I really mean business
The first question:
TAO IS GREATER THAN MIND. THEN WHY DO WE KEEP CHOOSING THE MIND INSTEAD OF FLOWING WITH THE TAO?
It is precisely because of that. Tao is so vast that one is afraid to lose one's identity in it. We are like dewdrops and Tao is like an ocean. The dewdrop is afraid, very much frightened to get closer to the ocean - one step in the ocean and he will be lost forever. He wants to cling to his identity; howsoever small, howsoever tiny, howsoever mediocre, but it is HIS identity, it is HIS personality. He is only because he is separate from the ocean.
That's the way of the ego: the ego can exist only in separation. Separation creates misery because you become uprooted from the whole, but one is ready to suffer misery rather than to die and disappear into absolute bliss. People only talk about bliss, nobody really wants to be blissful. They talk about bliss as if they can remain the same and bliss can be added to them as they are. They want bliss also to be a kind of new possession so that their ego can feel more enhanced, more defined, more precious, more enriched.
But as the ego becomes more defined you become smaller. As you become smaller you become miserable because you start feeling suffocated, you start feeling closed from all the sides. Your prison cell becomes smaller and smaller - even to exist in it becomes impossible. But people are ready to suffer all kinds of misery, they are ready to sacrifice everything for the ego.
That's why, Prem Radha, we cling to the mind. Mind is nothing but the process of the ego, the functioning of the ego. Mind is the boundary between you and the whole. It is a wall, not a bridge - no-mind is the bridge. Hence the emphasis of all the awakened ones to move from mind to no-mind.
The ego can exist only if you remain in constant fight; a continuous struggle is needed, because it is a false entity. You have to maintain it; it is not something spontaneous, it is not something natural that can exist on its own. It needs competitiveness, it needs conflict; it needs all kinds of jealousies, possessiveness, hatred, war. It can exist only with all that is wrong.
Ego represents the unhealthy state of our being. It is assertive. To relax is against the ego, to be non-ambitious is against the ego. Just a moment of relaxation is enough and you will have the taste of Tao, because it is always there, it is never lost. You go on creating the walls, but all walls crumble in a split second. Hence, wherever it happens, in whatsoever situation it happens, you become frightened of that situation.
People have become afraid of love for the simple reason because love is the most potential force in existence - when the window in Tao opens on its own accord. Love means the wall disappears, the wall is no more, and the bridge arises. Of course it happens only between two persons, but even to let it happen between two persons gives you such joy, such orgasmic glow, such tremendous experience of the splendor of life that the ego is afraid.
The ego has created false substitutes for love. The ego is perfectly ready for marriage, but not for love. Marriage is a legal institution, a social institution produced by the cunning mind, by the cunning priests, by the vested interests. Love is natural. Love is dangerous for the ego. If love is allowed you will start tasting little bits of Tao, but that taste will create in you a longing to have more of it. It is so sweet, it is so exquisite, it is so beautiful! Then you will be ready to sacrifice all nonsense that goes with the ego. You will be ready to disappear into the whole.
It is love that will give you the courage to take the ultimate jump - first with a single person... But once the experience is there you cannot step back, you will have to go ahead; you cannot go back.
First it is with a single person, but you cannot stop the process now. It is so ecstatic that if it is so beautiful with one single person, how much it will be with the whole...!
A Buddha is one who is in an orgasmic relationship with the whole. Tao is the ultimate orgasm, not between two individuals but between the part and the whole, between the dewdrop and the ocean.
But the dewdrop has to disappear, but it loses nothing.
Our all fears are unfounded; they are rooted in ignorance, but ego exploits the ignorance. Hence all societies have distorted the natural flow of love, because it can open the floodgates and then it will be uncontrollable. It is better to give people a false substitute. Marriage is that substitute. Hitherto, for five thousand years, man has lived with marriage AND misery.
You are not allowed to experience beauty. Your minds are from the very beginning distorted, channelized towards utilitarian ends. You are taught mathematics, you are taught geography, history.
Now history is all bunk, utterly useless. Why go on reading about the ancient idiots? For what purpose? It is better to forget all about them. Why bother about Genghis Khan, Tamburlaine, Nadir Shah, Alexander, Napoleon? For what? What these people have given to human consciousness?
They are like poisons; they have stopped in every possible way human progress, human evolution.
And in your history books you will not find names of Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Lieh Tzu, Ko Hsuan - not even in the footnotes. And these are the people who are the real foundations of human consciousness, these are the people who are the real hope. But you will not find their names even mentioned; on the contrary, historians will always create doubt in you whether Jesus ever existed, whether Krishna is a historical person or just a myth, whether Mahavira was a reality or just a fiction; did Buddha really walk on the earth or has been a projection of our dreams, of our desires?
Sigmund Freud says that these people are wish-fulfillments. We want that there should be people like these, but they have not really existed and even if they have existed they have not existed the way we have described them. That was the cause of the rift between Freud and his disciple Carl Gustav Jung; the rift was of tremendous significance. Freud is very pragmatic; Jung is far more poetic. Jung has tremendous trust in mythology and has no trust in history. And I absolutely agree with Jung about this.
All the mythologies of the world are closer to truth than your so-called histories. But we teach our children history, not mythology. We teach them arithmetic, not poetry. And the way we teach a little bit of poetry - we teach it in such a way that they become so fed up and bored with it that once the student leaves the university he will never read Shakespeare again, he will never look at Milton's works again. The very names of Shakespeare, Milton, Kalidas, Baubhuti will create a kind of nausea in him. The professors have tortured him so much behind these names that he is finished forever.
His interest has not been encouraged, he has not become more poetic; he has lost all interest in poetry. He has not been supported to be creative, he has not been helped to learn how to poetize.
The scholars are so clever in destroying all that is beautiful by their commentaries, interpretations, by their so-called learning. They make everything so heavy that even poetry with them becomes non-poetic.
I myself never attended any poetry class in the university. I was called again and again by the head of the department, that 'You attend other classes, why you don't come to the poetry classes?"
I said, "Because I want to keep my interest in poetry alive. I love poetry, that's why. And I know perfectly well that your professors are absolutely unpoetic; they have never known any poetry in their life. I know them perfectly well. The man who teaches poetry in the university goes for a morning walk with me every day. I have never seen him looking at the trees, listening to the birds, seeing the beautiful sunrise."
And in the university where I was, the sunrise and the Sunset were something tremendously beautiful. The university was on a small hillock surrounded by small hills all around. I have never come across... I have traveled all over this country; I have never seen more beautiful sunsets and sunrises anywhere. For some unknown mysterious reason Saugar University seems to have a certain situation where clouds become so colorful at the time of sunrise and sunset that even a blind man will become aware that something tremendously beautiful is happening.
But I have never seen the professor who teaches poetry in the university to look at the sunset, to stop even for a single moment. And whenever he sees me watching the sunset or the sunrise or the trees or the birds, he asks me, "Why you are sitting here? You have come for a morning walk - do your exercise!"
I told him that, "This is not exercise for me. You are doing exercise; with me it is a love affair."
And when it rains he never comes. And whenever it rains I will go and knock at his door and tell him, "Come on!"
He will say, "But it is raining!"
I said, "That's the most beautiful time to go for a walk, because the streets are absolutely empty.
And to go for a walk without any umbrella while it is raining is so beautiful, is so poetic!"
He thinks I am mad, but a man who has never gone in the rains under the trees cannot understand poetry. I told to the head of the department that, "This man is not poetic; he destroys everything.
He is so scholarly and poetry is such an unscholarly phenomenon that there is no meeting ground between the two."
Universities destroy people's interest and love for poetry. They destroy your whole idea of how a life should be; they make it more and more a commodity. They teach you how to earn more, but they don't teach you how to live deeply, how to live totally. And these are the ways from where you can get glimpses of Tao. These are the ways from where small doors and windows open into the ultimate. You are told the value of money but not the value of a rose flower. You are told the value of being a prime minister or a president but not the value of being a poet, a painter, a singer, a dancer.
Those things are thought to be for crazy people. And they are the ways from where one slips slowly into Tao.
Prem Radha, Tao is certainly greater than mind - Tao is greater than everything. Tao is God, Tao is the whole. But we are very much afraid of losing ourselves, and we keep on feeding our egos in thousand-and-one ways.
We are doing two things in our life: closing all windows and doors to the sun, to the moon, to the stars, to the wind, to the rain, to the birds, to the trees, to love, to beauty, to truth. We are closing all the windows, we are creating a grave around ourselves with no doors and no windows. We are becoming Leibnitz monads, windowless capsules. Our life is encapsulated. That is one part that we go on doing. And the second part is to go on making the walls thicker and thicker. That is done by competition, ambition: have more and more; whether you need or not, that is not the point at all. Do you think the richest people in the world need more money now? They have more than they can use, far more. But the desire for more does not stop, because it is not a question that they need money; the question is to go on making the walls of the ego thicker and thicker. They are continuously in competition with each other. Competition creates conflict. Conflict keeps your ego alive.
A beatnik was boppin' down the sidewalk just a-poppin' his fingers and feeling good, when a Jaguar pulled up at the intersection.
"Hey, daddy cool, wanna drag?" said the beatnik.
"Sure," laughed the sportscar driver, amused.
The light turned green and off they shot, the beatnik in the lead, running like hell. The driver was amazed! He looked at his speedometer: twenty, thirty, not until forty miles per hour did he finally overtake the beatnik.
Then he looked in his rearview mirror and noticed that the beatnik had suddenly disappeared.
Concerned, he went back to find him lying in the ditch all bruised and battered.
"Hey," said the man, "you were doing great: I could not believe it - what happened?"
"Like man," groaned the beatnik, "I mean, you ever had a sneaker blow out on you at forty-five miles an hour?"
Prem Radha, one has to decide one thing once forever: whether one wants to live the life of the ego, which is more like death than like life, or one wants to live the life of Tao, which is death in a sense and resurrection in another sense. It is both a crucifixion and a resurrection. The dewdrop disappears, but it becomes the ocean. It loses nothing, it only gains.
Sannyas means that you have decided to live the life of Tao, that you will not cling to the mind, that you will let it go, that you will not nourish it anymore, that you will not support it in any possible way, that you will go on finding how you have been supporting it and withdrawing your support. When all supports are withdrawn it falls on its own accord. And the moment the ego falls and disappears is the greatest moment in life. That's the moment of enlightenment, the moment of awakening, the moment when you become a Christ or a Buddha or a Krishna.
The second question:
OSHO, ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY AGAINST INTELLECT? SHOULD ONE NEVER USE ONE'S HEAD AT ALL?
I AM NOT ABSOLUTELY against intellect. It has its uses but they are very limited, and you have to understand their limitations. If you are working as a scientist you will have to use your intellect. It is a beautiful mechanism, but it is beautiful only if it remains a slave and does not become the master. If it becomes the master and overpowers you then it is dangerous. Mind as a slave to consciousness is a beautiful servant. Mind as a master of consciousness is a very dangerous master.
The whole question is of emphasis. I am not absolutely against intellect - I use intellect myself, how I can be against it? Right now, talking to you, I am using it. But I am the master; it is not my master.
If I want to use it I use it. If I don't want to use it, it has no power over me. But your intellect, your mind, your thinking process continues whether you want or not. It does not bother about you - as if you are nobody at all - it goes on and on; even when you are asleep it goes on working. It does not listen to you at all. It has remained in power for so long that it has forgotten completely that it is only a servant.
When you go for a walk you use your legs. But when you are sitting there is no need to go on moving your legs. People ask me, "Osho, for continuously two hours you go on sitting in the same posture.
You don't even move your legs once." Why should I move? I am not walking! I know you, because even if you are sitting on your chair you are not really sitting. You are moving your legs, changing your positions, postures, doing thousand-and-one things, tossing and turning - a great restlessness.
The same is true about your mind. If I am talking to you I am using the mind. The moment I stop talking my mind stops too, immediately! If I am not talking to you my mind has no need to go on working, it simply goes into silence. That's how it should be. It should be natural. While asleep I don't dream; there is no need. You dream only because so much work has been left undone in the day that the mind has to do it. It is overtime work - you have not been able to finish in the day.
And how can you finish anything? You are doing thousand-and-one things simultaneously. Nothing is ever finished; everything remains incomplete - and remains incomplete forever. You will die, but nothing will be complete. Not even in a single direction your work will be complete, because you are running in all the directions, you have become many fragments, you are not integrated. The mind is dragging you into one thing, the heart is dragging you into another, the body wants you to go somewhere else, and you are always at a loss whom to listen. And the mind is also not one, you have many minds - you are multi-psychic. There is a crowd of minds in you. There is no unity, ho harmony. You are not an orchestra - nothing is in tune; everything is going on its own; nobody listens to anybody else - you simply create noise not music.
Intellect is good if it functions as a servant of the whole. Nothing is bad if it is in its right place and everything is wrong if it is in the wrong place. Your head is perfectly good if it is on your shoulders.
If it is somewhere else then it is wrong.
Working as a scientist, intellect is needed. Working in the marketplace, the intellect is needed.
Communicating with words, talking to people, the intellect is needed. But it is a very limited use.
There are far greater things where intellect is not needed at all. And where it is not needed it goes on functioning there, too; that's the problem. You should be capable... a meditator becomes capable, he becomes very fluid, flexible, he does not become idiotic. He uses his intellect, but he uses his intuition too - he knows that their functions are different. He uses his head he uses his heart too.
I used to stay in Calcutta in the house of a High Court judge. His wife told me that, "You are the only person my husband has any respect for. If you say something he will listen, otherwise he won't listen to anybody. I have tried my best but I have failed. That's why I am telling it to you."
I said, "What is the problem?"
She said, "The problem is becoming bigger and bigger every day. He remains a judge twenty-four hours. Even in the bed with me he is a judge - as if he expects me also to say 'Your Honor'. With children also he behaves as if they are criminals. With everybody! We are tired. He never gets down! He carries this role continuously; he never forgets. It has gone into his head."
And she was right - I knew her husband.
It is good to be a judge when you are in the court, but by the time you leave the court... It is only a function to be a judge, you are a functionary; you don't become a judge - that is not your being! But we get confused; it becomes your being.
He carries it home, then he starts behaving the same way with the wife, with the children, with everybody. The wife was afraid of him, the children were afraid of him. The moment he entered the house there was fear everywhere. Just a moment before, the children were happily playing, enjoying. They will suddenly stop, the wife will become serious. The house will immediately turn into a court.
This is the state of millions of people: they remain the same, they carry their office home.
Your intellect is needed, Rajendra; your head has its own function. God never gives you anything without any reason. Head has its own beauty, but it should be in its place. There are far greater things which are beyond the reach of the head, and when you are moving into those realms you should put the head aside. You should be capable of that. That's flexibility, that is intelligence. And remember never to get confused between intellect and intelligence.
Intellect is only a part of intelligence. Intelligence is a far bigger phenomenon, it contains much more than intellect, because life is not only intellectual, life is intuitive, too. Intelligence contains intuition.
You will be surprised to know that many great discoveries have been done not by intellect but by intuition. In fact, all the great discoveries have been done by the intuition.
Something far more deeper exists in you. You should not forget it. Intellect is only the periphery, the circumference, it is not the center of your being; the center of your being is intuition.
The word "intuition" is worth understanding. Intellect needs tuition, it has to be taught. Hence the schools, colleges, universities, they all give you tuition. Intuition needs no tuition, it is your inner world; it is something given by God as a gift - you bring it with yourself.
When you put your intellect aside, your head aside, then something deeper inside you starts functioning which is incomprehensible from the periphery. Your center starts functioning, and your center is always in tune with Tao. Your circumference is your ego, your center is in tune with Tao.
Your center is not yours, it is not mine; the center is universal. Circumferences are personal - your circumference is your circumference, my circumference is my circumference - but my center and your center are not two things; at the center we all meet and are one.
That's why religion comes to realize about the oneness of existence - because it depends on intuition. Science goes on dividing, splitting. It reaches to the minutest particle, called it the electron.
The world becomes a multiplicity, it is no more a universe. In fact, scientists should stop using the word "universe", they should start using a new word, "multiverse". "Universe" has a religious tone - "universe" means one. Religion reaches to one; that is the experience of the center. But the center can function only when you move from the circumference to the center. It needs a quantum leap.
Rajendra, you say: SHOULD ONE NEVER USE ONE'S HEAD AT ALL?
I have not said that. I am talking against the head only because my work is religious.
There was a nymphomaniac whom nobody could satisfy. Men from all over the world did their best, yet failed. When Machista came, the two went into a room for five hours... but when he finally came out he was totally exhausted, an absolute wreck. He had to admit failure.
Tarzan too made an attempt. He was brought all the way from the jungle to try. Lots of people waited outside for hours, thinking that he would surely make it, but when he came out he just muttered:
"That woman is a wonder! Nobody can do it!" and disappeared.
More and more ambitious men came with high hopes - still, it did not happen. Then one day this little Jewish tailor, whose shop was on the street corner, passed by. He was curious to know what it was all about, and even though most of the crowd thought such matters were not for him, they told him. To their great surprise he said immediately, "I will do it!" So just for a laugh, they let him go in.
Fifteen minutes later he and the lady came out, hand in hand, beaming, smiling from ear to ear.
There was no need to say anything. It was a success.
"What's the trick, how did you do it?" everyone wanted to know.
"Well, there are situations when you have got to use your head," he said nonchalantly.
The third question:
IS TAO A SYNTHESIS OF THE PATHS OF LOVE AND AWARENESS?
TAO IS NOT A SYNTHESIS in the sense we understand the word. It is not synthesis in the sense Assagioli uses the word "psychosynthesis".
The ordinary meaning of the word "synthesis" is making two opposites meet, creating a certain meeting ground between the two opposites. It is not synthesis in that sense. It makes no effort to create that kind of unity. But it is a synthesis in a very different meaning, in a very higher sense, in a totally different dimension. It is transcendence of the paths of love and awareness, it is transcendence of the opposites. And whenever the opposites are transcended synthesis happens on its own accord. But you have to understand the difference.
Assagioli's synthesis is very poor; it has no depth, it cannot have - it is mind effort. It is far poorer than Sigmund Freud's analysis for the simple reason because mind is very efficient in analyzing things; mind is incapable of synthesizing things. That's why, although Assagioli is trying to do something far more important than Sigmund Freud... but he fails. If you study both, Sigmund Freud looks like a genius. Assagioli looks just a pigmy by his side.
And, let me emphasize again, he is trying to do something far bigger, far more important than Sigmund Freud, but Freud succeeds because he is doing the right kind of work that the mind is capable of doing. Assagioli is trying to do the same thing as Tao but through the mind. Mind is NOT capable of synthesizing. Tao does it from a totally different dimension: it goes beyond mind, it goes into no-mind. And when you reach into no-mind synthesis happens - not that you have to do anything about it.
Assagioli's synthesis is man-made, man-manufactured. Hence it is more like a hotchpotch, somehow trying to make two opposites meet, but they are unwilling to meet; forcing them to meet, but basically, because they are opposites, they cannot meet. And he is using the mind which cannot create synthesis, which is capable only of analysis.
Tao uses meditation, not mind. It is not interested in synthesis at all. It simply moves beyond the mind, and then synthesis comes like a shadow. You can see it happening here.
For example... Take a more contemporary example. Just few years before Mahatma Gandhi tried a great experiment of synthesizing all the religions. He utterly failed. It was bound to happen because he was trying to manufacture synthesis, and synthesis cannot be manufactured. He was trying to do it through the mind. He knew nothing of meditation, he never tried meditation. In the name of religion, all that he knew was prayer - and prayer is of the mind; it is not meditation, it is talking to God. Just as you talk with others you can talk to a God, who may be just imaginary, who is in fact imaginary, because there is no person there.
Prayer is a dialogue, dialogue between you and an imaginary God. Meditation is silence - no dialogue, no monologue either.
Gandhi knew nothing of meditation, but he tried hard to create a certain facade of synthesis. What you can do through the intellect?
Basically he was a Hindu and he remained a Hindu all his life, to the very end. He calls Bhagavad Gita his mother, but he never calls Koran his father - not even an uncle. Although he talks about that the teaching is the same, but the way he manages is absolutely political - clever, cunning, but not authentic. It is a mind effort, it cannot be authentic. He does it well. What he does is: whatsoever he finds in Koran, in Bible, in Dhammapada, which is in agreement with Gita, he immediately picks it up, and he says, "Look! All the religions teach the same thing."
But there are many things which go against Gita in the Bible, which go against Gita in the Koran, in the Dhammapada. He does not take any note of them, he ignores them; he knows he will not be able to manage, to cope with them, so his synthesis is bogus. In fact, he reads Gita everywhere; wherever he can find Gita echoed, he immediately says, "Look! They are talking the same thing."
But what about the differences? What about the totally opposite standpoints? For example, Koran does not believe in nonviolence. Mohammed never believed in non-violence; he himself carried a sword always, he fought many wars. And Gandhi believes in nonviolence But Koran is a big book; you can find few pieces from here, from there which can support love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, and you can use them as if Mohammed is supporting nonviolence.
Mahavira supports nonviolence, Buddha supports nonviolence; even Krishna in Gita does not support non-violence. Then Gandhi does a political trick again. He says the war in which Gita was spoken for the first time, the great war called Mahabharat, in which Arjuna became aware of the fact that millions of people will die and the whole thing seems to be useless - just for the power, for treasures, for kingdom, to kill so many people... A great desire to renounce the world arose in him. And he wanted to renounce, and he said, "It is better I should go to the mountains, become a sannyasin," and Krishna persuades him to fight because "That is your duty. God wants you to fight.
Surrender to God's will; don't bring your own will in, don't bring your mind in. You be in a let-go and let God function through you."
Arjuna argues in many ways, but finally Krishna wins him over, convinces him of the neCessity of war, because, he says, "This is the war of right against wrong, of religion against irreligion, of light against darkness, of divine forces against evil forces."
Now Gandhi played a trick. He said that this war is only a metaphor, it never happened in reality, it is not historical. It is really the inner war in man between the forces of evil and the forces of God, it is the inner war between darkness and light. And Krishna is saying to Arjuna, "Don't escape from the inner war - fight it and win over the darkness."
Now this is a very cunning strategy. Nobody before Gandhi has ever said that the war between the Pandavas and the Korvas was just a metaphor. For five thousand years, thousands of commentaries have been written on Gita; nobody has said that it is a metaphor, it has always been known as a reality. But Gandhi has to call it a metaphor, otherwise he will not be able to synthesize religions.
And Jainism and Buddhism are two of the most important religions - they have to be incorporated.
And Jesus also creates many troubles, because Jesus goes into the temple of Jerusalem, becomes very angry, takes a whip, hits the money-changers, turns their boards, throws them out of the temple.
Now, a non-violent person cannot be so angry. If Gandhi was asked, he will say, "Go for a fast. Sit in front of the money-changers and do a fast unto death unless they stop money-changing in the temple. That will be the non-violent way to transform their hearts." But taking a whip in your hand and hitting them and turning their boards and throwing them out of the temple does not seem to be very non-violent.
He never talks about it. He drops the whole matter. He only talks about Beatitudes: "Blessed are the meek for theirs is the kingdom of God." But Jesus does not seem to be so meek. This man is meek who is turning money-changers' boards and throwing them out of the temple? Is he meek?
Can you call him meek? He is a warrior. He cannot tolerate such nonsense in the temple. He said, "You have polluted the house of my father. Get out from here!"
Gandhi chooses only pieces and then makes a hotch-potch which he calls synthesis of all religions. It never happened. Neither the Mohammedans were convinced with him, nor the Hindus. He could not even convince Hindus - he was a Hindu - and he was murdered by a Hindu. He could not convince Hindus. He could not convince Jains either, because they continuously believed that Krishna is not a good man.
In Jain mythology Krishna is thrown into seventh hell for the simple reason because he distracted Arjuna, who was going to renounce war. He forced him, persuaded him, convinced him, seduced him by beautiful logic - silenced him somehow - to fight. And millions of people died. Who is responsible for all this violence, for all this blood? He is responsible - more responsible than Arjuna.
Jains have never forgiven him; not even after Gandhi a single Jain has written a book in which Krishna is forgiven or accepted. What to say of Krishna? Jains don't even agree with Buddhists and their nonviolence, Buddhists don't agree with the nonviolence of the Jains. They both are non- violent, but their nonviolences are different.
Jains say, "Don't kill. Don't eat meat." Buddha has said, "Don't kill, but meat you can eat if the animal has died on his own accord - then what is wrong in eating the meat of the animal?"
Now that is a big problem between Jains and the Buddhists. And I think that Jains are right in a way.
Logically Buddha is right, that killing is bad - "Don't kill animals. They have life, as much life as you have, and they want to live as long as you want to live. Don't kill them. But when an animal has died, why waste his meat? It can be used as food. Its skin can be used, its meat can be used, its bones can be used. They should be used. Why waste them?" He seems to be very pragmatic; he was a pragmatic man.
But Jains are also right. They say that once you allow that meat-eating is not bad, then who is going to decide whether the animal has died on his own or not?
And that's exactly what has happened: in China, in Japan, in Korea, in Burma, in the whole of Asia, Buddhists eat meat. So many animals don't die every day on their own accord! All the five-star hotels in the whole of Asia, from where they get the meat? And if this meat comes from natural death of the animals, then why so many butchers exist in Buddhist countries and so many butcheries? - for what reason? Every hotel in Buddhist country keeps a signboard that, "Here only that meat is served which comes from a naturally dead animal - one who has died a natural death."
Man is so tricky that he will find a way; if you give him just a little loophole he will find a way out. No loophole should be given, that was Mahavira's emphasis.
Gandhi could not convince anybody, but here you are seeing a synthesis happening on its own accord. And I am not interested in synthesizing anything. I never talk about synthesizing religions - but it is happening. Here you will find all religions, people belonging to different religions. Nobody bothers who is a Jew, who is a Mohammedan, who is a Hindu, who is a Jain, who is a Buddhist, who is a Parsee; nobody takes any note of it.
A synthesis is happening. It is not being manufactured; it is happening through meditation not through mentation. This is true synthesis. It is happening through transcendence. When you meditate you go beyond the mind. When you go beyond the mind you are no more a Christian, no more a Hindu, no more a Jain, no more a Jew. You are simply a consciousness, a pure consciousness, a mirror-like clarity. That clarity is true synthesis.
Yoga Bhakti, you ask: IS TAO A SYNTHESIS OF THE PATHS OF LOVE AND AWARENESS?
In a sense, no; in a sense, yes.
The fourth question:
I AM DEEPLY INTERESTED IN YOUR WORKS, BUT STILL I AM AFRAID OF TAKING SANNYAS - WHY?
SIR YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN HERE - the question has come by post - what do you know about my works? You have never participated in what is going on here; you don't have any direct experience.
And what is happening here is not an abstract philosophy, it is a very concrete experience. Hence you must be interested in my WORDS, not in my works. You must be reading my words - and my words don't contain me, or my work. They only contain invitation to come here, to be here. They are just invitations, nothing else. They cannot carry my truth to you. You have to be here to be with me, to live with me. And you have not come here yet.
I have received many questions from Bavasimhan, many times. This is for the first time I am answering him. But all his questions have come by the post - he lives somewhere in Madras; it is not that far away. But it must be fear that is preventing you - the fear of being here, the fear that if you are here there is every possibility that you may take the jump into sannyas. It is almost impossible to be here and not to become a sannyasin, unless you are absolutely dead, insensitive, dull; unless you have such a mediocre mind that you cannot understand; unless you are so much prejudiced already that you have arrived at all the conclusions; unless you are so much knowledgeable that you think there is nothing more left to know and learn, sannyas is bound to happen. That fear is preventing you from coming here.
And in this question the fear has come up. It is good that you have recognized it, because in other questions you have been trying to avoid it - not only trying to avoid it, you have been trying to rationalize it. In one question you wrote: "What is the need of an outer sannyas? I am already an inner sannyasin." Then what is the need of writing an outer letter to me?Just go on writing inner letters, that's enough. Then what is the need of reading my books? They are very outer things.
These are cunning rationalizations.
In another question, Bavasimhan, you had written that you want to take sannyas, but from my own hands. And you wrote that, "I have heard that now Indians are being given sannyas by some of your disciples. I can take sannyas only from you."
I have been giving sannyas for ten years. You never wrote that before. Now, hearing that now Indians are getting sannyas from some disciples, you must have thought, "This is a good strategy, a good protection - to make a condition." Come here. I will give you sannyas! Don't be worried about that.
Now you ask... and this is more authentic, that's why I'm answering:
I AM DEEPLY INTERESTED IN YOUR WORKS, read "words", BUT STILL I AM AFRAID OF TAKING SANNYAS - WHY?
Because words are words, and sannyas means a real transformation. And you must be clever with words. Seeing your so many letters and questions, it is very apparent that you are well acquainted with philosophical terminology, with abstract ideas, with esoteric jargon.
Angelo and his buddy Frank were strolling along a Pittsburgh street. After a long silence Angelo said, "Eh, what is eatin' you?"
"Aah, somethin' has been botherin' me for days," said Frank. "Maybe it ain't none of my business, but you and me have been buddies for years and I just gotta tell ya."
"Go 'head, spill it!" said Angelo.
"Last Saturday night I was in a whorehouse and who do I see there but your wife, Betty. I hate to say it, Angelo, but Betty is a prostitute!"
"Nah! Betty ain't no prostitute!" answered Angelo. "She's just a substitute. She's only there on weekends!"
People who are clever with words get lost into a jungle of words. You seem to be very clever with words.
That's why people go on reading the Gita, the Vedas, the Bible, the Koran - because now Mohammed is not there so there is no danger;Jesus is not there, so there is no danger of meeting him; Krishna is not there, so you can play around with words at your ease, to your heart's content - you can manage to put any meaning in them that you want. But I am still here. You cannot go on playing with my words. If you become interested in my words, a desire is bound to arise to come here. And then the fear - the fear that if you are really getting interested into words, who knows? - you may get interested into the person himself. And then there is no going back.
It is easy to play with words; it does not disturb your sleep, it does not disturb your unconsciousness, it does not disturb your dreams. But being with a Master is a disturbance, a great disturbance.
A drunk staggered into a fairground, went to the rifle range. "Give me ten shots," he belched.
"That will be twenty pence," said the attendant, smirking.
The drunk fired and each shot was a perfect bull's-eye.
The attendant was amazed and gave the man his prize - a large tortoise.
Some time later the drunk returned again, fired ten shots, each one a bull's-eye.
"You can have any prize you choose," said the surprised attendant.
"I will have another one of those crunchy meat pies!" said the drunk.
It is very easy with the words - you can befool yourself But here I am going to hit you hard, I am going to break your skull. And then, naturally, dreams escape. I make windows in people's skulls, and all dreams escape.
All the inmates of an asylum are going for a swim in their new swimming pool.
"Okay," says the nurse, "enough for today! Tomorrow we meet again, same time, same place, and then we will do it again with water in the swimming pool!"
You are afraid of the water. In the empty swimming pool, with the words alone, you can enjoy.
Come to your senses! Everybody feels afraid of sannyas, because sannyas means commitment, sannyas means a love affair. Sannyas is not of the head, it is of the heart. It is getting into deep waters, and you have become accustomed of sitting on the shore dreaming, thinking, brooding.
Two drunkards are driving along a road at high speed, when suddenly one shouts to the other, "Careful, there is a dangerous curve ahead."
"Why are you shouting at me?" the other replies. "I thought you were driving!"
I mean business. I am not a philosopher - just the opposite - I am absolutely existential; hence my emphasis on sannyas, because I know unless you are committed, unless you are involved, unless you risk something, you cannot grow.
Words you can accumulate - as many as you like; it is very easy to have great words. And you live, Bavasimhan, in Madras. Adhyar is very close by - just few minutes drive on the outskirts of Madras.
You can go there. Adhyar has the most beautiful esoteric library in the whole world because it is the headquarters of the Theosophists - world headquarters. It contains all kinds of nonsense. You will never find anywhere else so much nonsense accumulated together in one place.
When I was in Madras the Adhyar people invited me to come, at least for few minutes. I said, "I will come."
I went there. They showed me around - it is a beautiful place - they showed their beautiful library.
And they asked me, "What do you think of our library?"
I said, "This is rare. I have seen many libraries, but no library contains so much nonsense."
They were shocked. They said, "What...?"
I said, "Yes. Theosophy is the most stupid thing that has happened in this century."
Bavasimhan, you can go to Adhyar - in fact, you must be going - you can find all old scriptures collected there, you can read beautiful things and you can remain the same. No change is expected of you. But coming here is a totally different thing. I am a no-nonsense man.
The little boy was pissing in the middle of the plaza when a good-humored guard passed by and said, "Don't pee there, little boy, or I will come by and cut your willie off!"
The little boy ran very fast, and when he got to the other side of the plaza, he saw a little girl his age, also pissing. He looked at the girl and exclaimed, "Oh my God! This guard really means business!"
That's why you are afraid - I REALLY mean business. Come and see, come and have a taste of it.
Don't miss this opportunity. Words will always be available to you, but to be in communion with a living Master is a rare opportunity; it happens only once in a while. Don't just go on writing stupid questions from Madras, come here. When people can come from Mexico... Madras is not very far off, not more than one hour's flight.
The fear is because you have become aware through the words that there is something more to words which is happening here. You are not afraid of me, you are not afraid of sannyas, you are afraid of your own longing - that you may take the jump. You are afraid of your own potential which is hankering to grow, which needs a certain opportunity, which needs a certain climate, which needs a certain energy field. That field is ready now, here. Come, drink out of it, and your thirst will be quenched forever. But you will have to pay the price.
Sannyas is simply the price. I know just by wearing orange clothes you cannot become enlightened, but it is a device. Just wearing orange clothes you will be known as a madman. That's what I want you all to be known all over the world: my mad people.
God is only for those who are mad enough, only for those who are mad for God. Just as people are mad for money and mad for power, unless you are mad for God there is no hope for you. You are afraid because here something CAN happen. And you know that there is a great desire and longing in you for that happening. The seed is there, and you know it needs only a right climate and right soil. And once you have the right soil the seed will start growing.
You are afraid of the unknown. Sannyas is a pilgrimage towards the unknown. It is a voyage into the uncharted. God is the unknown - not only the unknown but the unknowable.
Come! Jalaluddin Rumi says, "Come, come, come..." Again and again I say, "Come," because I may not be here for long.
The fifth question:
DO YOU ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH?
Yes sir, i always tell the truth, even if I have to lie a little.
The sixth question:
I WOULD LIKE TO MEET A WOMAN AND MARRY HER, WHO DOES NOT FLIRT, GIGGLE, GOSSIP, SMOKE, DRINK, PET OR KISS. IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Sir, just one question: Why? For what?
The seventh and the last question:
HAVE YOU REALLY BEEN WAITING FOR ME? I HAVE COME NOW. I WANT TO ASK YOU CAN YOUR HUGGING, KISSING SANNYASINS EVER ENTER HEAVEN?
I AM HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE COME. Welcome home. So now the whole trinity is here: Banana, Potato, Tomato. This looks far more delicious than God the father, and Jesus the son, and holy ghost. The writings of all the three persons is exactly the same. So it is more like trimurti, three faces of one God, rather than trinity, rather than three persons. It is not three persons but one person with three faces. Moreover, the writing is not that of a man but that of a woman, which makes it even more mysterious.
Just this morning I asked Vivek to bring one banana, one tomato, one potato, so I can determine the sex - whether they are men or women. I tried every possible way: Patanjali Yoga, all kinds of yoga postures, standing on my head - which I have not done for twenty-five years; I looked from every possible angle - I even tried a little whirling. But when I started whirling I became even more confused: the banana started looking like a potato, the potato started looking like a tomato, the tomato started looking like a banana... Then I remembered, maybe it is a hangover. Last night Arup's boyfriend, Niranjan, has come back with good beer for me, so I had taken too much.
When nothing worked and I could not manage what these people are, men or women, I became so tired with all this great spiritual effort that I told them to fuck off. At that very moment Vivek came out from the bathroom, shocked. She said to me, "Osho, that is no way to talk to such innocent people like bananas, potatoes and tomatoes. Just tell them to scat and they will fuck off!"
You are asking, Michael Tomato, that CAN YOUR KISSING AND HUGGING SANNYASINS EVER ENTER HEAVEN?
I think you don't know anything up-to-date about heaven. You must be having very old ideas. Yes, in the old days it was difficult, but God always remains up-to-date. He is always contemporary. Who else can be more contemporary than God? In fact, now your so-called saints cannot enter into heaven, only my sannyasins.
The Pope arrives in New York and wants to meet the Archbishop. He is told that the Archbishop is spending the day at the beach, so the Pope, curious, decides to go and meet him there.
He is met by an extremely handsome, muscular man with a beautiful tan, wearing a red bathing suit, who, with a big smile, asks the Pope, "What is the news from Rome?"
While the Pope is too astonished to reply, the Archbishop turns to a beautiful young lady wearing a white bikini, and calls to her, "Mary, come to see who's here!"
The Pope, in consternation, asks, "Who... who... who is that lady?"
"Oh," replied the Archbishop, "she is the Mother Superior of the Sacred Heart Convent!"
Things are changing, Mr. Tomato. Your old idea of heaven just exists in your scriptures, in your head. It has disappeared from existence. I am preparing my people in the latest possible way. They will be the first to enter.
Three nuns die and they meet at the main gate of heaven.
Saint Peter comes out and says, "So girls! Before you come in I must ask you one question: What did you use your pussy for when you were in the world?"
"Only for pissing!" answers the first one.
"Good, and what about you?" he asks the second one.
"Just for pissing," answers the second nun.
"Good," he says and he turns to the third one.
"Well..." she starts and then hesitates. "Ahem... well... you know... I met this nice young priest and...
he was so nice that... well, I couldn't resist, so I gave him my pussy!"
"Okay," says Saint Peter to the last one, "you can come in. But you two, I'm sorry, you're not allowed!"
The two nuns, very offended, ask, "Why?" and Saint Peter answers, "Heaven is not a piss house!"