continue to indulge. You can escape from the world, but that will not make any difference: you will still indulge.
Learn how to be aware.
A train is speeding through the countryside when, from a distance, the driver notices what looks like a couple involved in passionate lovemaking, lying right on the tracks.
The engine driver pulls the whistle... once, twice, then again and again, but there is no response from the couple. The engine driver starts to panic and, as a last resort, slams on the emergency brake. The lovers continue in their play, oblivious.
Finally the train screeches to a halt just a few feet away from the couple. The engine driver is furious.
He gets out of his cabin and storms over to them.
"What the fuck are you doing?" he screams at them. "Did not you see the train coming? Did not you hear the whistle? You should be at home, behind bedroom doors!"
The man on the tracks looks up at the driver very coolly and says, "Listen, mate, she was coming. I was coming, and you were coming... but you had the brakes!"