I Mean Business!

The first question

Question 1:

James P. Thomas,

EVERYTHING THAT IS BORN DIES. The flower that is in the morning, full of life and juice, by the evening will be gone. It is a natural law: nothing can live for ever. In time, things appear and disappear. In time, everything is just a soap-bubble. You don't condemn the morning flower just because by the evening the petals will have withered away, or do you? You don't condemn the sunrise because once the sunrise has happened the sunset is coming closer.

When there is a Buddha, a flower blooms. But it cannot remain for ever - that is not the way of time. The flower will disappear. And man is cunning, and man is calculating. A few cunning and calculating people will gather around; they will make a business out of it - that too is natural. When

a Buddha is not there, whatsoever he has done is bound to become a business. But that is NO reason for a Buddha to stop doing whatsoever he is doing. Even knowing perfectly well that things will deteriorate, a Buddha tries with all his heart - he lives his light, he shares his light, he lives his love, he shares his love. And those who are receptive enough become enlightened. Those who are intelligent absorb the energy of the Buddha, and are transformed through it. They don't bother about what is going to happen later on; there is no question of bothering.

James P. Thomas, you are here - rather than becoming a sannyasin you are worried about what will happen later on: WILL THIS ASHRAM BECOME THE HEAD OFfiCE OF SUCH A NEW BUSINESS? It is bound to become. It has always been so, it will always be so. Before it becomes one, you become a sannyasin. While I am here, let me transform you. And why should you be worried about the future? There will be future Buddhas too. They always go on happening.

So those who want to become enlightened, seek and search for a living Buddha. And they are ALWAYS around; the earth has never lacked them. Sometimes a Jesus, sometimes a Mahavira, sometimes a Mohammed, sometimes a Pythagoras - they are always there. Those who are thirsty, they always find them. But there are millions who are not thirsty.

Those millions who are not thirsty, they also want to pretend that they are thirsty. It is these millions who are not thirsty and yet want to pretend that they are religious, seekers of truth - they become the victims of the cunning and the clever people, of the priests.

The priests succeed in exploiting because there are people who want to be exploited. It is a perfect arrangement. The priest cannot make a business out of religion if there are real seekers - they will see through it; they cannot be deceived. But in fact there are millions of people who don't want to know the truth and yet are not ready to accept that they don't want to know the truth. That hurts. For these people, plastic truths are needed. For these people, plastic flowers are needed. And plastic flowers have one thing about them: they never wither away.

This is something to be understood: the false has a longer life than truth, because the false adjusts to the process of time; it is part of it. The true comes from the beyond; it is not part of time, it is part of eternity. It does not belong to time. It enters into time, but it is a foreigner. Time cannot absorb it, and it cannot adjust itself to time. So it is only for a moment that you see the light of a Buddha... and then it disappears. It is only for a rare moment that eternity gives a glimpse into the world of time.

That's how a real flower dies. But the plastic flower remains. In fact, now scientists, particularly those who are interested in NOT polluting nature, those who are ecology-oriented, are very much worried about plastic - because plastic is something that never dies. It cannot be absorbed back by the earth; it will remain for ever and ever. You throw away a plastic bag or anything that is made of plastic - it will remain. The earth cannot reabsorb it, the sea cannot reabsorb it. It is SO unreal that it will persist.

Lies persist for thousands of years; lies have their own ways of remaining, because they adjust to time, they are part of time. But truth is something strange in the world of time. It is timelessness.

It is a miracle that once in a while it expresses itself in the dimension of time - it is a miracle. The Buddha, the Christ - these are miracles... something that should not be, something that is going against the law of necessity; something that follows the law of power, of grace, and comes from the beyond. That ray comes and goes.

Millions of people want to pretend to be religious. These are the people who go to the churches and to the mosques and to the temples and the GURUDWARAS. These are the people who want religion cheap. They want only a formal kind of religion - a Sunday religion. They don't really want to become committed; they are playing a game. And the game seems to pay in their mundane life - the churchgoer is respected, and the person who is respected can cheat better than anybody else.

The churchgoer is thought to be religious; nobody thinks that he will deceive, hence he can deceive more easily. The church fits with the marketplace perfectly well; it is part of the market-place.

Jesus was always a misfit; otherwise, why did people crucify him? People have never crucified priests; they have always crucified Buddhas. A Socrates is dangerous, disturbing, shocking; but the priest is perfectly good - consoling, helping to make your life easier through his lies. His lies function as buffers, shock-absorbers. He helps you in every possible way to live the false, pseudo life that you are living. He helps you to forget all about truth, and he gives you truth and God in such cheap ways that you need not risk anything at all.

By being a Christian you don't risk, by being a Hindu you don't risk. By being a follower of Jesus, you were risking. To be with me is a risk! To be with the Shankaracharya is not a risk. To be with me is costly, it will create a thousand and one problems for you. Unless one is REALLY committed to truth, REALLY involved, REALLY thirsty and hungry for God, one cannot be here around me.

But millions of people want plastic flowers. Plastic flowers are very convenient; you need not grow them; you need not take the trouble of growing them. To grow real flowers is troublesome: think of the soil, prepare the ground, bring the manure and the fertilizers and water, and then protect. And then too it always remains unpredictable what is going to happen.

Plastic flowers are perfectly convenient; ready-made you get them. No soil is needed, no preparation, no gardening - nothing of the sort. And they don't fade away. Once in a while you can give them a good bath, and they will be again as fresh as ever. They only collect dust, that's all; dust can be washed away.

That's how beliefs are - plastic flowers. But millions of people want plastic flowers, hence the priest can exploit you. Remember always one of the most fundamental laws of economics: wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply. Because the false is demanded, there are falsifiers.

And this is a natural process. I am not saying, I cannot say, that my place will not become a business one day - it is going to become. Meanwhile, Thomas, if you are really interested, use the opportunity that I AM and don't bother about these things. You must have been around Jesus too - there WAS a Thomas... he is known as doubting Thomas. His name has become a symbol of doubt. You must have been around Buddhas and you must have been asking the same question! And you are again asking the same question.

What is YOUR worry? A few people want to be cheated, and a few people want to cheat - so it is perfectly okay! What is wrong in it? If there is nobody to cheat you, what will happen to those who want to be cheated? They will feel very miserable. They will not be able to live their lives as they want to live them. So nothing is wrong; they play a game of hide-and-seek. If you want to play the game of hide-and-seek, then there are many businesses around. And you must be part of some church, of some religion, of some creed.

Every truth, sooner or later, will be organized. And the moment it is organized, it dies.

There is a famous story:

A disciple of the Devil came running to him and said, "What are you doing here? One man - look down on the earth, sitting under that tree - has become enlightened! He has found the truth. Our whole business is at stake, and what are you doing here? We have to DO something!"

Certainly, if somebody finds truth, then the Devil's whole existence is at stake - he lives on lies. But the disciple must have been a new disciple, just a learner. The old Devil laughed and he said, "Don't you be worried. Let him find it - we will organize, and once a truth is organized, it dies."

And all truths WILL be organized. There is no way to protect them, there is no way to make safeguards; there is no possibility. Every truth will be organized. Every truth will become a religion.

So the only way for the perceptive is: while the Buddha is there, drink of him as much as you can, and forget all about what is going to happen later on. This is the only intelligent way.

The second question

Question 2:

THAT MEANS YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE JUMP. If you have understood everything before taking the jump, it is not a jump at all - it is a conclusion. Your mind is convinced of it. You have arrived at it through a logical process.

A jump means something illogical. A jump means: CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM. A jump means: I have fallen in love - not in logic. The logical process is an ego process - you decide, and then, certainly, you follow your decision. It is not a jump. A jump is going into the dark; a jump is going into the unknown; dropping the known and going into the unknown is the meaning of a jump. And the greater it is, the better - because in the VERY jump you are reincarnated, in the very jump the old disappears and the new arrives. A jump has to be a crucifixion, and then it is followed by a resurrection.

A logical conclusion is a continuum; there is no gap. One thing leads to another; they are joined together in a chain. A syllogism is a chain. If you want to understand everything about sannyas and then you will take the jump, then it will not be a jump at all. And you will never get out of your mind.

It will be your mind deciding, it will be your mind functioning, and through its functioning it is going to be strengthened more.

A jump means you are tired of your mind, you are utterly tired. You have seen all the stupid games of it. You want to drop it. Love is not a conclusion: it is dropping the mind. That's why people call it 'falling in love' - why 'falling'? The mind thinks of it as a fall; it is a condemnation from the mind. If

you ask the heart, the heart will say 'rising in love', not 'falling in love'. One rises in love, one doesn't fall. Iut the mind, the head, condemns it by calling it a fall, that you have fallen from your logical clarity; from your logical acumen, skill, you have fallen. You have become emotional, sentimental.

You have fallen backwards.

Logic is basically a condemnation of all love. And sannyas has to be a love-affair. It is falling in love with a Master. It is a love relationship.

And, secondly, sannyas is not a philosophy that you can understand. It is not a theology that can be intellectually made available to you. It is an experience! And to understand an experience, you have to go into it. You cannot make it a condition that "first I will understand, then I will go into it." That will be as absurd as somebody saying, "I will taste this sweet only when I have understood its taste.

I will eat it only when I have understood its taste." How are you going to understand the taste of the sweet? If this is your condition, that "first I have to know the taste, only then will I eat," then you are not going to eat it ever - because the only way to taste it is to taste.

Sannyas is an experience, a taste. You have to become a participant. You cannot observe from the outside. Sannyas is not something objective: it is something utterly subjective. It is pure subjectivity.

It is NOT like science. The scientist goes to the rose-bush - he understands, tries to understand, analyse, experiment, with the rose. He will dissect the rose; he will find many things, but he will not find the rose and its beauty. He will find other elements. He will find how much of it is earth, and how much of it is water, and how much of it is air, and how much of it is sun - he will find ALL these things. Only the rose will disappear.

He will not find one thing which was very very significant, which was really the significance of the rose: he will not find any beauty in it. No scientist has yet found any beauty in a rose. If you talk about beauty, he laughs - he laughs knowingly - you are talking nonsense. Beauty is not a component at all. But you know the beauty is there, although it cannot be proved in a scientific lab. Then how do you know the beauty?

Not by dissecting the rose, not by reading about the rose, but by participating with the rose, by becoming one with the rose, there are moments when you become one with the rose. When the observer disappears into the observed, when the observer is the observer and the observer is the observed, there is a moment of deep intimacy, communion. When the poet is not standing outside the rose but has gone inside it, when the rose is not there as an object but has penetrated the very soul of the poet, in that meeting there arises understanding.

That understanding is not scientific knowledge - it is poetic experience. Sannyas is a poetic experience not scientific knowledge. So if you make this a condition, you can never become a sannyasin, you will never be able to know this poetic experience that is being made available here.

You will miss this opportunity. You are asking the impossible; the desire cannot be fulfilled.

The scene was Elaine's Restaurant on Second Avenue in Manhattan on a crowded Saturday night.

A stranger walked in from the street and pompously announced that, even with a blindfold on, he could identify any wine. The challenge was immediately accepted. A dark cloth was placed over his eyes and wine after wine was handed to him.

"Lafite-Rothschild, 1958," he would announce. Or "Bernkasteler Badstube, 1951." And he was always right.

finally, someone handed him a glass he could not identify. He sipped and then he sipped again...

suddenly he spat it out and pulled off the blindfold. "Hell, man! This is urine! Plain fresh urine!"

"Yes," said a small voice in the background, "but whose?"

Now, don't make such impossible demands.

Sannyas has to be experienced, not understood intellectually. You are making an impossible demand. And the demand looks very logical - at least, on the surface. Have you ever made it a condition that before moving into a love affair you will have to understand what love is, unless you have understood all about love you will never move into love? Then how are you going to understand love? By consulting the Encyclopaedia Britannica? by reading learned articles and papers on love?

by listening to great lovers and their poems? You may gather much ABOUT love, but about love is not love. To know about love is one thing, and to know love is totally different, utterly different. In fact, the person who knows too much about love may miss knowing love at all, because he will be deceived by his knowledge. He will think, "I have already known." He will think that he already knows so there is no question of searching for another way of knowing.

There are two ways of knowing. One is remaining outside as an observer, detached, aloof, cold - the scientific way. And the other is the mystic's way: becoming passionately involved, not remaining cold and aloof; becoming committed, not remaining on guard; taking a jump, a quantum leap. It needs guts, courage.

And the greatest courage in the world is to drop the known for the unknown. It is only for the adventurous soul. Sannyas is not for all; it cannot be. It is not for the herd mentality. It is only for the few - the few lions who can rush roaring from the known into the unknown.

And you can go on rationalizing your cowardice in millions of ways. This is one of the most beautiful ways to rationalize your cowardice: "How can I take the jump? because unless I understand, the jump is illogical - and one should be logical." If you remain logical, your whole life will remain shallow.

Logic cannot give you depth. Depth always comes with love, and love is a mad affair.

One sannyasin, Al Masta... Al Masta means mad, madly in love. Just a few days ago she took sannyas. Today she has said that she was moving in such beatitude, in such ecstasy, these few days she has been a sannyasin; she was rising and rising in a crescendo. Now her boyfriend has arrived and the boyfriend said, "This whole thing is a business!" She has asked me, "What should I do? Tell him to get lost? or should I be patient?"

Al Masta, be patient - love knows how to be patient. Let him feel your energy. He may be closed to me, but he loves you - let him feel your energy. And your energy is now my energy, don't be worried.

Dance, sing, POUR your energy into his being. Let him feel that something tremendously important has happened to you. Don't try to convince him, because these are not things which can be argued.

Sannyas can never happen through conviction. It is a conversion! So don't try to argue. If you argue, there is every possibility he will destroy your joy. All arguments are dangerous for joy. And once he

has become capable of destroying your joy, you will by and by start feeling he may be right. He will create doubt easily in you.

If you argue, you will lose. Don't argue. There is a far better way of conversion: dance. When he argues, you start dancing. Hug him, love him, shower kisses on him - when he argues - drive him crazy! Let him feel that you are a totally different person now.

And I have given you the name 'Al Masta' - behave as a mad lover. And don't be bothered by his arguments. And if you don't become too much concerned about his arguments, he will become concerned about the change that has happened in you and that is happening every day. Then he will become suspicious about what he is saying - then you will create doubt in him.

And this doubt will be totally different from that which he can create in you. What he can create in you will be only an intellectual doubt, just an impotent thing. But if you can create an existential doubt in him, that something has happened to you and he would also like it to happen to him, then the work is done.

Don't say to him, "Get lost." If he wants to get lost, he will get lost by himself; you need not say it. If you love the man, man, this is the opportunity to share your joy with him. And let him say that this is business and all... nothing to be worried about. This IS business! I mean business!

But this is no ordinary business - this is something divine. But how can he understand? He must be afraid; now his woman is gone. He must cling and argue and try in every way to distract you - because now you no more belong to him, you belong to me. That is the fear. He must be feeling very jealous; he must be feeling that he has lost you. He will try in every way to convince you. Listen to his arguments, but don't argue - enjoy. When he argues, provoke him to argue more. Soon he will become empty of arguments; arguments are not many. You just listen patiently, lovingly, and you will see a change happening in him too.

Once you are a sannyasin, you are connected with me. And if you remain receptive, my energy can pour through you into anybody. That's how I am working: I don't go out of my room at all and my work continues on all the six continents. It is through my sannyasins. They are my extensions, they are my hands, they are my eyes, they are my hearts. The questioner has asked that first an intellectual conviction is needed, then sannyas... then it is never going to happen. first sannyas, then conviction - that's how it happens, that is the natural course.

Become a sannyasin. The idea has already stirred your heart, otherwise the question would not have arisen. Your heart is already beating a little faster, your breath is already feeling the fragrance.

You have already touched the periphery of this Buddhafield, now take a plunge in....

And convictions and conclusions will follow in their own time. And when they come out of experience they have a tremendous validity, truth in them. The only valid truth is that which is arrived at through experience.

The third question

Question 3:

Pradipam,

YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY GAY PERSON HERE. We have many gay guys, and many lesbian ladies too. This is a miniature world - I have all kinds of people here; my garden contains all kinds of flowerings, all kinds of plants. It is less a garden, more a jungle. And I accept all - wild plants and all. Everybody is welcome.

Why did only you become disturbed? There are very famous gay guys here. In fact, I never knew, Pradipam, that you were also one of them. Why did you become disturbed? Why has nobody else taken any offence? They have learnt to accept - because that is my whole teaching! Accept whosoever you are. No condemnation, no judgement, no evaluation. If you are a homosexual, so what?! Enjoy it! God has made you that way. That is his way of expressing himself through you.

And there have been great homosexuals - from Socrates onwards.

If you look at the long history of homosexuals, you will be surprised: they have had better company than the heterosexuals. In fact, great talented poets, painters, musicians, artists - all had a tendency towards homosexuality. There is something in it, and that something has to be understood - why artists, painters and poets? Because these are the inventive people - they are never satisfied with things as they find them; they try to do new things.

Now, heterosexuality is a natural phenomenon; it is simply a given fact. The inventive people start trying new ways to relate; they are imaginative. Just falling in love again and again with a woman or with a man seems to be routine. They would like to try some new experiments. These are the people who have invented homosexuality. They are inventors.

And some have gone even a little further ahead: they have become bisexuals. Now the bisexual thinks the homosexual is a little behind. The bisexual is more fluid - can adjust with a woman, can adjust with a man. He has far more opportunities of love-making. He will never be starved; he can always find a lover, a beloved.

You must be feeling guilty somehow deep down; that's why you became offended. Otherwise, you would have laughed and enjoyed the joke. And, in fact, I am not responsible for saying those words - guess who is responsible?... And I don't think you can guess. The Pope!

The Pope went on a journey to the Holy Land. On the last day he went to the Mountain of Calvary and said his prayers. He walked down the hill looking very holy and solemn with his incense-bowl swinging from his hand. A homosexual who had been watching him from a distance came up to the Pope, pulled very gently at his sleeve and said, "Hello, darling, your handbag is on fire."

I got that idea from the Pope. But, Pradipam, please don't be offended - I am not against anybody.

Blacks or Jews or homosexuals - I am not against anybody. My whole message is one of total acceptance.

But I don't invent these jokes: my sannyasins go on sending them to me. So if you have some jokes against heterosexuals, please send them to me. Just whatsoever jokes I receive, I use.

Sometimes a few women have written letters to me saying, "Your jokes are always against women."

What can I do? Send me jokes against men! I have no interest in inventing jokes - people go on sending me them. Send any kind of joke and I will use it.

But this guilty feeling is not good. Deep down you are feeling as if you are doing something wrong - that's why it hurts. You have a wound inside; you may have covered it, but the wound is there. And if you understand me, uncover the wound. Only when you uncover it can it be healed. Let the sun heal it and the wind heal it. Uncover it!

It is perfectly right, whatsoever you are. It is NOBODY else's business. If two men feel good being together, it is nobody else's business to interfere. No law, no government, no religion, no church, should come in. If they BOTH are happy, it is perfectly their own decision. And we want the world to be happy - and these two persons are contributing their happiness to the world by being happy together.

If two women feel good being with each other, the world is happier for that, better for that. Don't make them feel guilty unnecessarily. But guilt persists - because down the ages you have been taught homosexuality is a sin; down the ages you have been taught that this is one of the greatest sins.

You may be surprised to know: there have been states in America, just a hundred years ago, where the punishment for homosexuality was sentence for life. And there have been countries where one was beheaded if one was caught in any homosexual relationship.

Humanity has been so stupid in the past. And we ALL carry those conditionings deep down in the collective unconscious.

A ventriloquist - maybe it was Sarvesh - was driving in the country when he was attracted to a large farm. He asked for and was given a tour.

As he was shown through the barn, the ventriloquist thought he would have some fun. He proceeded to make one of the horses talk.

The hired hand, wide-eyed with fear, rushed from the barn to the farmer. "Sam," he shouted, "those animals are talking! If that little sheep says anything about me, it is a damned lie!"

That's how guilt comes up. You cannot hide it - it has its way of manifesting.

You condemn your homosexuality - that's how your question has arisen. Otherwise, you would have laughed, you would have enjoyed it! And unless a man is capable of laughing at himself, he does not know what laughter is and the beauty of laughter. To laugh at others is very simple; it is violent, it is cruel. To laugh at oneself has something spiritual about it. But we go on hiding behind rationalizations.

Now you think the homosexual minority is being offended. One thing you should know: I am neither a heterosexual, nor a homosexual, nor a bisexual - so I cannot be against this and for that. I belong no more to the world of sex. Sex has no more meaning - that's why I can accept you all.

Your so-called saints will not be capable of accepting you all, because they belong to the world of sex; they themselves are sexual beings still - repressed, obsessed, maybe against, but to be against means you are still obsessed. I am neither for nor against, neither for this nor for that. It simply does not matter! It is simply games that people enjoy playing - it is fun, that's all. It has nothing serious about it. It is childish. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, all is childish.

One day I hope you will grow beyond all these. And then a totally different phenomenon happens: in the East we have called it BRAHMACHARYA. The West has no equivalent word for it - because in the West consciousness has never penetrated to that height. The word 'celibacy' is a poor translation, and with ugly connotations.

'Celibacy' simply means not getting involved in sex; it is a negative word. The celibate may not be beyond sex; he may be simply withholding. BRAHMACHARYA actually means: living like a God.

The literal meaning is: living like God. What does it mean? - living like God. It means sex has simply disappeared: that smoke no more surrounds the flame of your being; your flame of being is smokeless. And when sex has utterly disappeared, the whole energy that is contained in sexuality is released in love, in compassion.

But by feeling offended, you exposed yourself. In a way this is good. Don't feel guilty any more. And it is always good to expose yourself in utter nudity. Don't be afraid, because that is the only way to, know oneself - to expose oneself.

According to legend, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung once travelled together on a train, and during the journey Jung began to analyse Freud, probing deeper and deeper into the man's psyche in an attempt to pinpoint the origin of his neurosis. Freud was being his evasive self, so when Jung came to within a hairbreadth of Freud's essence, he asked impatiently for Freud to reveal his innermost being, his true, real self.

"I cannot," Freud refused. "To do so would be to give up my authority."

At that, Jung sat back and sighed, "Then you have already lost it."

The real man is always ready to expose himself to the very core, because he is not afraid. Freud saying this, "I cannot expose my real self because to do so would be to give up my authority," is simply saying that he is carrying a pseudo self around himself. He carried it his whole life - although he was the originator of psychoanalysis he was never psychoanalysed. Many times his disciples approached him and said, "We can psychoanalyse you," but he always refused. He was afraid.

This legend is very symbolic - he was afraid to expose himself as he was. And the fear was of losing authority. But a REAL man of authority is never afraid of losing it. He CANNOT lose it. There is NO way of losing it. And this is the difference between a man of authority and an authoritative man. The authoritative man has NO real authority; he is a pretender. The man of authority can expose himself absolutely, because his authority is not something imposed from the outside - it is his very core, his experience, his authenticity.

Jung did well when he sat back and said, Then you have already lost it."

It is said, from that day the rift started between Jung and Freud; then it could not be bridged again.

And I cannot say that only Jung was responsible for the rift; in fact, basically Freud himself was responsible. Freud was suffering from many kinds of things which can be called neurotic. Still he would not allow himself to be analysed.

My whole work here is to help you to expose yourself in your utter nudity. Whatsoever you are, wherever you are, I am going to seek and search you out and bring you into the light. Sometimes it hurts, it shocks; sometimes you feel angry, offended, but please be patient. This is surgery - it is bound to be painful.

The fourth question

Question 4:

Lalit,

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Have I ever said a single word? I am the silent one. I have not spoken ever. And the words that I say to you are not to express the truth, because truth cannot be expressed.

The words that I say to you are just a device to keep your minds engaged. The real work is a totally different thing: when your minds are engaged with my words, my hands are penetrating deeper and deeper into your being. When your head is engaged, you are more available to me. When your head is not engaged, your head keeps you closed.

I go on talking to you... these words are just toys. While you are playing with toys; great surgery is going on underneath.

But truth cannot be said, so there is no word to say it. And if truth cannot be said, then whatsoever is said is not said at all. That's why I say I have not uttered a single word. I have NOT said anything, you have not heard anything - so where is the question of understanding it? It is not a question of understanding at all: it is a question of COMMUNION.

You are here to eat me, to drink me. A disciple has to be a cannibal; he has to absorb and digest the Master. Words are peripheral; they don't matter. That's why I can easily be inconsistent, contradictory - words don't matter. I am not conveying anything through the words, just keeping you engaged so your heads are somewhere else in the words and your total being is available to me, is exposed to my energy.

You say: I DON 'T UNDERSTAND A WORD OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

There is no need either.

A limerick from Yatri:

There's a Master in Poona I've heard Who swears that he's not said a word, A thousand come there To gaze at his chair, And he's not even there... it's absurd!

The fifth question

Question 5:

Barry Boudreaux,

YOU ARE NOT YET A DISCIPLE and you are worried. The living Master is here! and you are not yet a disciple, and you are worried whether when I leave my body you will have to search for a living Master. Just look at the nonsense the mind goes on spinning. And if you can find one, again you will ask the same question!

Yes, it is true: you cannot follow a dead Master. So while I am alive, become a disciple. And there are two ways to find a living Master.

The easier one is when a living Master is there - dissolve into him. Only one percent of effort is needed from your side; ninety-nine percent of the work is done by the Master. But if a living Master is not available, then it is very difficult: ninety-nine percent of the work will have to be done by you, and only one percent can be done by a Master who is no more alive.

For example, you can follow Christ, you can follow Buddha, but ninety-nine percent of the work will have to be done by you; only one percent can be done by Buddha. You will have to create such intensity, such passion; you will have to become afire. In becoming afire, in becoming a tremendous longing for truth, you will make Buddha alive again - through your intensity. He is there! dissolved into existence, no more residing in a body. Not that he is not there: he is there, bodiless. Christ is there bodiless.

If you can create a tremendous longing, that very longing will function as a body for Christ. He will become alive for you! If you really love Christ and you are ready to die for him, he is living for you, because you will become his body. You will start functioning as HIS body. But that is a tremendous work. Very rarely has a person been able to do it: a St. Francis, a Teresa, an Eckhart. Very rarely.

Down the centuries, twenty centuries after Jesus, not more than five people have been able to do that. In four centuries, one person only. It is very rare.

Many have done the same with Buddha. Twenty-five centuries have passed, but those many can be counted on the fingers - they are not really many, few and far between.

If your intensity is such that you can say, "It is total. My love has no doubt, no lingering shadow, it is shadowless," then a dead Master becomes ALIVE in you, and you can follow him. Then your innermost core becomes his vehicle.

The easier way is to find a living Master who is still in the body. You need not become his body. You can contact him easily because he is visible. Now about Jesus... you cannot even trust whether this man ever happened, whether he was really historical. There is no proof, there is no certainty, that he was a historical person. How will you drop your doubt?

And what Christians say makes his existence even more doubtful; they don't help. They say he was born out of a virgin - now see the stupidity of it. It makes things more difficult! To conceive the idea you will need such an idiotic mind - because it is simply nonsense. Children are not born out of virgins. Now this makes his existence more doubtful, seems to be a myth, seems to be a story, a legend. And in fact there are a few scholars who say that it was just a drama that was played - a Christ drama - it was never a reality; just a story, a play written by some unknown Shakespeare of olden days.

Christians say that after the crucifixion, after three days as a dead body he was resurrected again.

Now they make things even more difficult. And all the stories of miracles... and Christ disappears as a historical person.

Buddha seems to be more historical - more historical than Christ. Of course, he is five hundred years before Christ, but still he seems to be more historical. No virgin birth, no resurrection after death. But Buddhists make their story implausible in their own way. They say he was born when his mother was standing, and the first thing he did was that he declared, standing... after birth the first thing he did: he walked seven steps and then he declared, "There is nobody higher than me - not on the earth, not in the heavens!"

Now the newly born child walking seven steps and declaring, "Nobody is higher than me, here or anywhere else...." To declare such nonsense, one needs seventy years of experience - seven steps won't do!

It is said about Lao Tzu that he lived in his mother's womb for eighty-two yearS. Now, just think of the mother also, poor mother. Nine months is too much - eighty-two years! He was born with white hair, an old man.

Now, these people make things impossible - how can you believe these stories? You cannot believe them. And because of these stories, if you come across a living Buddha you will not believe in him either - because you will ask these foolish questions: "Were you born out of a virgin mother?"

And the living Buddha cannot say yes because that will be untrue. "And did you walk seven steps immediately after birth? Did you declare? Did you live in your mother's womb for eighty-two years?"

And, of course, all the answers are going to be no, no, no. Then the question arises, "Then what kind of a Buddha are you?"

These stories will not allow you to believe in the ancient Buddhas, and these stories will not allow you to believe in the living Buddha either. These stories have been a great poison, a great calamity.

It will be difficult for you to connect with a dead Master - dead only in the sense that he has no body any more. Otherwise he is there! Nothing is ever lost. The fragrance is there: the flower is gone.

And if you cannot smell the fragrance while the flower is there, it will be thousands of times more difficult to smell the fragrance when the flower is gone.

That's all that I meant, Boudreaux.

You say: YOU SAID THAT WE CANNOT FOLLOW A DEAD MASTER.

I repeat it again: it will be almost impossible for you to follow a dead Master - because then you will have to become his vehicle. And if you are capable of becoming the vehicle of a Christ, then why can't you become a Christ yourself? If you are capable of contacting a Buddha who disappeared twenty-five centuries ago, then who can prevent you from becoming a Buddha on your own?

So, it will be impossible for you to follow a dead Master. And these twenty centuries or twenty-five centuries or fifty centuries that have passed, thousands of pundits and priests have been destroying the sources, distorting, polluting, projecting their ideas, imposing their interpretations. You don't know what Jesus looked like - all that you know is what Christians make him look like. And Christians have nothing to do with Christ, just as Buddhists have nothing to do with Buddha.

You will not be able to search for a dead Master. Easier it is, more pragmatic it is, to find a living Master. But the difficulty with the living Master is that you have to surrender. And that's why ego resists. With the dead Master you can go on playing the game that you are following. The Master is not there to prevent you, to disturb your game. So you can go on; it is a monologue - you can go on talking to yourself, whatsoever you want. You ask the question, you answer the question - the Master is not there.

But when you are with a living Master, he is constantly at your neck. He is bent upon it to destroy you as an ego. That is very painful. To avoid it, we go on asking unnecessary questions.

YOU ONCE SAID, you ask, THAT WE CANNOT FOLLOW A DEAD MASTER, SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO IF YOU LEAVE YOUR BODY ONE DAY?

I have not left my body yet, Boudreaux. Tomorrow I may leave, so today is the only day, this moment is the only moment. Why are you worried about tomorrow? And I am saying that you can become enlightened this very moment - if you are ready to surrender totally, in that VERY surrender enlightenment happens. You ARE enlightened, only the ego has to be taken away.

It is the ego that does not allow you to see the point that you are already enlightened, that enlightenment is your self-nature. The false ego goes on hiding your real self behind it. Surrender the ego - that is sannyas, that is becoming a disciple - and you are enlightened. What is the need of searching for another Master? The need will arise only if you have not been with THIS Master totally. And if you have not been with this Master totally, even if you find another you will not be totally with him either. You don't know how to be totally with someone, you don't know how to love, you don't know how to trust.

You ask: WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR FOLLOWING? SHOULD WE SEARCH FOR A LIVING MASTER? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I am here... partake of me. No other explanation is going to help. Experience me! Why are you asking for an explanation? When experience is possible, why ask for an explanation?

The sixth question

Question 6:

IT IS NOT - it is not fair as far as the parrots are concerned. They are far more intelligent.

"My mother-in-law treats me with contempt," cried Cohen to the rabbi. "She gives me no respect."

"How can you say that?"

"When my birthday arrives, she sends my wife a sympathy card."

"That's just her sense of humour."

"When she mails us an invitation for a dinner banquet, my name is usually left out."

"Probably an oversight."

"When she talks to my wife, she always refers to me as 'that man'."

"'That man' is undoubtedly an idiomatic expression she uses."

"When she wrote her will, she left me only one dollar."

"You are right," said the rabbi, "she doesn't like you."

It takes so long... your so-called learned people are full of bullshit, are full of so-called knowledge which they have gathered from books, from people, but not even an iota of eXperience. If you really look deep into them you will find them the most stupid people on the earth. All their knowledge is borrowed; there is no consciousness behind it. They are good computers, but the man has not yet arrived. They are not human beings: they are machines.

A great scholar passed his neighbour, a farmer, as he was just working in the fields. He shouted at him, "Hey you, do your cows smoke?"

Seemingly surprised, the farmer answered, "No! Why?"

"That's what I thought," replied the scholar. "Then your stable must be burning."

Parrots are very intelligent people.

One morning recently, a young woman got out of bed, slipped into her robe, raised the shade, uncovered the parrot, put on the coffee pot, answered the phone and heard a masculine voice say, "Hello, honey. My ship just hit port and I'm coming right over."

So the young lady took the coffee pot off the stove, covered up the parrot, pulled down the shade, took off her robe, got into bed, and heard the parrot mumble, "Kee-rist, what a short day that was!"

And the last question

Question 7:

Raqib,

THE MOMENT ONE STARTS THINKING that one has to be exceptional, extraordinary, someone special, one will remain in misery for ever - because everybody is ALREADY special, already exceptional, already extraordinary. Now, how can you make an extraordinary person more extraordinary? You are going to fail.

People fail in attaining extraordinariness because they are already it. ,If they were not, they might have succeeded. Each individual is unique, incomparable. Never before has there been anybody like you, and never again will there be anybody like you. You are just yourself, a class unto yourself.

Now, trying to become exceptional is foolish. You have to relax and see that you are unique - you need not become unique. If you try to transform gold into gold you will fail, because... how can you succeed? In the first place the gold is gold; you can transform baser metals into gold but you cannot transform gold into gold.

This is one of the most fundamental things to be understood. And everybody is miserable in the world because everybody is trying to do something which is already the case! And the more you try, the more you fail; the more you fail, the more you think greater efforts have to be made. The greater the efforts, the greater the failure... and slowly slowly your whole life becomes a long long tale of frustration and nothing else.

Comparison is not possible. Nobody is superior to you and nobody is inferior to you - because you are the only one like you. So how can anybody be superior or inferior? If you compare, then the problem arises. Once comparison enters into you, then there is trouble. Then you are going to be miserable.

And you ask: WHY CAN'T I LEAVE THIS CONSTANT JUDGING WHICH BRINGS MISERY TO ME?

It brings misery, but sometimes it also brings joy - that is the problem. It brings misery when you compare with somebody and you feel inferior; it brings joy when you compare with somebody and you feel superior - it is a double-edged sword. You cannot drop it because it is not total misery: it is mixed with a few moments of joy too. And you don't want to miss those few moments; in fact you live for those few moments. And because of those few moments, the misery continues.

You will have to understand that the pride that you feel when you see yourself superior is the other side of the same coin as when you see somebody superior to you and you feel humiliated. These two sides are together. You can drop the whole coin, you cannot save half of it. Comparison sometimes brings great pride to you, and you feel very good.

That's why people associate with inferior people; people avoid anybody whom they think is superior.

They associate with people they think are inferior, because then they are the tops and they can always feel good. But it is also very difficult and complicated, because a person may be inferior in one way to you and may be superior in another way. Somebody may be ugly and you may have a very handsome face, so you can feel superior - but he may be more intelligent and you may be just plain stupid. Then the problem is very complicated.

A man is many things. Even if you reach the top, something or other is going to disturb you.

Napoleon was not a tall man - only five feet five inches. Nothing to worry about! because I don't think there is any problem... I am five five and I have never felt any problem. My feet reach to the earth as much as the people who are six or seven feet tall, so what is the problem? If my feet were not reaching to the earth then there would have been a problem. But Napoleon remained disturbed his whole life.

And, of course, in the army there were taller people. In fact, in the army people are chosen for their tallness and strength - and Napoleon looked a pigmy before his own soldiers. And he was always hurt.

One day he was fixing something in his room, a calendar had slipped or something, and his hand was not reaching up to the nail. His bodyguard said, "Wait, sir. I am higher than you - I can do it."

And he said, "Change your words! You are not higher - you are simply taller."Great anger arose in him.

Napoleon was not afraid of lions, tigers - he could have fought with a lion - but he was afraid of cats. Life is very complicated. Bring a cat and he would start perspiring even if it was cold, and he would become very nervous.

When he was six months old, a wild cat had jumped on him and sat on his chest. Since that time everything had been done but he could not be helped in any wRy. In fact, it is said, that the war, the first war that he lost, he lost because of cats. The English general, Wellington, brought seventy cats just in front... then the army followed. And the moment Napoleon saw seventy cats, he lost all his senses. The war was not won by Wellington: it was won by cats.

Now, just in front of a cat he feels very inferior.

The whole idea of comparing creates the problem. You are just yourself. There is nobody superior, there is nobody inferior. People are NOT similar - hence comparison is not possible. Drop comparing. And, of course, those few moments of joy that you feel by being superior will disappear, but with them millions of other moments when you feel miserable will disappear also. And when your so-called joy of pride and misery of feeling inferior are all gone, bliss arises.

Bliss is neither happiness nor unhappiness. It is a state when all dualities have been dropped. When there is no happiness, no unhappiness... that silence, that serenity, is bliss.

A story:

While waiting for his drink in the bar, Johnny noticed a horse sitting beside him with a huge pot full of money in front of him and sipping slowly from a glass of beer. Not believing his eyes, Johnny asked the barman what was going on.

The barman explained to him coolly, "It is a bet. If you can make the horse laugh, you get all the money. If you fail, then you put 10inthepot."

"Oh, that is no problem for me!" said Johnny and immediately leaned towards the horse and whispered something in his ear. The horse started laughing like hell, fell off his chair and rolled onto the floor, kicking and groaning with laughter.

Johnny took the money pot and went home. The next day, while ordering his drink, he noticed the horse again with another huge pot full of money.

"This time," explained the barman, "You have got to make the horse cry."

"Oh, it is not a problem for me," said Johnny. He took the horse outside and after a while came back.

The horse was crying, completely heartbroken, with tears flooding down his cheeks.

"Man!" exclaimed the barman, "Take the money but you must tell me how you did it!"

"Oh!" replied Johnny, "It was very easy. The first time I told him I have a bigger prick than he has, and the second time - I showed him."