Everybody has his Uniqueness
The first question:
YOU HAVE BEEN SPEAKING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AGAINST SOCIALISM, AND YET I FEEL THAT IN THIS COMMUNE THE FIRST EXPERIMENT OF AN ALIVE SOCIALISM IS HAPPENING. IS THIS ANOTHER OF YOUR CONTRADICTIONS?
THE REAL SOCIALISM can only be the fragrance of a commune deep in meditation. It has nothing to do with the social structure or the economy. Real socialism is not a revolution in the society, it is not social: it is the revolution in the individual consciousness.
If many people who are going through an inner revolution live together, then there is bound to be a new quality. You can call it socialism; the better word will be "communism", out of "commune". Only a commune can have communism, but a commune exists only once in a while. When Buddha was alive a commune grew around him; he called it sangha, another name for commune. The meaning of sangha is: where the initiates have dropped their egos and are no more functioning like islands but have become one with each other, where a communion is happening. Communication is between the heads; communion is between the hearts.
Whenever so many hearts open, become flowers, a great fragrance is released. That fragrance surrounds a Buddha, you can call it a Buddhafield. The energy is totally different: there is no politics involved in it.
Politics belongs to the world of the ego. The game of politics is an ego number: how to be more powerful than the other. It is ambition in its ugliest form. It is sheer cunningness, exploitation. It is an effort to enslave others. It is not possible at all to the meditators, because for meditation the basic requirement is to drop the ego. You cannot play the games of the ego any more. There is no question of being higher, more powerful than the others. In fact, there is no question of"the other".
The moment "I" disappears, instantly the "thou" also disappears. I and thou exist together; they are like two sides of the same coin. Drop your "I" and you will be surprised that for you there is nobody who is OTHER than you; the reality appears as one organic whole. But it is possible only with a center.
When Buddha died his commune existed at least for five hundred years, but slowly died; slowly it withered away. It remained alive till... few people continued to become enlightened and went on replacing the Buddha. When there was nobody enlightened any more, when there was not the center, the whole field disappeared. When there is no sun, how can there be rays? It is an individual phenomenon.
If Buddha is there, the commune is bound to happen; it cannot be prevented. It is inevitable. The real seekers will start moving towards the Buddha from the farthest corners of the world. It is just like when a fragrant flower opens, bees start queuing from faraway places. Suddenly the fragrance becomes a magnetic pull - but only for the bees, not for everybody. The dogs will pass by the flower without ever looking at the flower; it does not exist for them, they are not sensitive towards it.
The Buddha exists only for those who have the sensitivity, the perception, the availability, the openness, the search. Many came across Buddha and missed him. Millions of people encountered him, but could not recognize him. To them he was just another learned man, just another saint. And the India has always been full of saints. There was nothing special for them in him. They listened to him, they gathered a little bit of knowledge from him and went on their way.
But those who had the sensibility, who had the heart which can dance with this fragile energy of a Buddha, this delicate perfume, were lost, completely lost and dissolved, merged. Out of these merged individuals the commune arises, the Buddhafield, the SANGHA.
It happened with Jesus, of course on a smaller scale, because Jews have never been much interested in the interiority of man. They are extrovert people; their whole religion has remained extrovert. Jesus was recognized only by very few people; those few people can be counted on fingers.
It happened again and again around these precious diamonds - Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, Lin Chi, Baso, Bahauddin, Jalaluddin, Kabir, Nanak - again and again. But the problem is: when the Master dies, the commune starts withering away. Maybe for a time being a sequence of Masters continues...
For example, after Nanak nine other Masters followed. After Adinatha, the first Jain Master, twenty- four TEERTHANKARAS followed - from Adinatha to Mahavira, a long span of time, almost of three thousand years. But it is very rare. It cannot be enforced by the government, by any outside agency; then it will be plastic.
Sarjano, you are right - it is one of my contradictions. I am against socialism which is imposed as an economic, political ideology on people, because then it destroys something which is very precious:
it destroys the individual. Rather than destroying the ego it destroys the individual; it enhances the ego. The ego is represented by personality.
These two words have to be understood very clearly: the personality is that which is given to you by the society, and the individuality is that which you have brought with you from the beyond; it is a God's gift. The individuality has no ego in it, it is egolessness. The personality is nothing but ego.
The society imposes a certain structure, a certain pattern around every individual. the society is very much afraid of authentic individuals. It creates a false personality, because the false personality can easily be manipulated, enslaved, dominated. The personality is very obedient, the personality is very dependent on the society, because the society has created it.
If you go against your personality that the society has created, you will lose all respect; your ego will start collapsing. And that creates great fear in you, so you go on fulfilling the demands of the parents, of the teachers, of the priests, of the politicians, of all kinds of people who surround you and are trying to exploit you in every possible way. They depend on personality, and they go on enforcing the personality against the individuality. The individuality has to be repressed, completely forgotten, so that you start living in the false and the phony.
Socialism destroys individuality more than any other kind of political ideology, because socialism means society is the goal, not the individual. The individual has to be sacrificed for the society, not vice versa; the society cannot be sacrificed for the individual. And in fact "society" is a beautiful word; behind that beautiful word is hiding the ugly state. It is really the state that dominates in socialism, and the state does not want any kind of individuality in people. It effaces all individuality, it creates robots. It wants everybody to be just an efficient machine, nothing more.
This kind of socialism I am certainly against, but there is certainly a different kind of socialism which I am absolutely for. But the process is totally different, just diametrically opposite: the individuality has to be saved and the personality has to be dissolved.
That is the meaning of surrendering to a Master: you surrender the ego, not the individuality; individuality cannot be surrendered. When you surrender on your own, when you are not forced to surrender, when it is not a question of submission... out of your love and joy, out of your understanding you surrender - it is your choice and your decision. when you surrender, of course you surrender the false; the true cannot be surrendered. You are the truth! You simply put aside all that has been imposed on you, conditioned upon you. In the presence of a Master only the false disappears, and the true comes in its absolute flowering.
In a commune of a Buddha everyone has individuality, nobody has any personality. Nobody is egoistic, but everybody has his uniqueness; he contributes to the commune in his own unique way.
And everybody is respected for whatsoever he is doing; there is immense respect for the individual.
You can see it happening here. The well-trained psychoanalyst who could have earned thousands of dollars per month in the West, may be having a Ph.D. or a D.Litt. and other educational qualifications, is respected in the same way as the toilet cleaner; there is no difference. The toilet cleaner has the same respect, the same individuality; he is contributing in his own way.
And many times it is happening here that a Ph.D. decides to drop all that he has learned and he wants to become a cleaner. There are few Ph.D.s who are toilet cleaners. This may be the only place in the world where Ph.D.s have found the right work! There are M.D.s who are cleaning the toilets. They have been told, "You are M.D.s, why don't you work in the Medical Center?" They say, "Cleaning is so beautiful, so relaxed! We don't want to bother with the Medical Center any more."
There are poets, painters - famous, well-known - authors who have published much, and they may be making shoes or just working in the carpentry or doing some manual work in the garden, because one thing is absolutely clear: that your job makes no difference, your individuality is intact everywhere. Your job does not give you any higher position, it does not create any hierarchy.
Everybody else is doing in his own way, wholeheartedly.
The commune can happen only in the presence of a Master: otherwise, your awareness is such you will start fighting, quarreling, and your ego games will come in. That happens each time a Master dies. I there is a chain of Masters then it is okay, otherwise very difficult.
For example, Jesus could not create a chain; he was not given time enough. He worked only three years, from the age thirty to thirty-three. There was not enough time for him - he was crucified at thirty-three - he had no time to work.
Buddha worked for forty-two years; he created a great line. He triggered many people, from Mahakashyap to Manjushri, Sariputra, Modgalyayan, Purnakashyapa... and many others became enlightened while he was alive and they carried the torch.
If a chain is created then the commune goes on living, but it is a very fragile phenomenon, very unpredictable; it may happen, it may not happen. Even if it happens, then too it cannot be a permanent phenomenon. One cannot conceive that it will go on and on forever; it can stop anywhere. The world is such a desert, and the stream that Buddhas create is such a small stream; it can be lost in the desert anywhere.
But the only true commune exists while the Master is alive. I am all for that kind of commune.
But the communism that exists in Soviet Russia or China is not my cup of tea! It is really exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do here. Communism should arise spontaneously, and differences are many. For example, Karl Marx, Friederich Engels, V.I. Lenin - the communist unholy trinity - these people were talking of the dictatorship of the proletariat; that means dictatorship of the lowest.
In the commune of a Buddha, in the first place there is no dictatorship, although for the outsiders it may seem that there is a dictatorship. For the outsider, if he comes here, he will think this is my dictatorship, although I never order anybody. I never have even visited the office once in these six years! I don't know who is living where, how many people are living in the commune. I have not visited the other houses of the commune. I simply know the way to my room! I cannot find even in my own house where I live, Lao Tzu House, the rooms of other sannyasins who are living with me Vivek has heen telling me that, "One day give us a surprise - come to the kitchen!" I have never been there; I really don't know where it is. So in fact I will not be able to find it unless I am guided by somebody. I have some idea where it should be, but it is very vague.
But anybody from the outside will think that I am the dictator; that is absolutely wrong. People are here working out of their love, nobody is ordered. And if they ask me and I say something, it is always a suggestion, never an order. They are free to accept it or not accept it. They always accept it - the credit goes to them; it has nothing to do with me. If they don't accept it they are perfectly free to do that way.
In a real commune, the commune of my vision, the highest becomes the center. In the communism of Karl Marx, the lowest dominates; it is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Naturally, these are two different things, polar opposites.
When the highest... and by "highest" I simply mean one who is no more, one who has become one with the whole, one who has no more any separate existence. one who is no more pushing the river, one who is flowing with the been, one who is in a deep let-go, one who is just a vehicle, a hollow bamboo on the lips of God. And if God sings, of course the hollow bamboo becomes a flute, but it all depends on God. The song does not belong to the flute, it belongs to the singer.
Through the Buddha, through the enlightened person, God starts flowing. It is the highest, the suprememost that creates a real commune. The communism that exists in Russia and China is dominated by the lowest. Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung belong to the lowest type, the most violent, murderous people that have ever existed on the earth.
The name of Joseph Stalin means a man of steel; that was not his real name. Stalin means a man of steel; it is not his real name, it is because of his hardness.
A Buddha is represented by a lotus flower, not by steel. The lotus flower has been in the East the symbol of all the Buddhas - very fragile, very delicate, with a subtle perfume, not aggressive at all.
If you surrender to a Buddha it is your decision, it is your freedom; you are not made to surrender.
And when many people surrender to a Buddha they are really surrendering to their own future, to their own ultimate potential. Buddha simply represents what can happen to them. He is just a reflection of their ultimate flowering.
When you surrender to a Buddha you are really surrendering your lower reality to your own higher reality; the Buddha is just an excuse. Then a real commune comes into existence. It is out of love, out of meditation and prayer. It is not based on violence; it is not rooted in the lower qualities, animal qualities of man.
Sarjano, in that sense you are right, that a real commune is happening here, but it is the not the first experiment, remember it. The experiment has happened many times before. But it always looks like that. When you fall in love you think, "Such kind of love has never happened before; it is something unique." And in a way it is - for you it is a new experience. You have never been in love with a Buddha, so to you it is a new experiment. Otherwise, for thousands of years humanity has existed, and many times small oasises in the desert have arisen. But the desert is vast and hard...
And remember one fundamental law: whenever the lower comes in conflict with the higher, the higher is destroyed, not the lower. If you clash a rock with a lotus flower, don't hope that the rock will be destroyed by the lotus flower; the lotus flower will be destroyed. The higher is more fragile.
That's why I say the woman is a higher sex than man: she is more fragile, she is more flowerlike.
Man is harder, a little bit of rock is still in him. Man is more closer to the animal than the woman. Man is more aggressive than the woman; the woman is receptive. And because of this higher quality of the woman she has been destroyed by man. The rock is always going to win against the flower.
Such communes have existed again and again. They cannot be totally destroyed because God has a tremendous investment in these communes. They CANNOT be destroyed, they will go on coming again and again, but the vast world is desertlike. The greater humanity has not yet been transformed, although the possibility if such communes is becoming more and more.
Man has evolved, has matured, and particularly today. The time has come when thousands of such communes can erupt, explode all over the world. And that's what I am intending to do by creating so many sannyasins and then sending them back to their countries so that thousands of communes start functioning.
I would like to create a chain of communes all around the world, so this commune does not remain only one oasis in the vast desert but becomes interlinked with many communes. That type of interlinking has never been done before; that will be new. Communes have always existed, but many communes functioning all around the world was not possible before; it is possible only today.
Science has made it possible. The world is now so small, it is almost like a village, a global village.
Man has come so close that now this possibility exists.
I have got two hundred thousand sannyasins working all around the world, two hundred communes slowly growing. Soon there will be thousands of communes all around the world, and this will be the first chain of communes surrounding the whole globe! And the possibility of their success is becoming more and more than it was ever before, for the simple reason that science has come to such a growth that unless religion also reaches to the same point, humanity is doomed. Everything has become lopsided. It was never so before, in fact just the opposite was the case.
Buddha's commune was far more advanced than the technology and the science of Buddha's day.
Mahavira's commune was far more advanced, far ahead than the society, than the inner growth of man; there was a big gap. Now the gap is there, but it is a totally different gap. The society, science, technology, have gone far ahead than man's inner growth. Now the society and the science and the technology have prepared the ground; we can use this opportunity. We can help man come to the same growth, and that will he a balancing thing. All those communes in the past created an imbalance; they were out of tune. They were Ear ahead of their time, hence they were doomed to fail.
But this time we can hope we may succeed, for the simple reason that we are not going against or too ahead of time. Time is ready and ripe and we are in tune with it. Only we are in tune with it; the whole society is falling behind - the modern technology, the modern science. All your so-called churches, religions are far behind modern science.
What I am doing here is a very balancing phenomenon. Now religion can exist on a far higher level than it has ever existed, because science has provided the right background. And moreover, science has created a tremendous fear in the world that science can destroy the whole humanity. And now the only hope is that religion can save it. And when it is a question of survival, millions of people are bound to become interested in meditation because only meditation can save them; nothing else can save. If man remains the same and science goes on developing, then the very developing science will become a mountainous burden on man.
It is a well-known fact that somewhere in the past, one hundred thousand years back, there were huge animals, far bigger than elephants, ten times bigger than elephants. What happened to those huge animals? They suddenly disappeared from the earth; only their skeletons are discovered.
What calamity happened? No calamity from the outside, but they became too huge. The burden of their bodies became so much that they could not carry it; they became incapable from inside. Their inner being remained very small and their outer body became too big; it lost balance.
The same is happening today with man: his inner soul is too small and his outer technology, his science, has become too huge. It can bring a Third World War, a total war, because it is a question of life and death; it has never been such a question before. There is a hope that religion can explode, and millions of authentic seekers are searching for it.
We can create a chain around the world of such communes, and the whole world can be transformed into a Buddhafield. Then only there is a possibility of a communism arising out of love and arising from the highest sources, from the Everests - not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a trust, a surrender to a Buddha. And out of that trust and surrender a totally new kind of communism can be given birth.
In that sense I am for communism - but communists will be very much against me because if my type of communism succeeds then their type of communism is bound to fail.
The second question:
YOUR TALKS ARE VERY LOGICAL, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND YOUR WAY OF WORKING IS SO ILLOGICAL.
WHAT IS THIS MYSTERY? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
MY TALKS ARE LOGICAL because when you come to me you come obsessed with logic. I can start communicating with you only through logic. But as you start relaxing with me, feeling that your mind is not in danger, then I start working illogically - because life is bigger than logic, far bigger than logic. The working has to be illogical because working means I will be creating a situation for a transformation of your total being; it cannot be logical.
My talks are logical only for this simple reason that: if I start talking illogically you will escape, you will not be able to connect with me. So I come to the valley of your darkness to hold your hand, and then slowly I persuade you, seduce you to come towards my heights.
A clever college student had lost a textbook and put up a notice on the students' bulletin board. But instead of the customary LOST heading he captioned his notice SEX.
Below it he wrote: "Now that I have your attention..."
Who bothers to read the bulletin board? There are so many notices. And who bothers to read the notices with the captions "Lost"? But if the caption is "Sex", then it is very difficult - difficult for the students, difficult for the professors difficult for the vice-chancellor, difficult for the chancellor to miss.
He has to read it.
I am logical only so that "Now I have your attention..."
Life is not logical, it is supra-logical; logic is only a small fragment of it. Watch, and you will see what I am saying. Watch yourself - are you logical in your life? Have you fallen in love with a woman logically? Can you give any proofs why you have fallen in love with a certain woman and not with somebody else? In fact, you cannot argue even that love is existential, you cannot even prove love's existence. It is one of the most difficult things to prove, that love has any existence. Science cannot give any support.
You can go full of love to the cardiologist and ask him, "Just check my heart - it is throbbing with love! Just look at your diagram on your graph, whether something is there or I am just befooling myself" And he will say, "There is nothing wrong with your heart - you are perfectly normal."
Even your heart can be dissected and no love will be found there. That's why science cannot prove love - love is not matter. Science cannot prove your soul; the soul is not matter. The word "matter"
is significant: it comes from meter; it means measurable, that which can be measured. Matter is that which can be measured. But there is something in you which is immeasurable, that is beyond the scope of science, mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry.
If you go to the chemist he will find all that is chemical in you, but he will not find the formula for love. If you go to the biologist he will find everything about your hormones, et cetera, but he will not find anything like love in you. He will say, "It is just a hormonal thing. You are deluded, you are hallucinating."
Diogenes was watching an archer at practice who was so clumsy that Diogenes went and sat down next to the target. "This is the safest place to be," he explained.
A couple of American sailors had been shipwrecked in the mid-Pacific and had been living on a desert island for several years. One day one of them found a bottle washed ashore - a king- size Coca-Cola bottle he had never seen before. He examined it, then a sudden hysterical shock overcame him.
"Joe!" he cried in terror. "Look at this Coca-Cola bottle - we have shrunk!"
This is logical. The Coca-Cola bottle has become so big, the only logical conclusion is: "We have shrunk!"
Diogenes went into a theater on one occasion just as the audience was crowding out. Upon being asked why, he explained, "I have been opposing people all my life!"
A burglar broke into a small factory and noticed a sign on the safe: "Don't waste dynamite. This safe is open. Just turn the knob."
He did so. At once the place was flooded with light and a bell rang loudly.
As he was taken to the police station he said, "My faith in human nature has been shattered!"
"Why do you look so sad?" Johnny asks his friend.
"Well," his friend replies, "my wife drove herself over a cliff!"
"That's horrible!" exclaims Johnny.
"But that's not the worst of it," continues the friend. "It was a brand new Mercedes!"
He was despondent. "The woman I love has just turned me down," he told his friend. "She won't marry me."
"Don't be so disheartened," said his friend, trying to ease his misery. "Don't you realize a woman's no often means yes?"
"But she didn't say no," he answered. "She said phooey!"
Life is strange! If the woman says no you can understand yes, but if she says phooey, then what you are going to understand?
Mulla Nasruddin was in hospital. A lady doctor knocked on the door. "Come in," said the Mulla.
"Take your clothes off, please," said the doctor.
"All of them?" inquired Nasruddin.
"Yes, all of them."
After taking off all his clothes, the lady doctor gave him a thorough examination. When she was finished, Nasruddin said, "I want to ask you one thing."
"Yes?" she said.
"Why did you bother knocking?"
Just watch all around, and you will find life is not logical - it is the most illogical thing.
She was looking for a parking place and found one near a sign reading, "No Parking On This Street."
A policeman was standing nearby, so she called to him, "Can I park here?"
"No," he said.
"Can't you read that sign? It says 'No Parking'."
"But what about all those cars parked here?"
"Listen, lady," the policeman said, "they didn't ask me!"
Prem Vinod, watch life and you will see its illogicalness. It is so apparent that if you really want to change life you have to take account of all its illogicality.
I can talk logically because language belongs to logic, but I cannot work logically; existence does not belong to logic. Language is created by logic, it is very logical. The grammar and the language, the mathematics, everything that has been invented by man is logical. Mathematics is very much logical, but life is not.
And mystics have always known it; physicists have come to know it only recently, just within these fifty years. After Albert Einstein's discovery of the theory of relativity they had to encounter the illogical world, the illogical existence. And then they realized that for three hundred years science has been living only in a very small place lighted by human logic. It is just like a candle lighting a small place, and the whole existence is dark, very dark.
If you study Albert Einstein's theory of relativity you will be very much puzzled; you will not believe that these are the words of a scientist. Albert Einstein's theory proposes that if a man leaves on an air spaceship with the same speed as light he will never grow old. For example, if you leave today on a spaceship with the same speed as light, that is one hundred eighty-six thousand miles per second, and after fifty years you come back, all your friends will be in their graves or maybe very old, and you will be exactly the same, of the same age, because time stops at that speed.
Now this is very illogical! Why time should stop at such a speed? And Einstein was asked again and again, "Where is the logic?" He said, "What can I do? If existence functions that way, I can only say how it functions."
When the atom was broken, split, and electrons were found, a new experience physicists had to go through. It was very crazy, because electrons suddenly disappear from one point and appear at another point; in between the two points they are not.
For example, I disappear here and appear into my room - that is very illogical, but that's how electrons have been doing forever; just we were not aware of it!
When this phenomenon was known it was very puzzling. Eddington said that physics is becoming mysticism. Even mystics cannot do such miracles; no mystic has been known to do it. They have walked on water and they have raised the dead, but even Buddha has to walk from one village to another - not just appearing in one village, disappearing, appearing into another. Then in forty years time he would have done at least the work of four thousand years!
But when physicists were asked, "How do you explain it?" they said, "We cannot explain it. This is how it is." They were asked, "It does not fit with logic." So they said, "We have to change logic!" Logic will have to fit with it; existence has no obligation to fit with logic. Why it should fit with your logic?
Logic is man's invention, existence is not. Man himself is part of existence, and then man invents logic, just a part of man. And the whole existence is vast, immense; you cannot hope that it should fit with your logic.
Hence many things have changed. Although in the schools and colleges and universities we still go on reading Newton, Edison, Eddington, but modern science has gone far away from the ordinary logic.
The ancient Euclidean geometry is replaced by non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is absolutely illogical; Euclidean geometry was logical. Euclidean geometry says, "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line." Non-Euclidean geometry says, "There can be no straight line ever. Straight lines don't exist at all, they cannot." And you will be puzzled - why? If you ask them why, they say, "Because the earth is round whatsoever you draw is just a part of a big circle. It is a small piece so it looks straight, but nothing is straight."
For example, this floor you are sitting on is just straight, but it cannot be; it only appears. You go on expanding this Buddha Hall and then you will come to know that it becomes round, because it will go around the earth. So even this small Buddha Hall is part of that big earth, and the earth is round.
No straight line exists, cannot exist, because in existence everything is spherical. All stars are spheres, all planets are spheres. You cannot find a place where you can draw a straight line.
Wherever you draw it will be just an are, of course so small that you cannot see; for you it seems straight, but it is not straight.
Ordinarily we are trained for a mathematics with ten digits, from one to ten. The reason why there are ten digits has no mathematical reasoning behind it - the only reason is that man has ten fingers.
Because the primitive man started counting on his fingers, hence the ten digits. What kind of logic is this? And mathematics have tried...
One of the greatest mathematicians, Leibnitz, tried only with three digits - one, two, three, that's all. After three comes ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, twenty. So in Euclidean geometry the world is a totally different world; in non-Euclidean geometry it is totally different. It you understand Leibnitz, then two plus two is not four, it is twenty, because four does not exist at all.
Albert Einstein tried with two digits, one and two. He said, "Even three is unessential. Science should go only with the essential, one and two." And then comes ten... and that way, Einstein says, everything can be worked out. Yes, less than two won't do; at least two digits will be needed. So that is the most essential; all non-essential is dropped.
Even science is no more logical, cannot be. It has come to a point where logic has fallen far behind.
Mystics have never been logical. I am not a logical person, but just to persuade you, just to attract your attention, I start with logic. But I always end in some illogical thing!
The last question:
I AM AN EX-CATHOLIC MONK I AM LEAVING FOR MY COUNTRY TOMORROW. WILL YOU TELL ME FEW JOKES FOR MY OTHER CATHOLIC FRIENDS?
A CATHOLIC, a communist and a black Southern Baptist arrived at the Pearly Gates on the same day. Saint Peter came out and the Catholic threw himself face down in front of him and cried, "Oh, Saint Peter, great have been my sins! I don't deserve to enter Paradise!"
"Have faith," said Saint Peter, "for our Lord is both great and forgiving. Spell God!"
The Catholic was taken aback, but waveringly said, "G-o-d." Trumpets sounded, an angelic choir began to sing, and the Pearly Gates swung open. The Catholic got up amazed and walked into heaven.
The communist, watching all this, quickly fell to his knees and started to cry, "Oh, Saint Peter, I have been a communist all my life. I have not been in a church all these years - surely I don't deserve to get into heaven!"
Saint Peter smiled and said, "Brother, all men are the same in the eyes of God. He is great and forgiving. Just spell God!"
The communist took a deep breath and quickly said, "G-o-d." No sooner had he finished than once again the trumpets sounded and the great choir of angels sang out. The Pearly Gates opened and the communist happily entered heaven.
The black Southern Baptist immediately threw himself on the ground, started crying and beating his chest: "Oh, Saint Peter, it is no good! I've been a wicked man, drinkin' and runnin' with loose women. But I've been to church every Sunday and I reads the good book!"
Saint Peter looked at the black man and smiled, "All right, brother, God is great and forgiving. To enter through these gates all you have to do is spell Engelbert Humperdinck!"
A monk from a Catholic monastery wrote to his mother, "On cold mornings I often miss the old pot under the bed."
She wrote back, "On cold mornings you often missed it at home too!"
Third, and the last:
Sister Mary was taking tea to Mother Superior. When she reached Mother Superior's room she bumped the tray and spilt the tea.
"Oh, shit!" Sister Mary said. "I spilt the tea... oh damn, I said shit... oh Christ, I said damn... oh fuck, I said Christ!"