Religion Is Individual Flowering

The first question:

Question 1:

GOD IS NOT EXPRESSIBLE in any word whatever. Call Him 'he', and the word falls short; call him 'she' and the word falls short; call him 'it', and the word falls short, very short. If 'he' reminds you of a personality, 'it' will remind you of a thing. If 'he' reminds you of the male, 'she' will remind you of the female - because all words are created by human beings for human use, and God is not a human creation. So whatsoever you call Him is going to be only symbolic.

Choose any symbol you like: if you feel like calling Him 'it' call Him 'it'. But remember, 'it' has its own limitations, 'It' is used for things, for dead things; and 'it' has another limitation: it is very neutral. 'It' is not responsive; if you say something to 'it', there will be no response, and love needs response.

You can talk to a wall, but there will be no response; it will be a monologue. God is called 'He' so that your prater can become a dialogue. Otherwise it will be a monologue - and mad: the 'it' cannot answer it, the 'it' cannot be responsive, the 'it' cannot care about you. The 'it' is neutral. Whether you pray or not makes no difference; whether you worship or not makes no difference; whether you are or not makes no difference - the 'it' will be very stoney. If 'he' is creating trouble, 'it' will create more trouble, mind you. How can you love the 'it'? You can possess the 'it', you can use the 'it' - but how can you love 'it'?

In that way, 'he' seems to be the best, for many reasons. Let me explain it to you. First, it gives a personality to God: God becomes a person - alive, with a beating heart, breathing, pulsating. You can call Him, and you can trust that there will be a response. You can look at Him, you can feel Him, and you can trust that He will also feel for you. The personality helps you to commune, to pray, to relate. If God has no personality it will be so beyond you, it will be inconceivable. You are a person, you need a God who is a person too - because you can relate only to a person. Unless you have become an impersonal being, you cannot relate to an impersonal being. Religions have existed, particularly in the east - Buddhism, Jainism, - which don't talk about God at all. But then they cannot talk about prayer, and they cannot talk about love. The moment they drop the idea of God, of a personal God, of a creator, of somebody there who can look at you, hold you hand, embrace you; the moment they drop the idea of a personal God, they have to drop the idea of prayer as a corollary, as a necessary corollary. Worship has to be dropped, prayer has to be dropped, singing, dancing, have to be dropped - because for whom do you sing, and for whom do you dance? There is nobody, only stoney eyes all around.

And existence is so vast.... You say, "Why not say is-ness?" How will you relate with is-ness? It will be so vast; you will not be able to embrace it.

With the 'he', God becomes as small as you are. You can hold His hand. The hand of is-ness?

- it is not possible. With 'he' He becomes warm; is-ness is cold, existence is cold. You will freeze! Jainism, Buddhism, dropped the idea of God because of these problems - philosophical, philological; problems that arise out of language and grammar and logic. They dropped the idea, the very idea. But then prayer disappeared, and Jainism became poor for that..Meditation remained...

a very lonely effort.

Have you watched it? - you can meditate alone, you can pray together. Prayer is a communion.

Christians, Mohammedans, Jews - they know what prayer is. Jainism and Buddhism completely lost track of prayers. And prayer has a beauty of its own. A meditator seems to be closed in himself, he has no opening. He is thrown to himself in a deep aloneness. Silent he can become, but ecstatic he cannot become.

Ecstasy happens only when there are two, love happens only when there are two. When you are alone, you can be silent, still, but you cannot be throbbing with joy, you cannot dance. The Sufi dances because he calls God; he can invoke God in a personal way.Jainism and Buddhism became very poor. And when Buddhism spread outside of India, it started talking about Buddha as a God - and through Buddha, again prayer entered. In Jainism prayer never entered, and Jainism could never spread. It remained a very tiny sect, dead. It is inhuman.

Is-ness, existence, totality - big words, but dead. They don't pulsate. How do you relate with totality, tell me? How will you call totality? How will you connect yourself with totality? You will be too tiny, and the vastness of totality is so big, you will be lost.

No, God has to be conceived in a human way. To call Him 'he' is very human. Yes, by and by, when you approach Him, you learn Him, you imbibe Him, one day there will be no need to call Him 'he'.

You can drop that. Once the contact is made, once your boundaries and His boundaries are no more separate, when your boundaries and His boundaries have blended into one existence, then there will be no need. You can simply bow down without even using a single word. You can simply sit in silence and prayer will be there. You will be praying without any prayer. But that is a later development. In the beginning, you will be at a loss if you don't call Him by any personal name, if you don't make Him personal.

Now, there are two possibilities: either you call Him 'he', or you call Him 'she' - booth have been used.Sufis call Him 'she': the beloved, the feminine. Christians, Jews, call Him 'he', it means you need not go in search for Him; He will come, He's the male. And that is the beauty of it: the woman can wait, and the lover will come.

Jews say: You are not only in search of God, God is searching for you. That's the beauty of the pronoun 'he'. These are symbolic, significant, can be of tremendous value. Jews say: He is searching for you; you can wait like a woman, you can become a tremendous awaiting, just an awaiting, just an opening, ready to receive the guest. And the guest is coming, because the male comes in search of female.

Sufis call Him 'she'; then the whole journey changes: then you have to seek Him, then you have to find Him. Of course, the journey becomes more difficult. If you have to seek God, it seems almost impossible that you will succeed. Where will you seek Him? - the address is not known. Even if He comes by you will not be able to recognize Him, He will be such a stranger. You have never recognized Him, so how will you re-recognize Him, He will be such a stranger.You have never seen him before, so how are you going to decide, 'Yes, here is God'? It is going to be difficult. And where will you go? - to Kasi, to Mathura, to Mecca, to Jerusalem? Where will you go? To the Himalayas?

Where will you go? How will you move? What will be your direction? From the very beginning there will be confusion.

It is better to wait than to go in search of Him. It is better to wait, and trust, and pray, and let Him come to you. That is the meaning of calling Him 'he' - that He can come. You become the feminine, then He becomes the male - and the play starts. If you become the male, of course then it is you responsibility to seek Him. the Sufi goes to God; for the Jew, God comes to him; for the Hassid, God come to him.

Now it is for you to decide. I am not saying to call Him 'he'; it is for you to decide. It appears to me that 'he' is more economical more clever, but if you belong to the women's lib movement you can call Him 'she'. But then you have to understand the implications of it. It is not only a question of grammar; not only a question of philology, language. It is taking a certain attitude. By calling Him 'he', you declare yourself a woman: with that, it is a totally different endeavor. By calling Him 'she', you call yourself a man. Man is aggressive. If you call Him 'she' you will become aggressive, you will start conquering God. Then god will have to surrender to you. How can you surrender to God?

then you will be too much in you male-aggressive mind.

But if you call Him 'he', you have to surrender to Him. He has to come and defeat you, and make you victorious in your defeat. He has to come and overpower you, and flood you, and destroy you, annihilate you - and recreate you.

My feeling is still this: call Him 'he'. You will be benefitted, you will be blessed.

And the second question is also there in the first question:

'WELL I SEE NOW THAT THE QUESTION IS AN ENTRY INTO MY PROBLEM: HOW CAN I TRUST OR COME TO LOVE YOUR AUTHORITY?'

I have no authority. You need not trust my authority. I'm just a person, a presence; I am not an authority. I am not proving anything to you, I am not arguing for something, I am not advocating any theory or philosophy, I am not trying to convince you about anything whatsoever.

I have no authority because I don't belong to any tradition. Only traditions can have authority. A Hindu has authority - from the VEDAS, UPANISHADS, GITA; the Mohammedan has authority from the KORAN; the Christian has authority from the BIBLE, from the Pope. Authority comes from tradition; I am non-traditional I am not claiming any tradition. I cannot say that whatsoever I am saying is right because the VEDAS also say it. I cannot quote. I cannot say that whatsoever I am saying is right, HAS to be right, because Jesus also says the same, Mohammed also says the same.

No, I am not taking any support from anybody else: whatsoever I am saying, I am saying. I know it that way. I have no other authority than myself. I am a presence, a person. You need not trust my authority, I am not an expert.... I am a rebel; how can I have any authority? My own experience is all that I have. You can look into me, you can look into my eyes, you can feel me, you can drink me, and that will decide.

And this is not going to be a relationship between an authoritative person and one who has no authority. This is not going to he a relationship between the knower and the ignorant; this is not going to be a relationship between a teacher and a student. No, the professor in the university has the authority, and the student has to learn from him. He knows what is right and he knows what is wrong, and the student simply has to yield to him.

I am not in any way authoritative. I am here: I am a declaration, a revelation. You listen to me, you imbibe me, you drink me. If the very taste decides something, it's okay; if it doesn't decide, then I am not for you, you are not for me. Then say good-bye to me. Then there is no need to hang around here; it will be futile. It is a love-affair. When you love a person you don't ask for the authority. Love is mad, it is crazy.

I am here only for those courageous people who can be crazy with me. I exist for the eccentrics. I exist only for the very chosen few, the eccentrics: those who are ready to go with me into the dark; who are ready to go with me and risk. And I am not promising you anything.

I cannot promise, in the very nature of things. Truth cannot be promised, you have to feel it.

Remember, authority appeals to the head, to the reason. I don't appeal to the reason, my appeal is to the heart. The heart does not bother about authority. When you fall in love with a woman, do you ask for authority? Has she any authority from Cleopatra that she is beautiful? Do you ask for certificates? - has she been certified by experts that she is really a beauty? Do you take her to the doctor to examine her, to the aesthetic philosopher to decide whether she is really a beauty? No, even if the whole world says that she is beautiful, you say, 'I don't care. I love her, and I know that she is beautiful.' She is beautiful because you love, not otherwise. You don't love her because she is beautiful; she becomes beautiful because you love her.

I become an authority of you love me, not otherwise. If you are asking for the authority, then you will never love me. Then it is better that we take leave of each other-the sooner the better. I am not going to produce any authority; I have none. You have to look into the person himself. You have to look into me, any presence, you have to feel it intimately.

That's why I say that courage is needed, and only the courageous can love. Love is the greatest courage in the world - because it cannot depend on anything else, it has to depend just on a hunch, it has to depend on intuition; it cannot depend on intellect. There is no proof. Love asks for no other proof, and love cannot produce any proof.

Jews had to reject Jesus. Why? - because he could not produce the authority. 'But what authority?' they were asking again and again - 'But what authority do you speak? Who has given you the authority to speak?' Who can give authority to Jesus? And whatsoever he said was absurd. He said, 'Authority? Before Abraham was, I am.' Now, Abraham is the most respected prophet of the Jews. And Jesus says: Before Abraham was, I am. Even Abraham cannot make me authoritative. I am not following Abraham, I have preceded him.

Now this is absurd, because the time gap is so vast; Abraham was thousands of years before. And Jesus says: Before Abraham was, EVER was, I am. My existence precedes Abraham's. Who can give me authority? And he is right, because the source that he has touched in himself it internal. The source he has touched in himself needs no authority to prove it. On the contrary: Jesus becomes the proof that Abraham was right. This is preposterous.

That's what I am saying: I am the proof that Krishna was right; I am the proof that Buddha was right; I am the proof that Jesus was right, not otherwise.

So I have no authority. I am here - take it or leave it.

The second question:

Question 2:

In one question there are three questions. First: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT KNOWLEDGE IS UNDERSTANDING. No, sir. Knowledge is never understanding. Knowledge is a deception of understanding. Knowledge is a pseudo-coin, a substitute; it is not understanding. Knowledge is borrowed, understanding is never borrowed. Understanding is yours, knowledge is always of others.

Understanding arises out of your awareness, knowledge arises out of your learning. And the process are totally different, diametrically opposite. If you want to understand you will have to unlearn all that you have learned. Knowledge functions as a barrier, knowledge has to be dropped. The known has to cease for the unknown to be.

Understanding is of the unknown, knowledge is of the known. Knowledge is your memory, understanding is your very being. Knowledge is borrowed light. Knowledge is like the moon, understanding is like the sun. The moon lives on the borrowed light; it reflects sunrays, it has no light of its own. The sun has its own light.

You say, 'My understanding is that knowledge is understanding.' Then you have misunderstood, sir.

Second: THE WISDOM OF THE SAGES IS THE WISDOM OF THE AGES. No, not at all. The wisdom of the sages has no relationship with time. It is not the wisdom of the ages. That is a totally different thing. The wisdom of the ages is nothing but the collective knowledge, the collective experience of humanity. People have lived, people have experienced; by and by, they go on deducing some knowledge out of their experience.

The masses... the wisdom of the ages comes through the masses. It is a mass product: it comes out of time, out of experience. And the wisdom of the sages never comes out of time, it come out of timelessness. When a person goes beyond time then he becomes wise. When a person moves into time he becomes knowledgeable. An old man is knowledgeable; an old man is not necessarily wise, remember. An old man is not necessarily wise-and a wise man is not necessarily old.

Shankaracharya was very young; when he was thirty-three he died. But he was tremendously wise. Buddha was near about forty when he became enlightened. Mohammed was near about forty when he became enlightened. They were facing older people than themselves; that was one of the conflict. When Buddha went to his own father, of course, the father was the father. And as fathers are, the father laughed at the stupidity. He said. 'What? Do you want to teach me? You are my son. I am older than you, I am your father. I have known the world, I have known life - its miseries, its blessings. Certainly I know more than you know!' And Buddha said, 'That's right, sir. You know more as far as knowledge is concerned, your memory is far bigger than mine. But I have not brought knowledge to you. I have brought something totally new an inner light has arisen in me, a flame.

And I see you are living in darkness.' The father felt hurt. His ego was hurt, he was angry.

Certainly, Jesus was very young. And if the old rabbis were not ready to listen to him, it seems absolutely okay. Why should they listen to a young man who has not known the world, who has not lived yet? Jesus was only thirty-three when he was crucified. He started preaching when he was thirty - very young - and suddenly. People had known him working in his father's workshop, cutting wood, polishing wood. He was a carpenter's son. Nobody had ever dreamed that this boy suddenly would become a wise man. The one day he declared that he is the Messiah, that he is the son of God. Certainly, how could people believe it? They had known him as a carpenter; he was making furniture for them, and he was doing ordinary jobs in the town - and suddenly he declared? 'He must have gone mad.'

Remember, it is always wisdom which is crucified on the cross, because the knowledgeable people cannot tolerate it. It offends, it is offensive.

Wisdom is always timeless; it has nothing to do with your life experience. And what you call 'the wisdom of the ages' is totally different - it is a mass product. People have lived on earth so long, and they have experienced many things, and of course they have deduced, they have come to certain conclusions. Wisdom is not a conclusion. It is not out of experience; wisdom is illumination, wisdom is revelation. It is sudden, like lightening. It is unproved, it cannot be proved. In the very nature of its truth, it cannot be proved. You have to fall in love with it or not. It is so sudden and unrelated with your life situations and experiences - how can it be proved? What proof can Jesus give to you? He gave his own life, but he could not give any proof.

Do you remember? The last thing he was asked before he was crucified: Pilate, the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate asked him, 'What is truth?' And Jesus remained silent. He looked into the eyes of the governor but he didn't say a single word. Why did Jesus remain silent? He should have said something... but truth cannot be said. And it is foolish to ask a person like Jesus, 'What is truth?' Jesus is not a pundit; he is not a professor, he is not a philosopher. He is not going to give a theory about truth, he is truth himself. He stood there absolutely in silence; he made himself available, he made his presence available.

But Pilate could not understand it; he could not see truth. He was hankering for a few words, that this man would say a few words. And this man didn't say a single thing - and yet he asserted everything that can be said about truth. He revealed himself: he was there, his presence was there, his vibe was there. If Pilate had been a little perceptive, he would have known what truth is.

Truth is not out of the experience of ages; truth is not an experience at all. When all experiences disappear, and only the experiencer is left in pure consciousness.... Consciousness without content is what truth is. It is not an experience; it is not that you experience something. No, nothing is left to experience, nothing whatsoever - just a pure sky, no object, only the subjectivity, throbbing with totality, dancing; just the subjectivity, just pure consciousness without any content. It is not an experience.

Let me tell you in this way: God is not an experience, it is beyond experience. The world is an experience, God is not an experience. Experience is possible in duality only. When I am separate from you I can experience you. When I am one with you, how can I experience you? How will I divide the experiencer and the experience, the knower and the known, the seer and the seen? No, it is not possible. The subject and the object have lost their boundaries; they have become one - now who is the knower and who is the known?

Wisdom is that lightening where the known and the knower become one, when the seer and the seen become one, when all duality disappears and only one remains, only one. In experience the other is needed; experience is other-based, other-oriented.

You say, 'The wisdom of the ages is the wisdom of the sages.' It is not. The wisdom of the sages is timeless: it is beyond experience, it is transcendental; and the wisdom of the ages is mundane, temporal, based in experience.

And third: PLEASE LEAD ME TO WISDOM. That is not possible. If somebody else leads you, it will be knowledge. Again you will be trapped in knowledge. Nobody can lead you into wisdom - because the other will be the cause of knowledge. Only you can be the cause of your own wisdom.

The you can ask, 'What are you doing here?' I am not leading you into wisdom. I can do only one thing, a negative thing: I am trying to destroy your knowledge. I am simply removing the hindrance, the barrier; I am simply removing the rock in your path, that's all. And the rock is knowledge. Once that rock is removed you will start flowing. The fountain is there, blocked by the rock.

Your wisdom is with you; it is your life energy, it is your vitality, it is your ELAN. It is there. Once you become daring enough o drop knowledge, once you become daring enough to be innocent, daring enough to be ignorant; once you can say 'I don't know'; Once you have gathered that courage to declare, 'I don't know, and all that I know is just illusory, all my knowledge is borrowed, bogus, empty' - the moment you drop your knowledge, wisdom arises.

I cannot lead you to wisdom. Wisdom will arise in you, it will well up in your being. Just drop the rock that you are carrying - and that rock is of knowledge.

And if you think that knowledge is understanding. then how are you going to drop the rock? Then you will protect it. If you think knowledge is wisdom, then of course I will look to you like an enemy who is trying to take your wisdom away.

The Master can only be negative; the Master cannot give you anything positive. And avoid anybody who says to you that he is going to give you something positive. Avoid.... The Master is just a help to remove the barrier, The Master is VIA NEGATIVE; he's the path of negation. He simply takes away: he says, 'This is not true, This is not true, this is not true' - he goes on eliminating. One day suddenly he has taken all the props away from you: you collapse, you collapse in wisdom. One day suddenly, when all your endurances have been taken away, something arises in you, pops in you - like lightening. That's what wisdom is: it is your innermost nature. It cannot be given to you.

There are three types of teachers in the world: one I call the charismatic, another I call the methodical, and the third I call the natural. These three divisions are also the divisions of therapists too; there are three types of therapist: charismatic, methodical, natural. The division has to be understood.

'Charisma' comes from a Greek word meaning spirit, full of spirit. The charismatic leader is so full of spirit that if you go to him you will become a slave. He is so full of spirit, he will overpower you; he will not bother about you; he will become a leader.

I am not a leader, I am not a charismatic Master, a charismatic teacher, because a charismatic teacher is dangerous: he kills you, you are nullified, your being is effaced. To be under the guidance of charismatic person is like trying to grow under a big tree - impossible. It is impossible. You may think the tree is protective but to grow under a big tree is impossible.

You see a big oak? Thousands of acorns fall under the oak and die. They never grow, they cannot grow. They may be deluded because they will be under the mother tree and there will be protection - but the protection is poisonous. The acorn has to go far away, has to be independent; only then can it become a tree. Otherwise it will never become a tree.

The charismatic person is dangerous, and people are very much attracted to the charismatic person.

The charismatic person is never a true Master; he becomes a slavedriver. The charismatic is more of a politician than a religious person. Adolf Hitler is charismatic, Mussolini is charismatic. Leaders are charismatic: they have to lead people, they have to make slaves people, they have to dominate and dictate.

The second type of teacher-Master-leader is methodical. He uses methods, not spirits. He will not overpower you with his spirit, he will simply give you methods - better than the first, because he will never make you a slave.

The word 'method' again comes from a Greek root which means 'to follow'. The second type of leader-Master-teacher will follow the disciple; he will give a method. He will never lead you, he will follow you. The second type of therapist will follow the patient: he will listen to the patient, he will try to find out what the patient's need is; he will listen to the student, to the disciple. He will look at you, and he will help you from behind. He will never be ahead of you; he will push rather than pull you.

He will not drive you, he will simply persuade you.

The second is better. Of course, many people are attracted to the first and very few are attracted to the second.

The third natural Master, the natural healer: he never leads you, he never follows you, he accompanies you. He simply holds your hand; he is a friend. Buddha has said, 'Next time when I will be coming, my name will be Maitreya, 'the friend'.' And it is very significant.

Buddha says that in his life as Gautam Buddha he was too charismatic - so full of power, energy, ELAN, spirits, that he overpowered people. Mahavira was more methodical. And Buddha says,'Next time when I come, my name is going to be Maitreya.' 'Maitreya' means the friend. Very symbolically he says, 'Next time, I am going to accompany you. I will be a friend. I will not lead in front of you, I will not push you from the back, I will just hold your hand as a friend.' This is the natural, this is the best. And this is most difficult to find - because you attract, you feel attracted towards, charismatic persons, miraculous persons, or you become attracted towards the methodical.

The natural is the best but the least attractive. He is very simple and ordinary. He has no charisma, he does not dazzle you. And he is not very methodical, he is not very technological, he is not very scientific; he is more poetic, he's more chaotic. He's more natural, as chaotic as nature is.

I am a natural person. I have no charisma, and I don't believe in charisma. I don't believe in methods-even if I use them, I don't believe in them.

I am a natural person, very ordinary. I can be lost in a crowd and you will not be able to find me. So I don't lead you, I accompany you. I can hold your hand, I can be your friend.

The third question:

Question 3:

Directly or indirectly, he is not proposing any religious society. And the way he proposes that he is going to bring this classless society and this stateless society, is really absurd. He proposes through the state itself. He says, 'First the state has to become very dominant - dictatorship of the proletariat - and then one day, when the dictatorship of the proletariat has succeeded, then it will wither away.'

That is nonsense.

Nobody ever wants to leave power. Once it is there in your hands, nobody wants to leave it. The state will become more and more powerful. The society may disappear, but the state is not going to disappear. That's what has happened in Russia, that's what is happening in China. All Marx's predictions have proved false.

Through dictatorship, no society can come to a point where the state disappears: the state will become more and more powerful. And the people who will control the state, they will never like, they have never liked... who likes to lose his power? Power corrupts, and corrupts absolutely.

Karl Marx has no understanding of human psychology, of the human mind. He was acquainted with the structure of the society, with the economic structure of the society, but he was completely unaware of the human structure, of the psyche - and that is more important, because finally that is the decisive factor. He was not aware that Stalin would be born; he was not aware that Mao would be born. In fact, he was thinking America would become the first communist country, and he was wrong. He was thinking that a very affluent society, a capitalist society, would first become communist, because he thought that in a capitalist society the difference between the poor and the rich would be too big, and the poor would revolt.

But just the contrary has happened - two very poor countries have become communist; Russia and China, both are very poor. He could have not even imagined Russia EVEr becoming a communist country. Why not America?

In fact, the process has been totally different. The difference between the poor and the rich has not increased. In fact, they have come closer: the poor has become more and more rich in America.

The difference exists, but the difference is less than ever before. And of American society goes on progressing, one day America will become the first classless society possible.

And the difference is disappearing naturally: affluence is growing, riches are growing. You are so greedy about riches because they are so scarce. When everything is too much there, who bothers to hoard? For what? You don't hoard air, you don't hoard water. If everything else become so available, hoarding will disappear. That is the only natural course.

Communism is an abortion; it is unnatural. Capitalism is natural. And capitalism is going to disappear naturally - and that will be a natural death, as a man dies on the deathbed, slowly, slowly, slowly. It will not be an accident. A young man suddenly dies of a heart attack or a car accident....

Naturally death is good, because out of natural death, natural life is born.

I am not in favor of Karl Marx. And, in fact, he himself was not a proletarian. He himself was quite rich. In fact, to think about communism one needs to be quite rich. He remained in the British Museum his whole life, sitting, doing nothing, reading books.

I have heard an anecdote:

In the communist heaven, the equivalent of St. Peter stopped one applicant at the gate and asked, 'What are your qualifications for entering here?'

'Well,' said the man, 'on earth my father was a rich industrialist. My mother came from a family of middle-class tradesmen. Me? I was a successful writer, and finally, after inheriting a large sum of money, I married a baroness.'

The gatekeeper was choking with rage by this time. 'And those are your claims for entering our communist heaven?' he spluttered.

Meekly the applicant added one more line. 'I thought my name might help me,' he murmured. 'It's Karl Marx.'

Marx was not a poor man. Even to dream about communism, even to dream about utopias, one needs to be affluent. Communism is a by-product not of the proletariat's thinking but of middle class people. The middle-class people are the most frustrated people in the world. The poor man is not frustrated; he is poor and settled. And the rich man is not frustrated; he is rich and settled. The middleman is very frustrated: he wants to be rich, and he hopes he can be rich, and he feels the poverty like a shadow following him. he is in limbo.

The middle-class man is the most dangerous man. He is poor and rich bother, and he does not want to be poor and he wants to be rich. If he cannot be rich then he would like to destroy the whole society. He would like nobody to be rich.

And a miracle is happening in America: the rich is disappearing and the poor is disappearing, and the middle-class is becoming bigger and bigger and bigger. Just the opposite was the idea of Marx:

he was thinking that the rich would become richer and the poor would become poorer, and by and by the middle-class would be divided in two-parts: those who were rich would move to the rich, and those who were poor would fall down into poverty, and the society would be absolutely cut in two - the poor and the rich - and that would be the inevitable moment of revolution. This has not happened, this is not happening.

Just the contrary is happening: the middle-class is becoming bigger and bigger. The rich are one extreme of the middle-class now. The middle-class is the only class now. And this middle-class is going to become the classless society sooner or later. The classless society is going to come, but not through Marx - it is going to come through a totally natural process of capitalism, not through communism.

And Marx certainly was not a religious person at all; he was against religion. He was not really acquainted with religion. All that he knew about was Judaism and Christianity. He was a Jew, Freud was a Jew, Einstein was a Jew - the great name of the modern world were all Jews. Jews have suffered so much; they are very angry. And their anger comes in so many garbs. Marx's anger against society is in fact Jewish anger against a non-Jewish world. And he knew only Judaism and Christianity, which are not very developed religions. Had he known anything about Buddhism or Patanjali or the UPANISHADS, his ideas would have certainly been different. But he was not aware, and he was not in fact even trying to become aware. His religious understanding was very poor; he was an economist.

Religion has nothing to do with society; that's why he was against religion. Religion is individualistic, and he was a socialist par excellence. That's why he said, 'Religion is the opium of the masses.'

Religion is individual because religion believes in individual freedom. And the flowering of the ultimate is going to be individual, not social. You have never heard of society becoming religious, only individuals - a Buddha here, a Jesus there, a Moses somewhere else - only individuals have become religious.

The society can never become religious, because the crowd-mind cannot come to that flowering. To be religious is such a tremendous growth. It is the opening of your ultimate potential; it cannot be of the masses. You don't think that one day the masses will become great painters like Picasso or Leonardo da Vinci. You don't think that one day the masses will become great musicians like Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner. You don't think that the masses one day will become great mathematicians like Einstein, Planck, Eddington. No, you don't think that way. Then why do you think Jesus, Moses, Mahavir, Mohammed? It is not possible.

The mass lives in a very dark way; it lives in the jungle. Only very few people escape from the jungle and enter into the forest, and only very few of those who enter the forest ever enter into the garden.

Many more become too attached to the forest and they remain there. Let it be this way: only one person in one million ever escapes from the jungle and reaches to the forest. Out of one million in the forest, one escapes from the forest and reaches to the garden. And out of one million in the garden, one escapes from the garden and reaches into the home. That has been the proportion up to now, and this is going to be the proportion.

Religion is only for the few. it hurts, because you would like religion to be for everybody. But I cannot help it. If music cannot be for everybody, and painting cannot be for everybody, and dancing cannot be for everybody, then - excuse me, I cannot help it - religion too cannot be for everybody. And in a communist world religion becomes impossible, because they don't allow individuality, they don't allow freedom, they don't allow any person to be different from the mass.

I have heard a Soviet Russian story:

A man was seized with a violent cramp in his stomach and sought relief at the modern white structure erected for the purpose in his home town. Upon entering the building, he found himself in a hall with two doors. One was marked 'male', the other 'female'. Naturally, he entered the door marked 'male'.

He found himself in a room with two doors. One was marked 'over twenty-one', the other 'under twenty-one'. Since he was fifty two, he entered the door marked 'over twenty-one'.

He found himself in another room with two doors. One was marked 'serious illness', the other 'minor indisposition'. Since he was doubled up with pain by this time, he staggered through the door marked 'serious illness'.

He found himself in a room with two doors again. One was marked 'non-believers and godless', the other was marked 'believers in God, the religious'. Since he was a believer in God, he entered the door marked for the religious and found himself on the street.

In a communist world a religious person cannot exist; he is not allowed. A communist world believes in the society, in the absolute domination of the society. The individual is thought to be a danger.

Anybody trying to be individual is looked at as the enemy: 'One should not try to be an individual, one should follow the crowd, one should be in the crowd, one should not try one's own ways and styles' - even about ordinary things. If you go to China, Russia, even in dress you will find a uniformity, even in cars you will find uniformity. Everything has to be just like everybody else. Nobody shout try; even in dress, no one should try any individual style, because that is dangerous. Communism does not allow the individual; how can it allow religion? It is impossible.

Religion is individual flowering. Religion can exist only in an individualistic society where freedom is allowed, where freedom to be oneself is allowed, where nobody interferes with you, where you are left alone, to yourself, where you can do anything that you want to do with yourself. The society interferes only when you start interfering with other people's lives. otherwise not. If you are not harmful, nobody will interfere with you.

This is possible only in a democratic country; this is possible only in a capitalist country. I am all for capitalist and I am all for democracy. It is better to be poor but to remain democratic.

It is better to remain uneducated but to remain democratic. Other wise your stomachs will be full, but your spirits will be empty; otherwise your bodies will get nourishment, but your souls will die, starve.

And the second part of the question: 'IF NOT, WHAT TYPE OF SOCIAL ORDER SHOULD THERE BE WHERE MAN WILL NOT BE EXPLOITED BY MAN?'

Unless there is more than enough, man will always be exploited by man; it is not a question of communism or socialism or capitalism. Unless there is more than enough, man will be exploited.

So create more than enough, be creative, use all possibilities to create more: that is the first thing.

And the second thing: live in the present, don't think of the morrow. Listen to Jesus; he says: Look at the lilies in the field. The spin not, they weave not, they labor not, they don't think of the morrow - yet they are so beautiful. Even Solomon, arrayed in his whole glory, was not so beautiful.

Live in the present. The future creates greed, greed creates hoarding, hoarding creates poverty.

Only a religious society... and when I say 'a religious society' I don't mean a religious social order. By 'religious society' I mean where many, many people are religious, at least striving towards religion; where many people are meditating, praying; where many people are loving, caring, where many people have compassion; where many people are freed from greed and hoarding; where many people are enjoying life in the present, delighting in the play in the present and not bothering about the moment. In that society exploitation will disappear. Otherwise exploitation is not going to disappear.

You can change the structure: in Russia the old exploiters have disappeared but the new exploiters have come - and the new ones are more dangerous, because they are more technologically equipped than the first ones. The rich people were there, they exploited; the Czar was there, he was exploiting - but nothing to be compared with Stalin and his company. They were more equipped. The Czar was not so well equipped; that's why the revolution was possible. Now there is no possibility of revolution in Russia-impossible. You cannot even imagine any revolution, because the grip of the state is so great, and the state is so technologically equipped against the individual, that no individual can even think. It is impossible to talk about revolution. It is impossible to even think, because they say that the walls have ears. You cannot even talk to your wife frankly, because who knows? She may be the informer. You cannot talk to your own child, to your own kid, because he belongs to the Youth Communist Party. And they are teaching their people to be more patriotic, to be more for the country, AGAINST the family. The society is the goal, not the family. The family has to be disrupted completely.

And there are no longer any parties, no longer are ideologies available: no possibility to publish a book or a newspaper. How can you think that in Russia a revolution can happen? No, the state is so powerful, it will crush anybody in the bud.

And now what are they doing? - first they used to murder their enemies; now they don't murder.

Now they have more lethal weapons: they brainwash, they don't murder. They simply give electric shocks, insulin shocks, and they brainwash the man. And the man comes back home from the hospital, not from the prison, completely idiotic, stupid. He has forgotten all that he knew; he cannot even think, he cannot put two sentences together logically. He has to learn from the ABC's again.

Now how can you think about revolution.

Sooner or later, in a communist country, it is going to happen - because the children have to be born in the hospital. Immediately after the child is born, they will put an electrode in the head; that will do.

Then the government will always know what you are thinking even - now what you are saying, that is not the question. Then the police station will know who is thinking some wrong idea: your number will show in the police office. Suddenly a light will come to the number: thirty-one? - is caught. It is possible now, technologically possible.

And remember, man is so dangerous: whatsoever becomes technologically possible, he HAS to try it. He is obsessed, he cannot resist the temptation.

The last question:

Question 4:

Don't feel guilty; please stop coming.Let me tell you one anecdote.

Martha was dying. With her last breath she turned to Abe and asked, 'Abe before I die, make love to me just one more time.'

Abe answered, 'How could you ask me to do such a thing? I will kill you!'

Martha pleaded, 'Everyone is entitled to one last request before they die. You should grant me this last wish.'

Abe replied, 'Okay.' He got into bed and made love to her. No sooner did he finish than she hoped out of bed completely cured, and ran downstairs and started to flick a chicken and yell into the living room where her children were sitting, that dinner would be ready in an hour.

The children were astounded, and ran up the stairs to their father who was sitting in a chair and crying. They said, 'Papa, why are you crying? It's a miracle! Mama is completely cured!'

He replied, 'I know, but when I think what I could have done for Eleanor Roosevelt.'

Get it? 'I know, but when I think what I could have done for Eleanor Roosevelt; that's why I'm crying.'

Don't think about Eleanor Roosevelts, and don't cry unnecessarily. If you feel ashamed, don't come - because to feel guilty is very bad, and I don't want anybody to feel guilty. Then go and serve the poor people. If you want to come here, forget about the whole world. If you think about the world you cannot listen to me, you cannot understand me.

You life is short... your life is really very short: you don't know whether you are going to exist the next moment or not. And don't feel sorry for the poor, because in the first place, the poor may not be ready to come. Because I know poor people: I have been travelling in this country, I have been born in this country; I know poor people. Sometimes when they come to me, they come for some other reasons. They come: their son is not getting employment, so, 'Osho, bless.' They come because their wife is ill; they come because somebody is not having a child, 'So bless.' They come for some other reasons, not for religious reasons. A poor person cannot have religious reasons really; he is starving. His problem is not religious, his problem is physical. Only a rich person can have religious problems. Religion is a by-product of affluence; it is a luxury.

When your bodily needs are fulfilled, then psychological problems arise. A poor man never has psychological problems; you will never see him going to the psychoanalyst. Have you ever seen a poor man going? He has no psychological problems. When your bodily needs are completely fulfilled, your problems shift: they take a higher form, they move on a higher altitude - they start becoming psychological.

Indians are very happy that they don't have many psychological problems, and that they don't need many psychiatrists in India. And they are very puzzled as to why America has so many psychiatrists.

And they feel very sorry for America, because they think, 'Poor people. They are suffering so much mental illness.' They don't understand that mental illness is a blessing; it simply shows that physical needs are fulfilled. Now the person can afford to be mentally ill.

When mental needs are fulfilled, then religious needs, spiritual needs, arise - NEVER before.

So if you are feeling sorry for any poor person, don't feel sorry. It is as if you see a small child playing and you start feeling, 'This poor child; he cannot enjoy sex yet.' Now it is for you to feel guilty, and if you want to feel guilty, you are free. And if you want to stop making love to your woman or you your man, stop - because those small children... they cannot make love yet.

They will make love in their own time. Everybody has his own ripening. And if a poor person really has become interested in religion, he will find a way to come to me. Nobody can bar him. Their are many poor people here: they will find a way, they will do everything they can do and they will come.

Their intensity will bring them. Your pity is not going to help them.

Only one thing can happen out of your pity: you may miss me.

Once a Jew businessman was fishing in a lake when he hauled a fish of a type he has never seen before. It has golden scales and silver fins which gleamed and flashed as it thrashed about on the bottom of his boat. Suddenly, the fish startled the businessman by speaking!

'Kind sir,' implored the fish, 'throw me back in the lake and I'll grant you three wishes.'

The businessman considered carefully and then said, 'Make it five and we've got a deal.'

'I can only grant three,' gasped the fish.

'Four and a half,' proposed the businessman.

'Three,' said the fish barely audibly.

'Okay, okay,' said the businessman. 'We'll compromise on four wishes. How about that?'

But this time the fish made not reply at all. It lay dead on the bottom of the boat.

Life is very short. I will not be here forever. Use the opportunity that is available to you, and use it as much as you can. Let your inner flame burn bright, and then you can go to the poor people and help them also. That will be of some help. Right now you will feel guilty: they will not gain anything out of your guilt; you will miss, certainly.

The very, very last question:

Question 5:

If he is not, then who will be?

Enlightenment is fun. It is not a serious thing. Santa Claus is a Buddha, is a Christ. Santa Claus is humor, and enlightenment is humorous. It is nothing serious: it is joy, it is fun, it is delight.