What binds you is the lust for the unlived life

Question 1:

Anand Maitreya, there are many things to be understood.

One: all the past buddhas came from royal families. They enjoyed money, they enjoyed sex, they lived in the most luxurious way possible; and still they found a deep emptiness inside themselves.

They made from their own experience a fundamental principle for all human beings.

All human beings are not born in royal families. They don't have the chance to experience money, sex, and other pleasures of the outside world. Because they were frustrated - the money was not fulfilling, the sex was superficial, all the pleasures were repetitive and became routine - they were utterly bored. They renounced the world.

Because of their renunciation of the world - going into the forests and the mountains - a fallacy arose that unless you renounce the world and worldly pleasure, you cannot become awakened, you cannot become enlightened. Their individual experience they made into a universal principle. It is a human tendency. It still persists.

For example, only psychologically sick people went to Sigmund Freud. Obviously, he who is healthy mentally has no need to go to Sigmund Freud. Freud came across only sick people, and he extended the principle to the whole of humanity, as if everybody is sick. He only knew the dreams of sick people, and he thought all dreams are repressive. In his experience that was so, but his experience is not universal.

It happens with you too, a very basic human fallacy: you come across a Mohammedan, and he cheats you, or a Hindu, and he deceives you - and immediately you jump to the conclusion that no Hindu is worth believing, that no Mohammedan should ever be trusted. A single instance becomes to you indicative of the universal.

In fact, all the past buddhas support my thesis. Of course, they were not aware of it. What I am saying is, unless you are deeply acquainted with he outer world, unless you have been a Zorba in totality and intensity, there is no possibility for you to become a buddha.

It was fortunate for Gautam Buddha that he was born as a prince. All the beautiful women of his kingdom were made available to him, and he most beautiful woman he married. But when he was just twenty-nine years old, he became so frustrated. He was intelligent enough to see that now his whole life was going to be just a routine: more women, more wine, more delicious food. But he was acquainted with it all.

It was his intelligence to see that all his tomorrows had already become yesterdays; there was no future, and he was utterly empty. He had to go in search of something which fulfilled his inner being.

My thesis is very simply and supported by all the awakened people of the past. Mahavira and all the twenty-four great masters of Jainism were born in royal families. One never asks: Why were all your twenty-four masters born in the richest and the most luxurious atmosphere? Why did a beggar not become a buddha? And why did a man who was starving not become a buddha?

All the Hindu incarnations of God belong to royal families, and Buddha himself.... Not a single poor man has been accepted by Hindus or Jainas or Buddhists as enlightened. This supports my thesis.

I have been saying to you that because Gautam Buddha renounced the world.... First you have to live in the world to be capable of renouncing it. How can you renounce something which you don't have? You have to be so frustrated, so nauseated with the outside pleasures that they become almost pain, anxiety and anguish. Only then can you turn inward.

But all these buddhas of the past have fallen into the human fallacy: they project their own experience. They thought perhaps a starving person, a person who has never known any pleasure in his life, will also understand them. And the result has been a tremendous calamity. The poor in the East have remained poor, thinking, "What is the point of achieving wealth, what is the point of attaining luxury?" - because they have seen all those great, enlightened people renouncing luxury, so perhaps they are in a better position: they are poor already.

Buddha became a beggar by renouncing his kingdom; but do you think he is the same kind of beggar, can be put in the same category, as any other beggar who has never known anything of delicious food, of a beautiful woman, of a palace, of all the joys that are possible? On the surface they both look the same; both have a begging bowl. But they are not the same - they belong to totally different categories.

I would like you to belong to the category of the buddha.

But... first he was a Zorba, and only then he became a buddha.

The other has never been the experiencer of outside reality. He can only repress his sex; he is not frustrated with it.

Buddha has no need to repress - he has lived it, over-lived it; otherwise, in twenty-nine years one does not renounce the world.

The story is that when he was born all the astrologers of his father's kingdom were called, because Buddha was the only son and he was born in the king's old age. He wanted to know exactly what Buddha's life was going to be; all the astrologers were puzzled, and nobody was ready to say anything. The king was in much difficulty: "Why don't you say something? Even if it is bad news, at least don't keep me in confusion. Say it."

Then the youngest of them spoke. He said, "The problem we are all facing is that he does not have a fixed destiny. There is an alternative destiny - and that is a very rare case such as we have never come across. It is expected that we should tell you what is going to happen to him. But he has an alternative destiny - two destinies: either he will become a world conqueror, a chakravartin, or he will become a renouncer of the world. They are extreme polarities, and we have not been able to find which one is weightier; they are of equal weight.

"So we cannot say anything definitively. All that we can say is that these are the two alternatives:

either he will become the greatest emperor the world has known, or he will become one of the greatest enlightened persons the world has known. In any case he will be one of the greatest persons. But whether he will be a beggar or an emperor is beyond our understanding and our science."

The king was also puzzled; this was his only son. He had conquered new lands, he had made a very big kingdom - and the only successor has an alternative destiny....

He asked the astrologers, "Help me. Advise me what should be done so that he never renounces the world, but conquers the world. That has been my dream my whole life. He is going to be the fulfillment of my dream. He is my child - he has brought my dream in his heart. Just tell me how to prevent him from renouncing the world."

They all suggested, with ordinary logic... and ordinary logic destroyed the whole thing. They said, "Surround him with as much luxury and comfort as possible so he never feels the miseries of life.

Gather around him the most beautiful girls so he never feels any sexual deprivation. Make beautiful palaces for him in different places of your kingdom for different seasons, so that he never feels that it is too hot or too cold or too much rain." They went into every detail as to how his life should be guided: even dead leaves should be removed in the night from his gardens - he should never see a dead leaf, because one never knows, he might start asking what happened to the leaf.

"He should never see a leaf which is becoming pale, old, ready to die. In the night, all the flowers which are going to die soon should be removed. No old man, old woman should be allowed to enter into his palaces. And whenever he passes on the roads, arrangements should be made that he never comes across a dead body or a sannyasin."

All these preparations were done, and the old king managed everything that the astrologer had said.

But the ordinary logic is not the only logic. There is a transcendental logic which they were not aware of.

I would not have suggested this. I would have told him, "Let him live like an ordinary human being.

Let him strive for comfort; don't give it to him. Let him strive to find a beautiful woman - don't just gather women like cattle around him. Let him know the pains of desire and longing and passion."

Perhaps he would never have renounced the world, because he would never have come to know the world in its reality so soon.

Those twenty-nine years were almost equal perhaps to two hundred or three hundred years. Even in three hundred years you may not be able to attain all the luxury that was showered on him. And that was the reason that he renounced the world - seeing that it is all superficial and routine; seeing one dead man.... In twenty-nine years he had not seen even a dead leaf. If he had seen from his very childhood that people die, he would have become accustomed to it. But for twenty-nine years he had never thought about death. The very idea was not a question to him.

But how long can you prevent...? One day he happened to see a dead man, and the whole palace of playing cards that his father had made, collapsed. He asked his charioteer, "What has happened to this man?"

He said, "Master, I am not supposed to tell you; but I cannot lie to you either. This man is dead."

And immediately the question was asked which ordinarily you don't ask. Immediately he asked, "Is this the destiny of every man? Am I also going to die one day?"

And just when the charioteer was saying, "There is no way to avoid death - even to you it will happen," a sannyasin passed by. He had never seen an orange-robed sannyasin, and he asked, "What type of man is this? What has happened to him?"

And the charioteer said, "He has also become aware of death, old age, and he has renounced the world. He is going in search of that which never dies."

They were going to participate in a youth festival. Gautam Buddha said to his charioteer, "Turn the chariot back. For me now there is no youth festival. I am old, I am dead. Just take me back home."

And that very night he escaped from the kingdom.

The charioteer - an old man, a very faithful servant of the king - tried to persuade him. Buddha said, "There is no way. If you cannot prevent old age, don't try to persuade me. If you cannot prevent death, don't try to persuade me. I am going in search of that which never dies."

So it is a double fallacy. Buddha renounced and he found the truth; and he also must have thought that it was because of renunciation that he had found the truth. That was not the case. It was because of his luxurious life that the search began - because luxury had failed, money had deceived; palaces became empty, the kingdom became meaningless; conquering the whole world became pointless. If you are going to die, what is the point of bothering with killing millions of people when in the end your hands are empty? So he himself thought that renouncing the kingdom had been helpful in finding the truth. But he forgot one thing: that everybody does not have a kingdom.

And Buddha's fallacy became a universal fallacy. Others who didn't have kingdoms started moving into mountains, into forests, into isolation.

I know a man who was a retired postmaster. He was a little cuckoo, so he never managed to get married. His parents tried very hard, but because he was cuckoo he would do something to spoil the whole thing. He was trying to hide his craziness, and in that very hiding something would erupt and something would go wrong.

When he retired from his post office he became a Jaina monk. I knew in his post office account he had exactly three hundred and sixty rupees; he had never married, had never known anything you can call comfortable - luxury was a faraway star; could not even afford a servant - he used to cook his own food.

After his renunciation, he passed seven or eight years in different monasteries with different Jaina monks. And then in Calcutta, just by accident, we met again. And the people who introduced him to me said that he had renounced everything he had.

I said, "I know. He lived in a rented house, he cooked his own food, and he had three hundred and sixty rupees in his post office account - which are still in the post office account in his name. He has not renounced anything, not even that post office account."

He was very angry, and when we were left alone he said, "This is not good of you. People think I have renounced everything, and you told them that I have not renounced anything. This is true, that those three hundred and sixty rupees I have kept in my name in case of sickness, in old age. But you are destroying my reputation. They all had great respect for me."

A poor man can become respectable by becoming a beggar in the name of religion, but he will never become enlightened. Hence my emphasis is: before you enter into the inner world, be finished with the outer. Live it so totally - your life torch should burn from both the ends together. The more totally you live, the quicker you will understand that there is not much. It is only the unlived part of life that seems to be attractive. If you have lived totally then nothing seems to be attractive. And only in that state can you move inwards without hesitation and without any split.

I am not saying renounce the outside. There is no need. Renunciation is out of fear. And naturally, twenty-five centuries have passed since Gautam Buddha.... In these twenty-five centuries not only scientific technology has progressed; spiritual consciousness and the methods that can lead you to enlightenment have also been refined. Gautam Buddha is, after all, a bullock-cart Gautam Buddha.

He knows nothing about Rolls Royces.

I would like my people to live at ease, with all that is available on the outside. Don't be in a hurry, because anything left unlived will pull you back again. Finish it. And then there is no need to escape from your house or from your bank account, because they are no longer a burden on you. They don't mean anything. Perhaps they have a certain utility, but nothing is wrong with them.

Even a Gautam Buddha needs food, but somebody else earns it. He needs clothes, and somebody else earns them for him. You earn your own food. It is better to earn your own clothes, your own shelter. What is the point to be understood? - there is nothing in them that binds you.

What binds you is the lust for the unlived life.

So live life totally and let this lust disappear.

Then you can live in a palace with the same ease as you can live in a poor man's hut. But if a palace is available, then why unnecessarily torture yourself in a poor man's hut? Just, the palace should not be your prison.

And because all these great enlightened people consistently renounced the world, it created an atmosphere in the whole of the East that poverty is something spiritual. It is sheer nonsense.

Poverty is not spiritual; it is ugly. It is one of the wounds that has to be healed.

If poverty were spiritual, then there would have been millions of Gautam Buddhas in the East. But we have never heard about beggars becoming buddhas.

My approach is a discontinuity with the past. I teach you first to live as a Zorba, and only on that foundation will be raised the temple of your buddhahood. And in this way we are joining the outer and the inner in a single unity. The outer is also yours as much as the inner. There is no question of denying anything; there is no question of being against anything.

So I say to you: pleasure may be the lowest step, but it is part of the same ladder. The highest step may be enlightenment, may be blissfulness, but it is the same ladder. And if you renounce the first rung of the ladder, you will never reach to the last rung.

Just think - you are standing upon the first rung of the ladder. There are two ways of renouncing it:

one is getting down, the other is moving to the second rung. Both have renounced the first rung of the ladder. Gautam Buddha moves to the second, and you are moving below the first.

You see that he has left the first rung, but you have not understood that he has left the first rung for the second. He will leave the second rung for the third, and he will go on leaving the third and the fourth for the final. But you have become afraid of the first, because you have seen buddhas leaving the first, so you never step on the first. You remain below the first.

These people have reached to the highest fulfillment of bliss, and you remain hungry, thirsty even for the shallowest pleasure that the first rung can make available to you.

And secondly, the buddhas of the past were not concerned with any social revolution. Their whole concern was with their own achievement, with their own spiritual attainment. In a certain way they were very self-centered. And because of their self-centeredness, the East has not known any revolution at all. All the geniuses became so self-centered, who was going to give the masses the idea of a revolution? At the most they can teach charity to the poor, but they cannot conceive of a world without poverty.

I conceive of a world without poverty, without classes, without nations, without religions, without any kind of discrimination. I conceive of a world which is one, a humanity which is one, a humanity which shares everything - outer and inner - a deep spiritual brotherhood....

So my function is not simply finished with my own enlightenment. In fact, my work began after my enlightenment. Gautam Buddha's work came to an end when he became enlightened; I started my work after my enlightenment.

As far as I am concerned, I don't need to live a single moment more, because life - either outer, or inner - cannot give me anything more than I have already achieved.

But to me it seems to be selfish. I would like millions of people to be aflame with the same light, with the same vision, with the same dream.

I would like a new man to be born, a new humanity, where ugly discriminations disappear, where there are no wars, no atomic or nuclear weapons, no nations, no races; where man can share all the bounties of existence and all the experiences of his inner being.

I want this whole humanity to be one ocean of consciousness.

Whatever the buddhas in the past did was good, but not enough. They created for themselves the highest peak of consciousness. I would like to create that highest peak for everyone - at least for those who are in search of it.

And I cannot say, "Renounce the outer" - because the outer is as essential as the inner. Just don't cling to it. How can you renounce the outer? You can renounce the palace, but how are you going to renounce your breathing? Each moment the outer breath comes in.... How can you renounce food?

- it comes from the outside. How can you renounce water? - it comes from the outside.

Looked at with clarity, there is no division between the outer and the inner, but a constant harmony - just like the incoming breath and outgoing breath.

I am giving you a new conception, a new vision, a new dream.

Naturally, Maitreya, those who are clinging to the old buddhas are going to be against me, because their whole point is that the world is sin and it has to be renounced. Pleasure is sin and it has to be renounced - even simple pleasures like drinking a cup of tea are sins.

In Mahatma Gandhi's ashram, people used to drink tea, hiding. And once in a while somebody was caught, and he was so condemned that Mahatma Gandhi would go on a fast. This is a special way of torturing people. And the whole ashram would torture the person: because you drank tea, Mahatma Gandhi has gone on a fast unto death. And he would never say that it is a punishment for you. He would say, "It is a punishment for myself, because it shows that my soul is not pure enough; that's why my disciples go on committing such sins."

He has his own logic. He does not give you even the freedom of being yourself - it is his purity which is going to be decisive. And he is fasting to purify his soul; he is not concerned with you. When his soul is purified, then naturally no disciple can commit any sin.

Stupid logic, because if this was the case then just a single buddha who is absolutely pure will purify the whole of humanity - why only one ashram? Then anywhere on the earth, if somebody is drinking tea, that means your soul is still not absolutely pure. And it is not only tea, there are so many sins:

chocolate, ice cream - all are prohibited. In fact, taste itself is prohibited. You should eat your food without any taste. The best cooks in Mahatma Gandhi's ashram are those who make such food that you cannot eat it - so tasteless that you will feel like throwing up. But that is spirituality.

Naturally, these people are going to be against me. I accept their irritation, their annoyance, because I know the future belongs to me. They are fighting a losing battle. They may have the majority, but it is a majority which has lost its roots, which is dead, which lives only on the past - and a very ugly past.

Just yesterday I received news from Palestine. Because of the creation of Israel, many people who were not Jews left the land of Israel. Israel was a new creation after the second world war. It is a new nation - forced by the American politicians and the British politicians on the poor Mohammedans who used to live there, in order to give the Jews back their country, which they had lost long before.

There was no need. Jews were living happily everywhere else. What is the need of having a nation?

In fact, they were free from all national problems and difficulties - defense and armies. They were perfectly happy. But to create a permanent trouble for them, Israel was forced... it used to be Palestine, but now only a small part of it remains Palestine, and the Mohammedans have escaped to that small part. They are refugees.

Just yesterday, they said to the religious authorities: "We should be allowed to eat human flesh, because we don't have anything else to eat. Because there are so many terrorists killing people, so many bombs exploding and people are dying... why waste their bodies? Just give their dead bodies to us, because we don't have anything to eat." And these authorities have agreed that all dead bodies from now on will be given to the refugees.

This is the twentieth century! When man has to eat other men.... On the one hand, such an unbelievable phenomenon; and on the other hand, billions of dollars worth of food and foodstuff is being thrown in the ocean, in America, in Europe, because of overproduction. They don't want to lower the price, so the overproduction has to be drowned into the ocean.

Are we living in a madhouse?

Just a short time before, so much butter had to be drowned in the ocean - mountains of butter - that the cost of throwing it into the ocean was two billion dollars. That was not the cost of the butter, it was simply the cost of carrying the butter to the ocean. And just nearby, people are asking that they should be allowed to eat dead bodies, human bodies; and the authorities have no other way, because nobody is willing to give Palestine food. And their land has been taken away to create a new land, Israel.

We are still living in a barbarous age, it seems.

Human consciousness needs to be transformed totally.

My concern is not only with individual enlightenment; my concern is with a collective uprising of human consciousness. Many will be enlightened, but let others also be very close to it. Not that one becomes a Gautam Buddha and another goes to eat a dead body - this much difference is unbearable, intolerable.

At least I would like my people to fight for it - for their own enlightenment, and for an uprising of the whole of humanity. Simple things, which don't need much intelligence.... You can see it - anybody can see it - that this is nonsense. When people are starving... when one thousand persons were dying everyday in Ethiopia, America was drowning its food in the ocean, Europe was drowning its food in the ocean. For the same price, for the same cost, it could have been carried to Ethiopia, and thousands of people would have been saved.

But it seems we are not alert at all.

Just now there are only five countries which have nuclear weapons. Just the other day, I received the information that by the year 2010, twenty-five other countries will have become nuclear powers - India and Pakistan included - because they are all striving hard for only one thing: to become nuclear powers. It is so costly, but even poor countries like India and Pakistan are not worried about their poverty, are not worried that half of their people are going to die. Their whole concern is how to make nuclear weapons, how to be a member of the nuclear club. There are only five right now.

Twenty-five more countries are going to join soon.

Thirty countries having nuclear power is a very dangerous and vulnerable situation, because these nuclear weapons will be in the hands of pygmy politicians. And the politician is always in search of becoming the greatest man in the world - every politician - that is his whole desire.

Adolf Hitler, in his autobiography, says that if you want to become a great leader of humanity, you cannot do it without war. Have you ever heard of any great leaders who were born in times of peace? In times of peace, nobody needs their leadership. When you are troubled, in danger, you need leaders. Great wars create great leaders, and there are sick people all around who want to become great leaders, even at the cost of the whole of humanity.

So my function is very different from the function of Gautam Buddha. His function is only a small part of my philosophy. I want individuals to become enlightened, but I want also the whole of humanity to rise with the enlightened people. They may not become enlightened, but at least become conscious enough so that nations disappear, religions disappear, races disappear, and we can live as one humanity, as one earth.

It is not difficult. A little understanding....

And if the earth is one, then there is no need for any nuclear weapons, any war, any armies. All these people... millions of people around the world are in the armies, in the navy, in the air force, wasting their lives. They could be put to production. But that is possible only when nations disappear.

And, Maitreya, this too is true: In the past, the buddhas, the enlightened people, never bothered to say anything against the traditional mind, because they were concerned with their own enlightenment. It was none of their business. Even many so-called saints have told me, "You are unnecessarily creating so many enemies all over the world. If you simply talk about meditation and enlightenment, nobody will be against you."

But I don't see that thousands of years of talking about meditation and enlightenment have helped much. So I am ready to take all risks, because I have nothing to lose. Whatever I have gained is going to be with me even if I am crucified. And I would love it if my crucifixion could raise human consciousness just a little bit more.

Question 2:

Prem Felix, you are still too concerned with your own ego. You are not worried about my death; you are worried about your enlightenment - what will happen to your enlightenment.

You are not aware that this is not love; this is not trust. You are trying to use me. And love never tries to use.

You have not yet found the master; you have simply believed.... Because you find here so many people in such deep love and in such deep ecstasy, you have believed in them - perhaps here is a master. But it is a perhaps.

If you have really found your master, you will forget all about your enlightenment. In finding the master, you have already found the path. In finding the master, you have already found someone who is going to be with you, even after death. That is the meaning of being with a master.

One sannyasin has sent a small Sufi story from America. She was puzzled by the story. She wants to know its meaning. It will help Felix also.

The story is: one man is drowning and is shouting for help. A hand reaches to him. It is dark in the night so he cannot see whose hand it is. He asks, "Who are you?" and the man says, "A friend."

But the man who is drowning says, "No, I don't want to be saved by a friend." It is a very strange story.

Again he starts shouting, "Help! Save me." And the same hand again reaches to him, and he asks the same question, "Whose hand is this?" and the answer comes, "I am God." And the man says, "I don't want to be saved by a god."

And third time when he shouts, the same hand reaches again, and he asks the same question:

"Please tell me, who are you?" And the answer comes, "I am a master." And he said, "Then it is perfectly okay. I can trust you."

The story is strange. He cannot even trust God, but he can trust the master. It has great implications.

To be saved by a friend is not possible in the spiritual sense, because the friend is drowning himself.

He is in the same boat; he is not of a higher consciousness. How can he save you?

It is not a question of ordinary saving: somebody is drowning and you can save him. It is a parable.

A friend is of the same consciousness; he cannot save you. But God? - the drowning man refuses even to be saved by God, because God has no hands, no face, no body. God is a consciousness - how can consciousness hold his hand?

God is not a person, but only a presence; not a flower, but only a fragrance. How can a fragrance save him? You can enjoy the fragrance when you are saved, but fragrance cannot save you. You can enjoy God as a presence when you are saved, but the presence itself cannot save you.

But the moment the Sufi master says, "I am a master," immediately the man grabs his hand and he says, "This is the right hand. Only a master can save me" - because a master is both. He is a man and he is a god. And of course, he is a friend too. A master is all three rolled into one. He is a friend, but not only a friend. He is a god, but not only a god. In him, god has become embodied; in him, love has reached to its highest peak. He can be a savior.

The story is certainly strange and may baffle anybody. If you have found the master, Felix, then don't be worried about the death of the master. The master never dies. If you have loved, your master will live in your love forever.

And drop this lust for enlightenment, because that is a barrier. Only people who drop the desire for enlightenment ever become enlightened.

And why should you be worried about the future? - I am alive! Rather than being saved by me right now, are you asking for an appointment in the future?

Finding the master, in a subtle sense, is finding your enlightenment, because the very presence of the master thrills your whole being, gives you a new freshness. A new breeze passes through you, taking with it all the dust that you have gathered down the centuries.

In fact, there are stories of great disciples like Mahakashyapa who said to Gautam Buddha, "Only on one condition can I become your disciple."

Buddha said, "What condition?"

And Mahakashyapa said, "You have to protect me from enlightenment. Once I am enlightened, I will lose the master, because I will not be a disciple anymore. And at no cost do I want to lose you. I can forget all about enlightenment. You are my enlightenment."

Buddha laughed and said, "Mahakashyapa, you don't know that in this very clear understanding and love, you are giving the indication to me that you will be my first disciple to become enlightened."

And Mahakashyapa was his first disciple to become enlightened. He was very angry, and for a few days he wouldn't even speak to Buddha. Whenever Buddha would pass by his side, he would close his eyes. Finally Buddha said, "Now forget it. Whatever happened, happened. And I am not saying to you to leave me or to go away to spread my message. I will not take any note of your enlightenment. You can remain my disciple."

And there were tears of joy in Mahakashyapa's eyes, and he fell at the feet of Gautam Buddha. He said, "That's what I was afraid of: that perhaps now you won't allow me to touch your feet. And I had warned you before - but neither we listen to you nor you listen to us."

Buddha said, "It is not in my hands to make you enlightened or to prevent you from becoming enlightened. You came with such clarity that I was worried that you were going to become enlightened very soon."

A man who can desire enlightenment and can use the master only as a means does not understand love and does not understand disciplehood.

A master cannot be used.

You can simply try to dissolve into his being as deeply as possible. One day, without any warning, comes enlightenment - suddenly. It is not a gradual process; it does not come in installments. It suddenly comes, and you are gone. Only a pure presence remains.

So don't be worried about my death. While I am alive, use these moments to dissolve yourself. And if you can use these moments to dissolve yourself.... And forget enlightenment - otherwise that will remain a continuous hindrance. You just enjoy being here. Dance and sing. What are you going to do with enlightenment? You cannot eat it, you cannot drink it - it is absolutely useless. So just hope that it does not come too soon!

Question 3:

Anand Vimal, there is no harm in keeping your eyes open. Love as intensely as possible the mountains, the moon, the sun, the trees... love everything existence consists of.

And you want to keep your eyes open because you love to see me too. Nothing is wrong in it, but I have to remind you that there is a far more beautiful land, far more beautiful stars, far more beautiful trees, within you, which you cannot see with open eyes.

And as far as I am concerned, with open eyes you can see only my body. With closed eyes, you will be able to see my being too, which is the very essence of godliness.

So there is no need to have a fixation. And that is the beauty of the eyes. Perhaps you have never thought about it. Your ears are continually open; your eyes are naturally made in such a way that you can close them, you can open them, you can close them, you can open them....

So whenever you want to see the trees and the beauty of a sunset, open your eyes. And when you want to see the beauty of the inner world, close your eyes. And it is good exercise too! You are not renouncing the outside world; you are simply making the inside and outside both available to you.

And when you can have both, why should you have only one? And the inner is qualitatively, and tremendously, superior.

In fact, whatever beauty you find in the outside is just as if you have seen a moon reflected in a lake.

The outside is only reflection. The inside is the real - the existential.

There are people who are against looking out. There are religions who are against looking out. In Jainism there are two sects: one sect believes that Mahavira, their great master, used to meditate with closed eyes; and there is another sect which believes that he used to meditate with open eyes.

This is the only difference between them. And on this point they have been fighting and arguing for twenty-five centuries.

I was passing by a small place, Dewas, and I saw a Jaina temple with three big locks on it. So I told my chauffeur to stop the car and enquire what has happened to this temple. And I came to know that the temple had not opened for almost fifteen years. The two communities of Jainas had made the temple together, because their number was very small in the village. No single community was capable of making the temple. Otherwise, they make their temples separately.

But they agreed to make one temple, and also agreed about the ownership of Mahavira, the statue inside the temple - that in the morning till twelve, one sect will worship; from twelve to sunset the other sect will worship. First, those people will worship who believe in closed eyes. Because a marble statue... either you can make it with open eyes or you can make it with closed eyes. It is not a Japanese doll that you lie down and it closes its eyes; you make it sit and it opens its eyes. A marble statue is very difficult... so the statue was made with closed eyes.

Up till twelve the first sect worshiped; after twelve the second sect would place two open eyes, just made with paper, on the marble statue. Then it became their Mahavira. And once in a while...

there were always fights happening, because somebody from the first sect would go on worshiping after twelve; then the second sect would come in and push him out, and he would shout, "You are disturbing my worship, and worship cannot be done according to the clock. You can wait for a few minutes."

But why should they wait? The agreement was that exactly at twelve they should be out. And the first sect would be worshiping and the second sect would be putting the false eyes on Mahavira. And they would start fighting and boxing with each other.... And it is a nonviolent religion - it believes in nonviolence.

And one day things went too far. There was bloodshed. People brought their staffs and started hitting at each other's heads. The police came and the police took them all into custody and they locked the temple. Until the court decides, the lock cannot be opened.

But, fearful that the other sect may break the lock, the first sect also brought another bigger lock.

The second sect brought an even bigger lock. So three locks are on it, and the court has not been able to decide yet. Because how to decide whether Mahavira used to meditate with open eyes or closed eyes?

I said to my chauffeur, "If you know the magistrate, you take me to him."

He said, "But why are you getting unnecessarily involved? I always see you unnecessarily getting involved in things, unpopular causes... and you jump into them. We should go where we are going."

I said, "Don't bother. You just go to the magistrate."

I reached the magistrate and I asked, "I have come to help you, because you have not been able to decide how Mahavira meditated."

He said, "You can help me?"

I said, "Certainly. Nobody else can help you."

He said, "Then just tell me."

I said, "He always blinked."

You cannot keep your eyes open continuously; neither can you keep your eyes continuously closed.

You have to blink; that keeps your eyes fresh. Blinking is a natural process; it is just like the wiper on the windshield on your car. Keep your wiper moving.

Your eyes close and open. They go on keeping themselves fresh, removing all dust.

So, Vimal, both are good. Sometimes meditate with open eyes. Sometimes meditate with closed eyes. But never forget blinking.

Okay, Vimal?

Yes, Osho.