The Inner Trinity

The first question:

Question 1:

THE EAST AND THE WEST, up to now, have worked as polar opposites - the west through the will, the east through surrender; the west through the ego, the east through absolute egolessness. The way of the west is that of the male, and the way of the east is of the female.

The east believes in passivity: God come to you when you are absolutely passive, receptive, a nothing, just an awaiting, a prayerful awaiting, with no effort at all on your part. The way of the west is aggressive: the way of the male. Man has to seek, man has to go, man has to conquer. Even God has to be conquered.

Both have failed, because both are partial; they had to fail. The east has failed tremendously, as tremendously as the west has failed - because man is not only male and man is not only female.

Man is both... and more. Man is both the yin and yang. And greater religion, a far more synthetical religion is needed in which the east and west will lose their old conflict.

Steiner is the representative of the western mind. He revolted against theosophy and created a new school, anthroposophy. Theosophy was eastern: Blavatski, Annie Besant, Leadbeater and Olcott.

They has searched in the east, in the old scriptures, traditions, old Master, and they had come to a certain conclusion about the east: that if you surrender, God happens.

In the word 'theosophy', 'theo' means God, 'sophy' means love. You simply live like a woman. You wait, you remain in a welcoming mood. Only that welcoming mood is needed, and God penetrates you. You become the feminine and He becomes the male. That is the allegory of Krishna and his girlfriends. Krishna is God, the male; and the seeker, the devotee, is a female, a girlfriend, a GOPI.

One has to become feminine to reach to God - that has been the essential core of eastern thought, religion, philosophy.

Steiner revolted against it. First he was a theosophist; but by and by he became aware that this was not possible for him to accept. He created a new movement against theosophy, a new school.

He called it 'anthroposophy'. 'Anthropo' means man, 'theo' means God. Theosophy is love of God, anthroposophy is love of man. He placed man in the very center. God is not in the center of his thinking, man is at the center.

For theosophy, God is at the center: Krishna playing on his flute, and man is dancing the dance around him - the girlfriends, the gopis. Man is on the periphery, God is at the center. He turned the whole thing upside-down: he put man in the center. Man becomes the central thing. In the west man has remained the central thing. In the east man is peripheral.

Now, both the efforts have failed, because both are partial. Man is both male and female together.

It has to be so; you are born of a mother and a father - how can you be just man or just woman?

Within your soul your mother continues to live, and your father too. And you have to be a deep harmony of the two.

I call that man religious who has come to a great harmony within his own self, the harmony between his mother and father. They are still quarreling within you, they are still fighting. It is not only that when you were a child your mother and father were fighting; they are still fighting in each of your cells.

So there are two possibilities: a man who is still in conflict and has not come to a deep understanding of his polarities; then he has to choose. If he chooses the man he becomes an egoist, the yang; if he chooses the woman, if he chooses yin, the woman, then he becomes surrendered. But in both cases one part will suffer. The unchosen part will suffer, and you will never be whole. And how can you be holy if you are not whole? The part that is neglected, rejected, will take its revenge. The part that you have rejected will become your unconscious. The unconscious is nothing but the rejected part of your being.

There is a possibility in future of a humanity where the unconscious will not exist. If we stop rejecting, the unconscious will disappear. Man can become absolutely conscious; and that's what we mean by a Buddha: the awakened soul. It means that now there is no rejected part; you have absorbed your totality, you have accepted all your facets, you have become multi-dimensional. Now the polarity is no more in contradiction; it has become complementary. Your woman inside helps your man, your man inside helps the woman.They have fallen in love with each other, conflict has disappeared.

They have become one, they are wedded together. This is the spiritual marriage, and only out of this marriage will you be born. Only out of this inner meeting of the contradictions will you be born.

This is the whole philosophy of the concept of the Trinity. The concept of the Trinity is beautiful and has many meanings: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Of course, the 'Holy Ghost' is not a right name - people who coined that must have been male chauvinists. Otherwise, 'Holy Ghost' is not right, but 'the mother'; the father, the mother, and the son. Then it is perfectly true, factual.

The father and the mother are in you: the son is still missing. Your father and mother have not met inside you. They have met outside you, so your body is created. When they met inside you your soul will be created, the son will be born - and that is the birth of Christ.

The east has suffered because the east became feminine. That's why nobody could conquer it:

it lost willpower, it lost zest, enthusiasm to live, it lost energy. It became very fatalistic, it became very relaxed. The whole history of the east is the history of being conquered by others; a history of poverty, a history of no science, no technology. It is not a beautiful history.

Yes, a few beautiful people happen: Buddha, Mahavir, Krishna, Kabir, Nanak, Dadhu - a few beautiful people; but they are exceptional, they cannot be counted. The greater mass, the greater humanity, has lived in a very ugly way, a miserable way, in deep anguish. At this cost, if one Buddha happens, and one Kabir and one Nanak, it is not of worth. The cost is too much.

The west has suffered from male orientation: conflict, struggle, violence, fight, and no rest, no possibility of any relaxation; a great tension in the mind, hankering for speed, ambition; competition, a cut throat competition, each fighting with everybody else - a very hostile atmosphere. Of course, it has created mad people, it has created neurotic people. Still, a few beautiful people have exited on the fringe: a Christ, a Saint Teresa, a Saint Francis and an Eckhart. But this cannot be said to be a success: the philosophy has failed. The east and west have both failed.

That's my whole effort here: what I am trying to do is to bring the east and the west closer. The twain can meet. Kipling was wrong when he said: East is east and west is west, and the twain shall never meet. I say they can meet; they HAVE to meet. Now everything will depend on it, even the possibility of a future humanity will depend on that meeting. Kipling has to be proved wrong. They have not met up to now, that is true. Kipling is right about the past, but wrong about the future - HAS to be wrong. Otherwise humanity cannot exist. Both are suffering the east from outward poverty, the west from inner poverty. Both have tremendously failed - grand failures, but failures.

A man has to be synthesis of will and surrender. A man has to grow his willpower, his ego, first.

My approach is: that if life is going to be for an average of seventy years, then thirty-five years, the beginning of life, should be devoted to strengthening the ego and willpower. And one should listen to Nietzsche, and one should listen to Steiner, and one should listen to Freud - and the ego has to be strengthened, made VERY integrated.

And after the thirty-fifth year one has to learn relaxing, dropping the ego, and becoming more and more surrendered to the divine. The west is the first part of life; the east is the second part of life.

Life should start like western and should end like eastern. One should first go into he world; in the world, will will be needed. One should go and fight and struggle, because struggle gives you sharpness intelligence. But one should not continue fighting and fighting to the very end. Then what is the point?

Fight, sharpen your intelligence, know the ways of the world, wander all over the world, be a conqueror, and then... then move inwards. You have known the outside; now try to know the inner.

And to know the inner one has to relax. One has to forget anxiety, anguish, tension. One has to be non-competitive; will is not needed. To conquer the world will is needed; to conquer God will is not needed. To conquer God means to be conquered by God; to conquer God means to relax and surrender unto his feet.

Now this will seem very difficult, very illogical. I am an illogical person. My understanding is this:

that only strong egos can surrender; weak egos cannot surrender.

Every day I come across weak egos. Whenever a weak ego comes, he hesitates: to surrender or not to surrender, to take sannyas or not to take sannyas. And why is he afraid? He is afraid because he knows he has a very weak ego; if he surrenders he is gone. He will not be able to stand. He is afraid of his inner weakness. He pretends on the outside, but he knows his inner reality - that he is ready. So he becomes defensive; he defends.

Whenever a person of strong egos comes he says, 'Okay, let us see. Let us try this too.' He knows, he is confident enough that even if he goes into some unknown path, he can still protect himself.

And if he decides to come back, he can come back; he has enough trust, enough self-confidence.

He has enough will.

Remember, surrender is the last and the greatest act of will. Surrender is not a cheap and easy thing. It is not something that because you cannot stand you surrender; because you were already falling you say, 'Okay, I surrender' - because you were not able to stand on your feet.

Surrender is not impotence. Surrender is not out of impotence, it is out of tremendous power.

You have lived the ways of the will and you have found nothing. You have looked into all the possibilities of the ego and you have only suffered; it simply hurts. Then you decide, 'Now let us try the ultimate: dropping of the ego.'

To drop the ego you will need a great will - otherwise it is not easy to drop the ego. It is the greatest act in the world, the last. Only very courageous people can do it. You will be surprised: in India all the great saviors, AVATARAS, are warriors race, KSHATRIYA. Buddha, Mahavir, the twenty-four Teerthankaras of the Jainas, are KSHATRIYAS. This has to be not only a coincidence. Why have all these great people come from the warriors, and why do they talk about surrender? And they say, 'Surrender is the way.' They had the will to surrender. A brahmin has not yet come to the state of a Buddha or Mahavira. Why? - the brahmin has no will. He has thought, from the beginning, of surrender. He has not arrived to a will that he can surrender.

Or take it from a different angle: a poor man wants to renounce - what will he renounce, what has he got to renounce? What does his renunciation mean? Then a Rockefeller decides to renounce:

his renunciation will mean something. It carries weight, he has something to renounce.

A beggar declares, 'I have renounced the world'; people will laugh. In the first place, you had nothing to renounce. A king renounces, then the renunciation is meaningful: this man has known what wealth is, this man has known what power is, this man has known what will is - and knowing it well, he has understood that it cannot be the last thing in life. It is good for the beginning, good for the young people to play with as a toy, but for those who are becoming mature, useless, they have to drop it.

We give small children toys to play with. The day they become a little more mature, they throw the toys - and they start asking for the real thing. We give them a toy train and they say, 'Forget about it.' We give them a toy airplane and they say, 'Throw it away. I want a real car, a real airplane. I want the real thing.'

Ego can only give you toys to play with. But it is needed - otherwise you will never grow and will never become mature. One day you will understand: 'Now I need the real thing' - and the real thing is God. And for God to happen, you have to surrender.

Steiner is wrong, because his philosophy is half. I am talking about a total philosophy.

Up to the age of thirty-five, move in the ways of the world, the ways of will. Strengthen your ego as much as you can with knowledge, with power, with money, with ambition. Live it - because that is the only way to know it. Go into the deepest hell the world can make available to you, know it - because only by knowing is one liberated.

And then, suddenly a light will dawn on you. You will see the whole absurdity of it. And you start returning home; then you start returning towards the source. For thirty-five years go into the world, and then for the remaining part come back to yourself. First lose yourself so that you can gain. First sin so that you can become a saint. If you are from the very beginning, your sainthood will not be of much value.

I am not against sin; I am not against anything. I say: Use everything, go into it. God has made this whole world available to you for a certain purpose: the purpose is learning. Sin is a lesson, is a must. If a child is a saint from the very childhood, is forced to be saint, he will not have any spine.

Let him first know what sin is. Let him himself become aware, and let him drop it on his own accord.

Don't force him, don't discipline him. Give him freedom to move so one day he can see with his own eyes, feel with his own heart. And he can realize that Buddha is right, that Kabir is right, that Christ is right.

But this has to come from your own understanding - otherwise it is borrowed. And God never wants anybody second-hand. Be first-hand. Let your experience be original.

So that is what I am to say to you: will and surrender have to become part of your life, together - because you are man and woman together, and you are east and west together. The world is one, the earth is one village. All distinctions are just utilitarian, not real.

What is east and what is west? And what is surrender and what is will? They are both part of the one wave. They are not two, they are a quantum, one; two aspects of the one thing, one phenomenon.

So grow in will, and don't be afraid. Become a strong egoist, don't be afraid. Let it hurt, let it become a self-torture, let it become a cancer in your soul - then one day you drop it. And that dropping is out of your own feeling, your own experience. The it is beautiful.

There is a danger; I must make you beware of it. The danger is that rather than coming to a synthesis, we may change roles - the east may become west and the west may become east. That is more possible. Seeing the stupidity of human beings, that seems more possible.

The east is trying to become west: more technological, more scientific, more materialistic, more communistic. In fact, the Poona people simply laugh at you: "What are you doing here? What is here in the first place? Meditating? What nonsense!" They want to go to the west - to know more engineering, to know more about electronics, to know more about computers, to know more about hydrogen and atom bombs, to know more about how to create spaceships, how to create wealth, more wealth. They want to become more materialistic, more productive... and you are coming here?

Have you gone crazy? And when they go to the west you cannot believe what they are doing there.

You are fed-up with your materialism. And what are they going there for? To know better technology?

To destroy their natural atmosphere? To pollute it? To destroy the ecology? For what are they going to the west? The west is getting fed-up with technology. The modern mind is trying to move away from technology - atleast the new generation is absolutely against it. The new generation in the west can understand Buddha better than Einstein. The new generation can understand Mahavir, a naked Mahavir, better than all Darwins and Eddingtons and Rutherfords.

But in the eastern universities, colleges, the new generation is hankering after Rutherford, Einstein, Max Planck - how to know more about science?

The possibility is that the east may become west and the west may become east - and the old foolishness continues: again you are far apart, again the meeting has not happened.

The meeting has to happen: that is the only hope for humanity. And the meeting has to happen in each individual. It cannot happen in books and philosophies; it has to happen in each individual.

That is what Tantra is all about. Tantra is the oldest science to help you to come to an inner harmony, an inner wedding, an inner orgasm. Your woman and man meet inside and give birth to the child, the child Christ. Then you become a trinity: the father, the mother, the child. And when you are a trinity, you are balanced, you have come home. You know what life is, you have achieved the goal.

The second question:

Question 2:

I am not deceived; that's why I said to you that you are a good soul. I wanted it to settle from the very beginning. I wanted to bring it to the surface; that has been your problem. And I am here to bring your problem to the surface of your consciousness. I have not missed; you were caught. I am not deceived.

I don't ordinarily say so: it is very rare that I say to somebody "You are a good soul" - because people are not! It is very rare that I say so. But I had to say it to you because this is your old game; and it is very good, from the very beginning, to be clear about it - that this game has not to be played here.

Every individual has a particular weakness, and the weakness persists because you remain unaware of it. I wanted it to be perfectly clear to you... and it did the work.

It was your first darshan with me - the question is from Vidhya - it as your first darshan with me, and I wanted to start from the very beginning. I talked about your goodness because I wanted to create the problem, so you can face it. And it is good that it created anxiety in you. It is good that it created a question in you. it is good that you became puzzled. It is good that you became confused. That is one of my ways of working on you: to confuse you.

When you are clear your ego is in control; your clarity is nothing but your ego in control. When you are confused your ego is thrown off-center; then you don't know what is what.

The first thing is, when you come to me, that I should confuse you, or I should throw you off balance so your old ego control is no more in control - so you don't know what to do. When you don't know what to do, only then do you ask me. And it is good that you have asked.

And you say, "Please, don't gamble with me" - I am not gambling - "Please help me to drop the games" - that's why I have started this game of calling you a very great soul, good, a really good soul. It is to help you drop your egoistic attitudes.

This is going to happen: you are going to become a good soul. You are not, that's true - but to realize this, that "I am not a good soul," is the beginning. To realize that "I don't know" is the first step; to realize that "I have yet to grow, I am yet far away," is the first step.

If you continue to think that you are a good soul, and you are not, then there is no hope for you. It is as if an ill person thinks he is healthy and well, and he never goes to the doctor. What is the point?

He is healthy; he THINKS he is healthy, and the disease goes on spreading.

You have come to me, and I have diagnosed your disease absolutely. This has been your disease:

you have been thinking you are good, you have been deceiving about your goodness, and when people trusted you and they were deceived, you were deceived by their deception. And this is how it went on feeding itself; it became a vicious circle.

You are not good, but you can pretend to be good. And through pretension you can deceive others.

And when they are deceived, of course, you look at your image in their eyes and you feel very happy.

This is how things grow: when you feel very happy, you try to be more good; when you try to be more good, of course the person thinks you are really a great soul, a MAHATMA. Then in his eyes you can see your reflection, more decorated, still more beautiful. You are again deceived. Now you have to try more, because this person is there, and this game continues. This is how it happens in everybody's life.

You meet a woman or a man - you look at the woman, she looks at you. You look with adoration; she looks into your eyes at her adored image... she feels very good. She was hankering for somebody to pay attention to her, and you are paying attention. She feels very good; that's why she looks at you with adoration. When she looks at you with adoration, of course, you look into her eyes:

you have never seen your image so beautiful. You feel tremendously good, enhanced. Your ego is strengthened. You try to be more loving, and this way the game continues.

You fall in love. Ninety-nine percent of your love-affairs are simply foolish. What you call romance is nothing but stupidity. And you feed each other, and you help each other. One day you are going to be shocked; now you want to remain close, more close to each other. You want to be together for twenty-four hours. Then you are ready to get married, than you go for a honeymoon, and then you become acquainted with each other. And then the reality asserts...

Reality cannot be denied for long. That's why your so-called great people, or so-called great saints, don't live in the marketplace. They go to the Himalayas. If they live in the marketplace, it is impossible: sooner or later the reality will assert. Reality cannot be defeated forever. You can create a fiction for a few days, a few moments, but you cannot live in the fiction forever. That is not possible. The fiction is bound to collide with reality, and will collapse.

If you really want to love a woman, never get married to her. If you really want to adore a man, escape as far away from him as possible. Then you will always love. But if you want to crash the whole love-affair, get married, the sooner the better. Go for a honeymoon, and by the time the honeymoon is finished, everything is finished, everything is finished. Suddenly one morning you look at the woman: she is an ordinary woman.

Have you heard the old story? A princess found a frog, and the frog said, "Lady, I have been cursed, and for five thousand years I have remained a frog. If you take me with you and if you allow me to sleep with you, in your bed, by the morning I will become a beautiful prince." You must have heard...

these types of stories are there.

And the princess brought the frog, and in the morning he became a beautiful prince.

But reality is just the opposite: you bring a beautiful prince; in the morning he becomes a frog! Every prince turns into a frog in the end. And then you are puzzled: "What happened? What went wrong?"

Nothing went wrong; the frog is a frog. The prince was your idea, it was your wish-fulfillment. You were wanting to have a prince, so you had him. You were longing, you were projecting, you were dreaming.

When you come to me, you are going to be shocked in many ways, and you are going to be confused in many ways. I have to dismantle your mind. It hurts, and it is not a very kind job. It is surgical.

That's why I insist that first you become a sannyasin before I start the surgery - because if you are not a sannyasin, there is every possibility that you will escape in the middle of the surgery. And that will be more dangerous - because then you will be mad: the work incomplete, something dismantled and nothing created. That's why I insist: first become a sannyasin - because I can trust that you will at least lie down for the time the operation takes, you will be on the operating table; you will not escape. You will trust me. Otherwise, I dismantle a part of you, and you escape. Then you will be in a worse state than you ever were before. The work has to be completed.

You will be thankful only when you have been completely renewed: you have been killed, and you are reborn - only then. Before that there is going to be much pain. Growth goes through pain, much suffering. Growth is not cheap.

So, in fact, I have started the work on you: by calling you a good soul, I have thrown my net. You may think I have missed... I have not missed.

Let me tell you one anecdote.

The knife-throwing expert and his beautiful young assistant stood in front of their tent at the state fair while the spieler described the wonderful act that would be performed within.

Mrs. Silas Hawkins was attracted by the knife-thrower and Mr. Silas Hawkins detected in the assistant a few curves he had never seen before. They paid their two slim dimes - "the tenth part of a dollar" - and entered the tent. Finally the assistant stood against a wooden wall, doffed her spangled robe. Silas Hawkins gasped audibly, then the knife-thrower stepped on the platform, and it was Mrs. Hawkins's turn to gasp. The knife-thrower pulled back his right arm, and a steely blade went zinging through the air. It buried itself in the wall one-eighth of an inch from the assistant's shell-pink ear. Silas Hawkins jumped to his feet with a cry. "Doggone!" he said. "He missed her."

I have not missed. It has hit you exactly where I wanted it to hit you. It has created all the turmoil in you. It has brought all the unconscious rubbish to the surface. The work has started. Now, if you allow me, more shocks will be coming. The more you allow, the more shocks will be needed. It is arduous. To be reborn is going to be arduous - and this is the real birth.

Even in physical birth there is pain and there is trauma and there is suffering. This is a spiritual birth.

One birth you have received from your parents, your father and mother; another birth you receive from your Master: you are born as a spiritual being. Much has to be cut, much has to be dropped.

Only the very essential has to be saved: the non-essential has to be completely; destroyed. And the essential you don't know; you are identified with the non-essential.

So I will have to cut your old identities, by and by. By saying to you that you are a good soul, I have made you aware of a certain fact: this has been your game up to now. No more. I am not gambling with you.

But things should be clear from the very beginning; you should be alert to what is going to happen.

I am not here to console you. I am not here to give you any consolations whatever. I am here to destroy you UTTERLY - because that is the only way to give you a new birth.

Mulla Nasrudin was leaving his office at his usual quitting hour, three-thirty, when he noticed a truck-driver at the curb struggling unsuccessfully with a heavy case of books.

"I will give you a hand," volunteered the Mulla. The two seized the opposite ends of the case and huffed and puffed several moments, to no avail.

"I am afraid it is hopeless,"gasped Nasrudin. "We will never get it on the truck."

"On?" screamed the driver. "I am trying to get if off!"

So let it be clear from the very beginning - you will try to save yourself, and I am trying to destroy you. And I could see you directly, because the chief characteristic is such that you cannot hide it.

When disciples used to go to Gurdjieff, he would look into them. He would create situations to find out what was their chief characteristic. Unless the chief characteristic is known, work cannot start.

Somebody is greedy; his problem is greed. And if you talk about anger, that is not his problem. if you talk about sex, that is not his problem.

You will be surprised to know: greedy; people have no sexual problem. That's why Marwadis have to adopt children. Greedy people don't have sex-energy: their whole energy moves into greed. Money becomes their love object: they don't care a bit about women.

So if you tell a Marwadi to take the vow of celibacy, he will be ready; it is not difficult. But don't tell him about renouncing his money or wealth: that is his problem. A politician does not bother much about women; his whole thrust, his sexual thrust, is his politics. He wants to reach Delhi, Moscow, Washington; his whole energy is involved in that. His ambition is his sex. He wants to penetrate the capital, the capital is his woman. His ambition is phallic, He can avoid women, he will not be much interested. Once he has reached Delhi then he may start thinking about women, otherwise not.

This has happened in India. Before the freedom, all the politicians were great mahatmas, sages, Servants of the people, celibates... a great readiness to sacrifice. Then suddenly when they came into power, all that disappeared. Now their energy was released. Their energy was involved in reaching Delhi. They had reached Delhi; now what to do? The energy was there: something had to be done with the energy. Then they got involved in a thousand and one things.

The chief characteristic has to be known. Somebody has anger as his chief characteristic, somebody has deception, somebody has ego, somebody has greed, somebody has jealousy, somebody has possessiveness - all different people. But if you come to a Master he can just look into you directly, and your chief characteristic is almost your soul. You don't know what else your soul is, but your chief characteristic is there, burning.

Sherlock Homes once confronted Dr. Watson with the statement: "Oh, my dear Doctor, I see you have not donned your long winter underwear."

"Amazing," Watson is supposed to have replied. "How did you deduce that?"

"Elementary," explained the peerless Holmes. "You have forgotten to put on your pants."

And as far as I am concerned, you are always without pants, remember. There is no way to deceive me; I am not deceived. Sometimes I may not be so rude, sometimes I may be polite; I may not say to you what I am seeing in you. Sometimes I may feel it is not the right time. But, whenever you come to me - and that is the meaning of DARSHAN - whenever you come and encounter me, you are absolutely naked to me. I may not say anything about it. I may wait for the right time. Or I may not ever say, and I may start working without saying it; that depends. But there is no possibility of deception.

If you can deceive me, then I cannot be of any help to you! I can be helpful only because you cannot deceive me.

The third question:

Question 3:

Yes. Because evil is necessary.

The fourth question:

Question 4:

Yes, it belongs to ritualistic religion. Don't become ritualistic, but don't become anti-ritualistic either.

A little ritual is beautiful. To become ritualistic is wrong, but a little ritual is just fine. A little ritual adds spice to life. It gives salt to your food, it is tasteful. A life without any ritual will be a very poor, impoverished life.

You meet somebody on the road and you say, "Hello"; it is a ritual. And he says, "How are you?"

and you say, "Fine"; it is a ritual. You are not fine - he knows, you know, everybody knows. You meet somebody on the road, you smile; it is a ritual. You just watch: you will find that life needs a little ritual. It makes life run smoothly, it is lubricating. If the whole life becomes ritualistic, then it is dangerous; then you are only eating salt. A little salt in the food is good, but to just feed on salt is dangerous. You will die. But to drop salt completely is also dangerous. And remember this always: I am never totally against anything, and I am never totally in favor of anything. I always keep balance.

The orange robe, the mala, the locket: innocent ritual... but it adds spice. It gives you a feeling of community. And man needs a few fictions to live. The truth is too hard. Yes, one day you will become able to live with the truth, but right now, no. You have to pass through many stages. Only in the ultimate jump can you drop all fictions. Then too you may not drop them, because they are beautiful in themselves. They are not true, but they are beautiful in themselves.

I am not against ritual. I am simply saying that ritual is not religion, ritual is ritual. And a little ritual is always good: it keeps you in balance, it keeps you sane. Otherwise people start moving into extremes. There are a few people whose whole religion is ritualistic, there is no reality at all. Then there is Krishnamurti: his whole idea is non-ritualistic. There is no poetry, no fiction, no myth, no prayer, no meditation, nothing - just a bare, naked statement of truth.

I don't believe in extremes. I would like you to remember the tightrope-walker. Always keep it in mind: the tightrope-walker. He is a symbol of life. He leans to the left, feels that no if he leans a little more he will fall; immediately he balances by leaning towards the right. Then he starts falling towards the right; immediately he balances himself again, leaning towards the left. He continuously leans from left to right, right to left. And that's how he keeps himself in the middle. This is the mystery: to keep in the middle, he has to lean to the left, he has to lean to the right. To keep in the middle, he has to be very illogical - because the middle is not static, it is dynamic. Life is not static.

So always, if you want to keep yourself balanced, healthy, sane, you will have to lean to both sides:

sometimes a little ritual, sometimes no ritual; sometimes a little scripture, sometimes no scripture; sometimes a little worship, sometimes no worship; sometimes a little prayer, sometimes no prayer.

In this way you will become a tightrope-walker.

And remember, again I repeat: the middle is not a static posture. You cannot just stand there. You cannot say to the tightrope-walker, "Why do you go on leaning this way and that? Why all this effort?

Just stand there in the middle!" Then he will fall. If you are static you will die.

Life is process - dynamic, river-like. Go and watch a river. Sometimes it flows to the north, sometimes to the east, sometimes to the south, and goes on leaning to both sides. And one day it reaches to the ocean.

Everything is accepted in proportion.

The fifth question:

Question 5:

The question is from Astha.

Now, it is a very technical thing, but I will try to give you a layman's conception. And I will give you the right address where you can find a more informed and expert opinion.

Yes, there is a secret organization here in the ashram called SIN, s-i-n. "S" stands for seduction, seduction into neo-sannyas. That is the name of the organization, SIN. And there are three branches of the organization: for the babies, and for the oldies, and for those who are in-between. For the babies, up to the fourteenth year - because by that time sexual maturity happens, and the baby is no more a baby. In fact, he is ready to create new babies, so he cannot be a baby. So you can demark the line - fourteen years is the line for the babies; after birth, fourteen years. Before death, fourteen years is the limit for the oldies. If seventy is the average lifespan, then fifty-six is the demarcation line for the oldies. And in-between is everybody else.

So three departments exist, three branches of SIN: for the babies, Siddhartha and Purva take care; for the in-between, Teertha and Maneesha; for the oldies, Paritosh and Parijat.

But this distinction of oldies, in-betweens and babies, is applicable only here. In America there are only two: the babies and the oldies. The in-betweens exist not. That is a strange thing that has happened in America. People try to remain babies for as long as they can. They go on pushing the line: fifty, and still they are babies, fifty-five, and still they are babies, and fifty-six, and still they are babies. And it is the thirty-first of December, they are fifty-six, and they are still babies.

When they cannot push any longer, when it is impossible, they simply become oldies. They go from babies to oldies directly.

I have heard about a salesman who was succeeding, a door-to-door salesman. All his colleagues were surprised because they were selling the same goods, but not so successfully. He was earning almost ten times what they were. So they gave him a party, and asked him, "Please tell about your secret." He said, "There is nothing much, it is simple. Even if an old hag, a sixty-year-old woman, rotten, opens the door, I say: "Baby, is your mother at home? And that works! And I am immediately welcomed."

America has gone crazy. All natural limits have disappeared. From infancy, people simply move into senility. That's why the great problem of the gap of generations has arisen - because there is no in-between to link them; the bridge is broken.

Americans are crazy. Just as the old Italian said... But I should not anticipate. First I must tell you the anecdote.

Wallace Reyburn, author of SOME OF IT WAS FUN, entered Naples, Italy, with the victorious troops who threw the Nazis near the end of World War Two. A grateful native offered to introduce him to a sister at home.

"Is she beautiful?" asked Reyburn.

"Ah, bella! bella!" enthused the native.

"Young?"

"Si! Si! Si!"

"Is she pure?" persisted Reyburn.

The native turned from him in disgust, remarking, "These Americans and Canadians are all crazy."

Natural limits are forgotten, natural things are forgotten. In America this distinction may not be applicable, but here... And except for America, everywhere in the world these are the three demarcations: the babies - who are not yet interested in sex; and the oldies - who have grown out of it; and the people in-between - who go on wavering, who are still tightrope.

And of course, babies can convert babies... so Siddhartha, little Siddhartha and Purva. Right now little Siddhartha is travelling in America, trying to convert babies there - because that is the country where the greatest number of babies exist. And for the in-betweens, Teertha and Maneesha are in charge of SIN; and for old people, Parijat and Paritosh.

So, Astha, if you really want a very informed, expert opinion, you go to Paritosh. He is in charge.

And right now he is very busy, because many parents have come for Christmas, and he is seducing them into neo-sannyas. And to help people somebody has put a notice on his door; that's how this question has arisen. Somebody has put a notice on Paritosh's door: Office of the Grande Seducer of the Oldies - just to help people, so those who want to find the office can find it easily.

The sixth question:

Question 6:

I have lived without money, I have lived with money, and I have one confession to make: it is always better to live with money than without. Money is useful. One should not be used by it, that's all. I'm not against money; it should be used. It is a good, utilitarian invention. It helps. It is tremendously useful; but use it, don't be used by it.

Money should not be your master; you should be the master, that's all. And if you have to choose, then my suggestion is: always choose to be with money. I am not saying that you will be more happy; I am saying only that you will have more choice to choose your misery according to your heart.

A poor man has not much choice: he has to be miserable, whatsoever the misery happens to be. A rich man has much more choice. The poor man has to suffer in a limited way. The rich man suffers unlimitedly: he can suffer here, he can suffer in New York, he can suffer in London, he can suffer in Peking. He has the whole world to suffer in. And sooner or later, he will be suffering on the moon and Mars. he has more freedom, and freedom is good.

If you are poor you have to suffer one woman; if you are rich you have to suffer many women. It opens doors. So if you ask me, I will suggest that if you are trying to choose to live with money or without, I would say to live with money. it will give you more experience, it will bring you to God sooner - because you will be tired sooner.

A poor man is never tired of money, remember. Because he has no money - how to be tired of something you don't have? A poor man always hankers and desires and dreams about money. Only a rich man is finished with money. In fact, that is the definition of a rich man: one who is finished with money, he is the rich man. he has known, he has seen what money can give. And now he would like to have something more that Money can never give.

I am not saying money can give you God, or peace, or happiness. But there are foolish people...

One MAHATMA came to see me a few years ago, and he said, "I have renounced money because through money you cannot have bliss." But I said, "Who told you, in the first place, that you will have bliss? Through money you can have a beautiful house. Who told you that you will have bliss? Who has told you that you will have happiness? You will have a big car."

There are foolish people who expect that through money bliss is going to happen. Then they become disillusioned one day. Money is not wrong; their illusion, their projection, was wrong. Money is not at fault. If you go and try to squeeze oil out of sand, and oil does not come out of it, will you say that the sand is at fault? You were foolish, you were stupid. In the first place, who had told you that by squeezing sand you would get oil?

Money cannot give you bliss, cannot give you peace, cannot give you God, cannot give you paradise.

But to come to know this, one has to have money. Then you become clearly aware of what money can give and what money cannot give.

When a person has known what money can give, his efforts start moving beyond the money, beyond the world. Money is a beautiful invention, one of the most important inventions man has ever made, next only to language - the first is language, the second is money. These are the two most important foundations for civilization, society, culture.

I am not against it; I am simply saying what money can give and what money cannot give. If you are thinking that by hoarding money, one day suddenly you will become meditative, then you are a fool.

Not bye hoarding money are you going to become mediative. And remember, not by renouncing money are you going to become meditative. These are both foolish people. First they think that through money they will get God, then one day they think that by renouncing money they will get God - but in both cases they remain money-oriented.

God has nothing to do with money. You can have God with as much money as you want, and you can have God without money, without as much money as you want. God has nothing to do with money.

A rich man can become meditative, a poor man can become meditative. But my understanding is thins: that if a poor man wants to become meditative, he will need TREMENDOUS intelligence - because he will have to see the futility of money which he does not have. He will need tremendous intelligence.

Kabir must have been tremendously intelligent - I think more intelligent than Buddha and Mahavir.

My reason for saying so is this: Buddha had money, Mahavir had money. If they became fed-up, it is simple, it is logical. It is as simple as "two plus two are four." If Buddha had not renounced the palace, then it would have proved only one thing: that he was stupid. If he renounced, that does not prove that he was very greatly intelligent, that simply proves an average intelligence. But Kabir, Christ, Mohammed - they are more intelligent people. They didn't have money, they didn't have anything, and still they became aware that money is useless. They didn't have a great kingdom, and without having it they renounced it. They must have been very sharp people, tremendously alert. They could see through things that they didn't have. Their transparency, their clarity, was tremendous, incredible. If a poor man wants to be religious, he will need great intelligence. If a rich man wants to be religious, he needs only average intelligence.

So, if a poor man becomes religious, he is a great sage. And if a rich man does not become religious, he is a fool, stupid.

The last question:

Question 7:

So, you have found it out. Now keep it a secret and don't tell it to anybody. That is true; I have to confess. When you have found out, I have to confess. That is true - I am a trinity, the trinity I as talking about: father, mother, son.

And yes, it is true. That's why it is so easy for me to contradict myself: sometimes the father is speaking, sometimes the mother, and sometimes the son. You will find three rivers meeting in me.

It is a SANGAM. It is a meeting-point of three rivers, a TREVENI, a trinity, a TRIMURTI. I have three faces.

That's why it is so easy for me to move through all the traditions - because there are only three traditions in the world. Three is a very basic unit: the father, the mother, and the son. That's why it will be difficult for you to make a coherent philosophy out of my assertions. You will have to have great intelligence to see the coherence, otherwise the contradiction is very obvious.

When I speak as a father, I speak as a father - authoritative. When I speak as the mother, I speak as a mother - non-authoritative, loving. When I am a father I order you, command you. Then I am a Moses with Ten Commandments. When I am a mother I persuade you, I don't order you. Then I am not a Moses; then I am more like a Krishna. He persuades Arjuna, he persuades in a thousand and one ways - very friendly, very lovingly. By and by, he brings him in. And when I am the son I speak rebellion, revolution. Then I speak as Christ, as Buddha.

And I am all three - and I would like you also to be all three. To be one is not to be very rich. To be all three together is to be very rich.

And the very last question:

Question 8:

True - it is astonishing and it is nonsense. How can it be - I, having no charisma? But now things can be easy. Now you have understood the principle of the trinity. And I told you that there are three types of Masters: the charismatic, the methodical, and the natural. The father is the charismatic, the mother is the methodical, the son is the natural. The word "natural" comes from a root which means "out of birth".

Certainly so, you are right: it is amazing and it is nonsense. One of my parts is charismatic, one of my parts is natural. And that's how it should be. A perfect Master should be all three, simultaneously.

So please, if I say something, now you can sort it out. You can have three drawers: the father, the mother, the son. And you can go on collecting, and everything will be sorted out, figured out easily, simply. And don't ask me "Why did you say that one day?" because you are not asking the same person. And it is not so easy form as it is in this anecdote. Let me tell you:

In Nathan Asubel's Treasury of Jewish folklore appears the story of a famous preacher of Dubno whose driver stopped en route to a lecture date and said, "Rabbi, do me a favor. For once I'd like to be the one receiving all the honors and attention, to see what it feels like For this one engagement, exchange clothes with me. You be the driver, and let me be the rabbi."

The preacher, a merry and generous soul, laughed and said, "Alright - but remember, clothes don't make the rabbi. If you are asked to explain some difficult passage of the Law, see that you don't make a fool of yourself."

The exchange was effected. Arrived at their destination, the bogus rabbi was received with tumultuous enthusiasm, and obviously loved every minute of it. Finally however, there came the dreaded moment when an extremely tricky question was put to him. He met the text nobly.

"A fine lot of scholars you are!" he thundered. "Is this the most difficult problem you could ask me?

Why, this is so simple, even my driver could explain it to you!" Then he called the preacher of Dubno:

"Driver, come here for a moment, and clarify the Law for these dullwitted fellows."

This is not so easy for me - because when I am here the other two are not. I cannot call: "Come and explain this for me." So please, never raise any questions about contradiction. Whatsoever I have said some day is finished; I am finished with it. I don't look backwards, I go ahead.

And there is no need to worry about it. Whatsoever I am saying right now is the truth; the present is the truth, the past is dead. All those assertions of the past are dead. The next moment, again, the truth will have its own form. Then don't carry this moment with you.

This is my whole teaching: not to carry the past and to just remain true to the moment. Then there will be no contradiction. There is none. The contradictions appear only because you are trained too logically, and I am an illogical person. My whole logic is that of illogic. I am an irrationalist.

Yes, I am three, but please don't tell it to anybody.