The first question:
Amrito, aloneness is ultimate. There is no way to be anything other than alone. One can forget it, one can drown oneself in so many things, but again and again the truth asserts. Hence, after each profound experience you will feel alone. After a great love experience you will feel alone, after a deep meditation you will feel alone.
That's why all great experiences make people sad. In the wake of a profound experience, sadness always settles. It is because of this phenomenon that millions of people don't hanker after profound experiences; they avoid them. They don't want to go deep in love, sex is enough. Because sex is superficial, it will not leave them alone. It will be fun, an entertainment; for a moment they will enjoy it and then they will forget all about it. It will not bring them to their own center. But love brings you to your center: love is so profound that it leaves you alone.
This will look very paradoxical, because ordinarily people think love will make you aware of togetherness. That is utter nonsense. If love is deep it will make you aware of aloneness, not togetherness. Whenever anything goes deep, what happens? - you leave the periphery of your being and you fall into your center, and the center is all alone. There only, you are; or not even you, but only a consciousness with no ego in it, with no identity in it, with no definition in it, an abyss of consciousness.
After listening to great music, or after penetrating into the meaning of great poetry, or seeing the beauty of a sunset. it always happens that in the wake of it you will feel sad. Seeing this, millions have decided not to see beauty, not to love, not to meditate, not to pray, to avoid all that is profound.
But even if you avoid truth, truth bumps upon you sometimes. Unawares, it possesses you.
You can distract yourself for the moment, but no distraction is going to help. Aloneness has to be accepted because it is ultimate. It is not an accident, it is the very way things are. It is Tao. Once you accept it, the quality changes. Aloneness is not creating sadness. Your idea that you should not be alone, that is creating sadness; your idea that to be alone is to be sad is creating the problem.
Aloneness is utterly beautiful because it is profoundly free. It is absolute freedom; how can it create sadness?
But your interpretation is wrong, Amrito. You will have to drop your interpretation. In fact, when you say "I face new aloneness", you really mean you face new loneliness. And you have not seen the distinction between loneliness and aloneness.
Aloneness, misinterpreted, looks like loneliness. Loneliness means you are missing the other. And who is the other? - any excuse that helps you to drown your consciousness, any intoxicant: it may be a woman, a man, a book, anything - anything that helps you to forget yourself, that takes away your self-remembrance, that unburdens you from your awareness.
You mean loneliness, really. Loneliness is a negative state: the other is missed and you start searching and seeking for the other. Aloneness is immensely beautiful. Aloneness means a moment when the other is no longer needed, you are enough unto yourself - so enough that you can share your aloneness with the whole existence. So inexhaustible is your aloneness that you can pour it unto the whole existence and it will still remain there. You are rich when you are alone, you are poor when you feel lonely.
The lonely person is a beggar; his heart is a begging bowl. The alone person is an emperor...
Buddha is alone.
And, Amrito, what has happened to you has been aloneness, but your interpretation is wrong. Your interpretation is coming from your past experiences, from your past mind. It is from your memory.
Your mind is giving you a wrong idea. You drop the mind. You go into your aloneness: watch it, taste it. All the aspects of it have to be looked into. Enter into it from all the possible doors; it is the greatest temple there is. And it is in this aloneness that you will find yourself - and to find oneself is to find God.
God is alone, and once you have looked into it without the mind interfering you will not want to be distracted at all. Then there is nothing to distract, then there is no need to be distracted. Then you would not like to escape from it because it is life, it is eternal life. Why should one want to escape from it? And I'm not saying that in this aloneness you will not be able to relate. In fact, for the first time you will be able to relate.
A lonely person cannot relate because his need is so much. He clings, he leans upon the other. He tries to possess the other because he is constantly afraid: "If the other goes, then what? I will be left lonely again." Hence, so much possessiveness exists in the world. It has a reason. The reason is simple: you are afraid - if the other leaves, then you will be left alone, utterly lonely. And you don't like that, and you feel miserable even with the idea of it. Possess the other! Possess the other so totally that there is no possibility of the other escaping from you. And the other is also doing the same to you: the other is trying to possess you. Hence love becomes a miserable thing. Love becomes politics; love becomes domination, exploitation. It is because lonely people cannot love.
Lonely people have nothing to give, lonely people exploit each other. Naturally, when you have nothing to give and the other starts exploiting, you feel offended. You want to exploit the other and not be exploited; that's where politics enters in. You want to give as little as possible and get as much as possible - and the other is doing the same to you, and both are creating misery for each other.
I have heard...
A man stopped his car deep down in the woods and started being very loving to the woman who was sitting by his side. But the woman said, "Stop! You don't really know who I am. I am a prostitute, and my fee is fifty dollars."
The man gave the woman fifty dollars, made love to her. When it was finished he sat silently at the steering wheel without moving.
The woman asked, "Now why are we waiting here? It is getting late and I want to go back home."
And the man said, "Sorry, but I must tell you, I am a taxidriver... and the fare back is fifty dollars."
This is what is happening in your love-relationship: somebody is a prostitute, somebody is a taxi- driver. It is a bargain, it is tit-for-tat. It is continuous conflict. That's why couples are continuously fighting. They cannot leave each other; although they go on fighting they cannot leave. In fact that's why they are fighting - so that nobody can leave. They cannot be at ease because if they are at ease then they will be at a loss and the other will exploit more. Once you see the point you will understand the whole misery of marriage: the whole foundation of it is there.
One wonders why people don't leave each other if they are not happy with each other. They cannot leave! They cannot live together, they cannot separate either. In fact, the very idea of separation is creating the conflict. They cripple each other so the other cannot escape, even if he or she wants to escape. They burden each other with such responsibilities, such moralities, that even if the other leaves he or she will feel guilty. His own conscience will hurt, will pinch him - that he has done something wrong. And together, all that they do is fight. Together, all they do is a continuous haggling for the price. Your marriage, your so-called love, is a marketplace. It is not love.
Out of loneliness there is no possibility of love. Out of loneliness people start meditating; out of loneliness there is no possibility of meditation either. They are feeling lonely and they want something to stuff themselves with. They need a MANTRA, Transcendental Meditation or all that kind of nonsense. They would like something to stuff themselves with because they are feeling empty and lonely. Repeating "Ram, Ram, Krishna, Krishna" or "Ave Maria" or anything will help them to at least forget themselves. This is not meditation! This is just covering up loneliness, emptiness. This is just covering up a black hole in yourself Or, they start praying in the churches and in the temples and they start talking to God. Now God is their imagination. They cannot find the other in the world because it is too costly to find the other in the world and it takes so much trouble; so now they create 'the other' high there in heaven - they start talking to God - but they cannot live without the other, the other has to be there. They may escape into the desert, but even in the desert cave they will be looking at the sky and talking to the other. This is fantasy and nothing else. And if you go on talking for long, you may start hallucinating that the other is there.
Your need is such that you can create the other through imagination. That's why the so-called religions have tried to take you away from the others that are ordinary and available. They would like you not to get married - why? - because if you are married and you have a woman, a man, you don't need a God. It is a strategy: they will not allow you to be in the marketplace because then you are occupied and you will not feel your loneliness. Then why should you talk to God? You can talk to people. They will take you to the Himalayan caves, to the monasteries, so that you are left so lonely that out of the misery of loneliness you have to talk to God, you have to create a God to your heart's content. And then the deeper your starvation for the other is, the more is the possibility of visions of God. Those visions are nothing but illusions, dreams seen with open eyes. It is like when a person is put on a long fast, he may start imagining food, he may start seeing food.
I have heard about a poet who was lost in a forest for three days, hungry. And then came the full moon night. He looked at the moon and he was surprised, because all his life, whenever he had seen the full moon he had always remembered beautiful faces of women, his beloveds, things like that; but that day, after three days of starvation, tired, hungry, thirsty, he looked at the moon and he saw white bread, a chapati floating in the sky above the clouds. He could not believe his eyes!
"What kind of poetry is this?" A great poet, and the full moon looks like a chapati!
And you all know that if you are starved of something too much, you will start substituting it with imagination. If you have lived in a forest alone for many days and you have not seen a woman, even the ugliest woman in the world will look like Cleopatra.
Mulla Nasruddin goes to a hill station. He has a bungalow there. Sometimes he says, "I am going for three weeks," but by the second week he is back, or even after seven days or ten days.
I asked, "Nasruddin, many times you say 'I am going for three weeks and four weeks', then you come within two weeks. What is the matter?"
He said, "There is something in it. I have kept a woman there to look after the house. She is the ugliest woman - horrible she is, repulsive she is! Just to look at her and one feels like vomiting."
But I asked, "But what has she to do with it, with your coming early?"
He said, "There is a story in it. When I go to the hill station, she looks horrible. But slowly, slowly after four, five days, she is not so horrible. Then after eight, ten days, I start seeing some beauty in her. The day I start seeing beauty in her is the day I escape, because that means enough is enough! I have lived away from the world too much, away from my woman; now even this horrible woman has started looking beautiful! That simply means I have starved myself too much. So that is the criterion; whatsoever I say - three weeks, four weeks - is not the point. The real criterion is the day I see the woman is beautiful, and I start fantasizing about her, then I pack up my things and I escape. I know the woman is horrible, and if I stay one or two days more, then there is going to be danger - I may fall in love with this horrible woman!"
Loneliness cannot create love, it creates need. Love is not a need.
Then what is love? Love is luxury. It comes out of aloneness, when you are tremendously alone and happy and joyous and celebrating, and great energy goes on storing in you. You don't need anybody. In that moment the energy is so much, you would like it to be shared. Then you give, you give because you have so much, you give without asking anything in return - that is love. So very few people attain to love, and those are the people who attain first to aloneness. And when you are alone, meditation is natural, simple, spontaneous. Then just sitting silently, doing nothing, you are in meditation. You need not repeat a mantra, you need not chant any stupid sound. You simply sit, or you walk, or you do your things, and meditation is there like a climate surrounding you, like a white cloud surrounding you - you are suffused with the light. You are immersed in it, bathed in it, and that freshness goes on welling up in you. NOW YOU start sharing. What else can you do? When a song is born in your heart you have to sing it. And when love is born in your heart - love is a by-product of aloneness - you have to shower it. When the cloud is full of rain, it showers, and when the flower is full of fragrance, it releases its fragrance to the winds. Unaddressed, the fragrance is released.
And the flower does not wait to ask "What is coming back to me in return?" The flower is happy that the winds have been kind enough to relieve him of a burden.
This is real love; then there is no possessiveness. And this is real meditation; then there is no effort.
Amrito, what has happened to you is something immensely valuable: just your interpretation is wrong.
You say, "After the tidal wave of events and with the memory of a profound experience, I face new aloneness."
Please don't call it aloneness, or if you call it aloneness then try to understand its nature.
"Efforts to share or escape into distractions have bad results."
They are bound to have bad results - because it is aloneness, really aloneness. You will miss something if you escape from it. It is escaping from your own innermost treasure. It is escaping from your richness, from your own kingdom. The result will be disastrous. Don't escape; dig deep into it, dive deep into it. Forget all escaping. That's what, Amrito, you have been doing your whole life.
This time, no! This time you have to go into it. This time you have to taste it in its totality. You have to become it. You have to see what it is, root and all. And once you have seen it and lived it, you will come out of it a totally new person, reborn.
I have been watching you since the day you came here. I have continuously been watching you, I have been around you, I have been looking into your eyes, your face: something profound HAS happened - but MUCH MORE is going to happen! If you escape you will miss the 'much more' that is on the way. No! This time, no! Many times you have done it, for many lives you have been doing it.
This time drop all fear, drop all memories. Go into the new-face of aloneness. It is really aloneness, it is not loneliness. You need not escape. If you escape from loneliness you will feel good. If you escape from aloneness you will feel bad.
"Efforts to share or escape into distractions have bad results."
Don't share right now. Let it gather, let it become a cloud full of rainwater; then the sharing will happen of its own accord. There will be no effort to share. Right now, if you start sharing, it will be again just a way of finding the other in the name of sharing. It will be escape. Sharing has to be allowed to happen on its own. You just go on gathering this aloneness and one day you will see that the fragrance is released to the winds. One day you will see that the sharing has started. You will be a witness to it; you will not be a doer, but only a witness.
"Why do I cling to this habit of escaping aloneness?"
Because you have not yet understood it as aloneness! You go on interpreting it as loneliness. And I can understand it, this is how everybody does it.
When you feel aloneness for the first time you interpret it as loneliness, because that is a known phenomenon. You have felt it all your life. The moment the child leaves the mother's womb, the first experience is of loneliness: he starts feeling lonely, he had to leave his home. The greatest trauma that happens is when the child has to leave the womb. He wants to cling to the womb, he does not want to go out of it. For nine months he has lived there, he has loved the space, the warmth, and he has been so beautifully taken care of, with no responsibility, no worry. Why should he leave? He is being thrown out, expelled. He does not want to go out. Life - we call it birth - but the child thinks it is going to be death. It is death to him, because it is the end of the life that he had known for nine months. He is shocked, he feels punished. And he cannot think yet, so the feeling goes very deep into the body. It is a feeling of his total being, not a thought, hence it permeates every cell of his body and remains there. That is the first experience of being lonely.
And then again and again many more experiences will come. One day the mother takes the breast away, and the child is again lonely. Someday the child is removed from the mother and the nurse starts taking care... again lonely. One day he Is not allowed to sleep in the mother's room, he is given a separate room... again lonely. Remember the day in your childhood when you had to sleep alone in a room for the first time - the darkness, the coldness, nobody there surrounding you. And it had never been so before; the mother's warmth, her soft body, had always been available. Now the child clings to a toy - a teddy bear - but is it a substitute? Or he clings to the blanket, but is it a substitute? A poor substitute, but somehow, he manages. He feds very lonely, dark, left, thrown away, rejected. These are the wounds that go on gathering and go on making the idea of loneliness deeper and deeper. Then one day he has to leave the home and go to the hostel with strange people, unknown. Just remember all these wounds; they are there! And it goes on and on.
Your whole life is a long process of feeling lonely. Then by chance some profound experience happens, and because of that profound experience you have a glimpse of your being - but your whole mind knows only loneliness, so it transforms the experience of aloneness into loneliness. It labels it as loneliness.
The experience of solitude is defined as solitariness.
That's where, Amrito, you are missing. Forget the interpretation; this is really something new that is happening. It is new, so you cannot figure out what it is. The only way to know is to go into it, to be acquainted with it. Just as Master Lu-tsu said, "It is like when you drink water - only you know whether it is cool or warm."
Now drink this aloneness, this fresh energy that is welling up in you. Drink it, taste it, and you will be surprised: it is nothing like what you have known before. It is freedom, freedom from the other.
It is what in the East we call MOKSHA, utter freedom. And after this freedom, love will become possible. After this freedom, sharing will happen. After this freedom, your life will have a totally different significance, a totally different splendor to it. Your hidden splendor will be released.
The second question:
First, because they are not revolutions. Revolution is possible only in the individual soul. The social revolution is a pseudo phenomenon, because the society has no soul of its own. Revolution is a spiritual phenomenon. There can be no political revolution, no social revolution, no economic revolution. The only revolution is that of the spirit; it is individual. And if millions of individuals change, then the society will change as a consequence, not vice versa. You cannot change the society first and hope that individuals will change later on.
That's why revolutions have been failing: because we have taken revolution from a very wrong direction. We have thought that if you change the society, change the structure, economic or political, then one day the individuals, the constituent elements of the society, will change. This is stupid. Who is going to do this revolution?
For example, in 1917 a great so-called revolution happened in Russia. But who is going to take charge of this revolution? Who is going to become powerful? Joseph Stalin became powerful. Now Joseph Stalin had not gone through any revolution himself; he was a by-product of the same society that he was changing or was trying to change. He proved a far more dangerous czar than the czars that he had destroyed, because he was created by those czars. He was a by-product of a feudal society. He tried to change the society, but he himself was a dictatorial mind. He imposed his dictatorship on the country, revolution became counter-revolution - and this has been the misfortune of all the revolutions that have happened in the world because the revolutionary is the same type of person. He has been created by the past, he is not new. What is he going to do? - he will repeat the past. Labels will be new - he will call it communism, socialism, fascism; that doesn't matter. You can have fancy names; fancy names only befool people.
Mulla Nasruddin went to a doctor, told him to check him and said, "Please, tell me in plain language.
I don't want any of the abracadabra of medical science. You simply tell me plainly what the problem is with me. Don't use big names in Latin and Greek. Simply say in plain language what exactly is the matter with me."
The doctor checked and he said, "If you want to know exactly, in plain language - there is nothing wrong with you, you are simply lazy."
He said, "Good. Thank you. Now give it a fancy name to tell my wife. And the bigger the name, the better. Make it as difficult as you can."
We go on giving fancy names, but deep down the reality remains the same. Nothing happened in 1917. One czar was replaced by another czar, and of course more dangerous. Why more dangerous? - because Stalin had destroyed the czar, he was a stronger man, certainly more cunning. He knew how the czar had been destroyed, so he had all the ideas of how to protect himself so he did not go the same way. He created a greater slavery in Russia than there was before. Because he was afraid that sooner or later he would be thrown away, so he had to break all the bridges and he had to throw all the ladders that he had used. And he was more cautious; the czar himself was not so cautious because he was a born czar. He had got it through inheritance, he had taken it for granted. Stalin had worked his way himself: it had been a torturous way and a long journey, and he had to destroy many enemies.
After the revolution he started destroying and killing all those people who could be in some way competitors with him. Trotsky was murdered because he was the next man, very close, and in fact more influential in Russia than Joseph Stalin because he was an intellectual Jew, was a greater orator, had more mass appeal. Stalin was nothing intellectually compared to Trotsky. He had to be killed. And there are possibilities than even Lenin was poisoned by the doctors. And then the years that Stalin remained in power, he destroyed all potential competitors. One by one, all the members of the Politburo were killed. He must have been the strongest man in the whole history of humanity, and he turned the whole country into a big prison.
This is how revolutions fail. The first reason is because we try from the wrong end.
Secondly, once a revolution has succeeded we have to destroy the revolutionaries, because the revolutionaries are dangerous people. They have destroyed the first society, they will destroy the second, because they are addicted to revolution. They know only one thing, they are experts only in one thing: in throwing governments - they don't care what government. Their whole expertise and their whole power is in throwing governments. Once a revolution succeeds the first work of the people who come in power is to destroy all the remaining revolutionaries - and they had succeeded because of them! So each revolution turns to counter-revolution because the people who had brought them into power are more dangerous people.
Try to understand. The mind of a revolutionary is a destructive mind: he knows how to destroy, he does not know how to create. He is very capable of provoking people into violence, but he is absolutely incapable of helping people to become calm and quiet and go to work and create. He does not know that language. For his whole life he has been a revolutionary. His whole work, his whole expertise, is to provoke people to destroy; he knows only that language. And you cannot hope to change his whole life pattern at the end of his life.
So those who are in power have to destroy all the remaining revolutionaries. Each revolution kills its own fathers - it has to be done - and once those fathers are killed, the revolution has turned into a counter-revolution. It is no more revolutionary, it is anti-revolutionary.
It has just now happened in India. Jayaprakash Narayan led a great upheaval, helped the country to change its government, and the people who came into power, Morarji Desai and others, came into power because of Jayaprakash Narayan. But once they came into power they started getting out of the hands of Jayaprakash Narayan. They started reducing him. They became afraid: "This man is dangerous, and this man has influence over the masses. Again he can prove a great problem. The man has to be reduced, utterly reduced."
This happened also when the British government was thrown out of this country. Mahatma Gandhi was the man who did that. Once the power came to Indian hands, they started neglecting Mahatma Gandhi. His last words were, "Nobody listens to me. I am the most useless person." And the people who were in power were in power because of him, but nobody listened to him. There is every suspicion that the people he had put into power were involved in his murder, directly or indirectly.
Maybe they were not involved directly, but indirectly: they were fully aware that he was going to be murdered but they didn't take any precautions. This is indirect support.
Morarji Desai was in power. He was informed that some conspiracy was on, but he didn't take any notice of it - as if deep down they all wanted to get rid of the Mahatma, because now he was a continuous difficulty. He had the old idea; in the same way he continued, he had his old expertise. He had always been against the government; he was still against the government. Now the government was his but he went on saying things, criticizing. The government had been feeling very embarrassed; they all felt relieved. Although they wept, cried, and they said, "A great misfortune has happened," but deep down they all felt relieved.
The same is the situation with Jayaprakash Narayan: now he is feeling utterly left behind, nobody cares. In fact, the people who are in power will be praying that if he dies soon, it will be good. And he is very ill - half the week he is on dialysis. He cannot work, his body is getting weaker every day.
And they must be feeling very happy that soon he will be gone, so there will be nobody who is more powerful than they are.
I would like to tell Jayaprakash...
I love the man. He is a good man, so good that it was not his destiny to be in politics. He is a non-politician. He is a poet, a dreamer, a utopian, a good man - as all dreamers are good men.
... I would like to tell him: Apologize to the country before you die. Tell the country that in your name a gang of powerhungry politicians has cheated you and the country both, that you have been deceived and the country has been deceived. Tell the country that the revolution has failed! But don't only tell the country that the revolution has failed, remember to tell this too: that all revolutions will go on failing in the same way, because their very foundation is wrong. Revolution cannot be imposed from above. Who will impose it? The people who impose it will be part of the past; they will continue the past. Tell the people that there is no future for political revolutions. Only one kind of revolution is possible, and that is spiritual revolution. Each individual has to change in his being, and if we can change millions of people then the society will change. There is no other way, there is no shortcut.
And this too has to be understood: It is an inherent characteristic of any developing system that heroes emerge and are heroes only in the context which stimulated their creation. As these heroes overcome and change such contexts, the heroes themselves become the context to be changed.
A certain hero is born in a certain situation. For example, Mahatma Gandhi was born because of the British Empire. He was meaningful only in the context of the British Empire. Once the British Empire died Mahatma Gandhi was meaningless. The context was not there; from where can you get the meaning? So once the context is changed, then the hero himself becomes a useless burden. Lenin became a burden to those who came into power, Gandhi became a burden to those who came into power. Jayaprakash has become a burden right now to those who are in power - and this is the history, the whole history. But there is a fundamental law working: It is an inherent characteristic of any developing system that heroes emerge and are heroes only in the context which stimulated their creation.
Political leaders are temporary leaders. They exist in a certain context; when the context is gone they are gone.
That is where Buddhas are different: their context is eternity. Their context is not a part of time.
This is where Jesus, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu, remain eternally meaningful: because they are not part of time their message is eternal. Their message exists in the context of human misery, human ignorance. Unless the whole existence becomes enlightened, Buddha will not become irrelevant.
That's why I say political leaders come and go, they are on the stage just for a few moments. Only spiritual beings remain, abide.
Buddha is still meaningful and will remain meaningful, forever and forever, because enlightenment will always be a need. Politicians don't make the real history of humanity; they only create noise.
The real history is something else that runs like an undercurrent. The real history has not yet been written, because we become too engrossed in the temporal things. We become too obsessed with the newspaper which is only relevant today and tomorrow will be meaningless.
If you have eyes to see, see the point: become interested in the eternal.
Old, ancient societies were not interested in the day-to-day too much. Their interest was deeper.
They were not brought up on the newspaper, radio and television. They recited the Koran, they meditated on the Gita, they chanted the Vedas, they contemplated the statues of Buddha and Mahavir. These are eternal phenomena.
That's why I say the events that happen every day are almost meaningless, because the moment they happen, immediately they disappear because their context changes. Political revolutions have been happening and disappearing; they are bubbles, soap bubbles. Maybe for a moment they look very beautiful, but they are not eternal diamonds.
The eternal diamond is the inner revolution. But the inner revolution is difficult because the inner revolution needs creativity and the outer revolution needs destructiveness. Hate is easy, love is difficult. To destroy is easy. To create a Taj Mahal takes years - it took forty years and fifty thousand persons working every day - but how many days will you take to destroy it? Just take a bulldozer and within a day the land will be flat.
To destroy is very easy, so people become very interested in destruction; they think this is a shortcut.
To create is very difficult.
And again I will remind you: because all political revolutions are destructive - they are capable in destroying - they can provoke people into destruction. It is very easy to provoke people into destruction because people are frustrated, people are in misery; you can provoke them into any revolt. But the moment they have destroyed, the problem arises: "Now what to do?" They don't know how to create, and your so-called revolutionaries don't know what to do now. Then everybody is at a loss. The misery continues, sometimes even becomes deeper, uglier. After a few years, again people forget and again they start thinking in terms of revolution - and the political leader is always there to lead you into destruction.
My work here is of creativity. I am not provoking you into any destruction, I am not telling you to blame others for your misery. I am telling you you are responsible, so only those who have the guts to take this responsibility can be with me. But this is a real revolution. If you take the responsibility for your life you can start changing it. Slow will be the change, only in the course of time will you start moving into the world of light and crystallization, but once you are crystallized you will know what real revolution is. Then share your revolution with others; it has to go that way, from heart to heart.
Governments, social structures, have been changed many times, but nothing really changes. Again the same thing is repeated.
That's why I don't call my sannyasins revolutionary but rebellious - just to make the differentiation.
Revolution has become too contaminated with the social idea. Rebellion is individual.
Rebel! Take responsibility for your life. Drop all that nonsense which has been put inside you. Drop all that you have been taught and start learning again from ABC. It is a hard, arduous journey.
And remember one thing more:... thus both coping systems and governments begin as useful and gradually become counter-productive. This is the nature of the evolutionary process itself.
Whatsoever happens on the outside may look in the beginning as if it is very productive; soon it becomes counter-productive - because life goes on changing. Life goes on taking jumps into the unknown and your structures always lag behind. And each structure in its own turn becomes a grave; it has to be broken again.
But I am showing you a way where there is no need for any structure inside. Consciousness can remain unstructured. That is the meaning of the word 'freedom'. Consciousness need not have any structure, any character. Consciousness can live moment-to-moment without any structure, without any morality, without any character, because consciousness is ENOUGH. You can respond, and your response will be good and virtuous because you responded consciously. Live consciously, without any structure, so you will never be caught in a counter-productive system. Otherwise that too happens: you learn one thing; it is beautiful, but only for a few days will it remain beautiful. Soon it will become a habit and again you will find yourself surrounded by a habit, encaged.
Real life has to be lived without habits. You have heard, again and again you have been told, "Drop bad habits." I tell you: Drop habit as such! There are not good and bad habits: all habits are bad.
Remain without habits, live without habits; then you live moment-to-moment out of freedom - and this is the life of a revolutionary.
And remember also: So in the light of their past service, do not blame any program for being counter- productive as you remove it. Housecleaning should be guiltless. You will remove a program as it no longer fits your developing gestalt, but avoid the temptation to be harsh with the program you remove, because they were necessary stepping-stones to get to where you are now. Love them for this while defusing their power over you for upcoming phases.
Whatsoever you do will become a habit, sooner or later. The moment you see it has become a habit, drop it. It is counter-productive now, it is counter-revolutionary now. It will pull you backwards, it will not allow you to move forwards. It will keep you tethered to the known, it will not allow you to go into the unscheduled, unmapped, unmeasured. So whenever you remove a habit don't feel guilty - 'Housecleaning should be guiltless'; and it should not be harsh either. When you remove a habit, howsoever good it has been, when you remove it don't feel guilty. Don't think, "My mother taught me this. If I am removing it I am betraying her."
People write letters to me: "How can I take sannyas? My parents have taught me to be a Catholic Christian. Will it not be betraying them." "I have been brought up as a Mohammedan. Will it not be betraying the people who have taught me with such love, with such care, to be a Mohammedan?"
Guilt arises. If you are feeling flowing, free, in being a Catholic, there is no need to change. But the desire to change is there; that simply shows you are feeling confined. Yes, your mother taught you something that she knew, that she felt would be good for you, but the context has changed. You are living a totally different life than your mother lived. How can she remain a teacher to you forever?
Don't feel guilty when you drop a program, and don't feel harsh either - because these are the two extremes. Either people feel guilty or they feel very harsh, antagonistic, angry. There is no need to even feel angry, because whatsoever the poor old woman knew and thought would be good for you she taught you. It served its purpose. In fact, who knows? - if you were not a Catholic Christian you may not have come to me. It has brought you here. So whatsoever has happened in the past has been used as a stepping-stone; feel grateful to it.
No need to feel guilty, no need to feel harsh. Whenever you remove a program, remove it - just like you remove your clothes. When your body grows, your clothes become small. You don't feel guilty because you are removing pyjamas your mother had given you that don't fit you anymore. You have to remove them! And you don't feel angry either. You need not first beat them and throw petrol on them and burn them and make such fuss about it. You don't do that either. because you know they have served their purpose.
Man is a growing gestalt. Every day new things are to happen. Every day you have to absorb the new and make a place for the new; the old has to be gone. The old has to be said goodbye to, with all thankfulness.
If you can remember these two things - never feel guilty when you remove an old program and never feel harsh when you remove an old program - you will be moving towards the revolution I am intending you to understand. A revolutionary is not really angry. Why should he be? There is no reason. Whatsoever your parents could do, they did, and they did it with all good wishes. It is another matter that whatsoever they were doing was not useful, was not making you free, but that was not their intention. Their intention was good. And they could not have done otherwise; they had lived in a different world.
So remember, when you bring up your own children, remember: don't give them programs, give them understanding. Don't give them fixed rules, just give them the vision to see things so they can find their own rules. Don't give them knowledge, just give them awareness. That's what I would like my sannyasins to do with their own children: give them awareness so that whenever and wherever they are...
And remember, they will not be in the same world in which you are living and you have lived. They will have their own world. You cannot dream about it, you cannot think about it. They will never repeat the same life-pattern as you. They will have their own lifestyle.
Give them awareness: wherever they are they can find a way. Give them light, give them eyes to see, to understand, and give them courage to be free. Give them enough courage so that whenever they find something is not right in their program they can put it away, they can drop it. This is love.
Don't enforce any pattern on them. They will be living in a totally different world, so give your love but don't give your knowledge. The world is changing so fast that whatsoever you give will be out of date soon and will become a burden on them, and they will feel guilty if they drop it. Or if they really want to drop it they will have to be angry with you. In both ways it is not good, so don't create that situation for your own children.
Live a life of revolution and impart revolution to your children. Live a life of revolution and impart revolution to all those you love. Only this revolution will never fail... but this revolution has not been tried yet.
Jesus was talking about this, but it has not been tried. Buddha talked about this, but it has not been tried. I am talking about this; it depends on you whether it will be tried or not. The revolution that can succeed has not been tried, and the revolutions that have been tried have all failed.
The third question:
Just the other day in a magazine, CINE BLITZ, I came across a headline, and they say I am the Hugh Heffner of the spiritual world. And what are they talking about?
Yes, I teach you how to go deep in love. I teach you how to go deep in sex too, because that is the only way to go beyond. To go through it is the only way to go beyond it - but my goal is to take you beyond. Now this is a problem, and I am going to be misunderstood again and again, all over the world.
People have become accustomed: they think religious people have to be against sex; and those who are not against sex, how can they be religious? These have become DEADLY settled categories.
I am unsettling all those categories, and I don't expect the world to immediately change so much from its settled patterns of mind. So I don't expect them to understand me either. When they misunderstand, I perfectly understand their misunderstanding. I have no false hopes. It will take years or centuries for them to understand me, but this always happens.
I am creating a new vision of life. The vision is so new that they don't have any category for categorizing it. So all are angry; Mahatma Morarji Desai is angry. He is angry because he is sexually repressed, utterly repressed, with no understanding. He has just repressed his sexuality.
The story is that when Morarji Desai was young, in his young days fifty or so years ago, a man in his village raped his own sister. That shocked him very much, and he thought that it was sex that was the cause of such a great crime. In fact, repression may have been the cause; otherwise who wants to rape his own sister? In fact, sisters don't look very appealing at all. One has lived with them, one has grown up with them. Unless a person is very repressed it is very difficult to fall in love with his own sister, almost impossible.
Love always happens with the unknown, with the unacquainted. Familiarity breeds contempt. How can one love one's own sister? But the man must have been living in a deep repression - maybe he had never known any woman! He must have been desperate. But what Morarji concluded out of it was this: that sex is the root cause of all crime. If it can drive people mad and they can rape their own sisters, this is the root cause of all crime. He decided never to go into sex again - not for any religious reason, not for any spiritual reason - and since that time he has been repressing.
And the same was true about his guru, Mahatma Gandhi. It was also a trauma that created his lifelong celibacy. His father was dying and he was massaging his father's feet, and the doctors had said that this might be the last night, he might not see the morning again. But at twelve o'clock in the night when the father fell asleep, he went back and started making love to his wife. He went back to his room, and when he was just in the middle of the act, somebody knocked on the door and said, "What are you doing? Where are you? Your father is dead."
It shocked him. It was a trauma, a great trauma that transformed his whole life - not for the better, but for the worse. He felt guilty. He concluded that it was the lust, the sex, that had driven him at the last moment when his father was dying. He had committed a crime, a sin. He could never forgive himself so he renounced sex, and for his whole life he suppressed sex. Only in the end, in the last years of his life, did he become aware of the suppression because the sexual fantasy continued to the very end. Then he started trying some Tantra experiments, so that before he died he could get rid of sex - but it was too late.
These people cannot understand. They will think that I am a sex guru, that I am teaching you sex, that I am teaching you indulgence. These people cannot understand.
Hugh Heffner cannot understand either, because he will ask why am I talking about meditation, why am I talking about spirituality? Spirituality, meditation, SAMADHI - these things will look like nonsense to him.
So both Morarji Desai and Hugh Heffner will misunderstand me. I am going to be misunderstood by the so-called spiritualists and by the so-called materialists, but I understand that it is going to be my fate.
I can only be understood by a NEW kind of being who has seen this totality: that man is both body and soul, and that life matures only through experiences.
Sex can become a stepping-stone towards SAMADHI. If you understand it deeply, if you experience it deeply, you will be free of it - but that freedom will have a totally different quality I It will not be a repressed sex. A repressed sex continues underground, goes on in your unconscious, on and on, and goes on affecting your life.
I have heard...
Once a wealthy old religious woman caught a burglar ransacking her things. She had lived her whole life as a celibate, almost like a nun.
"Listen lady, keep quiet if you don't want to be hurt. Just tell me where your jewels are."
She said, "I don't keep them here. They are in the bank in the safe-deposit vault."
"Where is all your silver then?" "I am sorry, but it is all out, being cleaned and polished." "Give me your money then."
"I tell you," she said, "I don't keep any cash on hand."
"Listen lady, I am warning you - give me your money or I will rip it off you." And he started feeling her up and down.
"I keep telling you," she said, "I don't have any money. But if you do that again I will write you a cheque."
I have also heard another story; maybe it is about the same burglar...
In the middle of the night a phone call came through at the police station. Somebody was in need of immediate help. The voice on the phone said desperately, "Come soon! Come immediately! A burglar is trapped in an old woman's room!" The police inspector on duty said, "We will be reaching within five minutes. But who is calling?"
And the voice said, "It is the burglar."
If you repress, you will carry the wound for your whole life, unhealed. Repression is not the way.
The radical change comes through understanding, and understanding comes through experience.
So I give you total freedom to experience all that your mind, your body want to experience, with just one condition: be alert, be watchful, be conscious.
If you can make love consciously, you will be surprised: love has all the keys to SAMADHI. If you go deeply into love with full consciousness, alert and aware, you will see that it is not love that attracts you; but in the highest peak of love, in the orgasmic explosion, your mind disappears, your thoughts stop, and that is from where the nectar flows into you. It is not really sex that gives you that beautiful experience. Sex simply helps you, in a natural way, to come to a point where mind is dissolved - of course, for a moment. The clouds disperse and you can see the sun. Again those clouds will be there and the sun will be lost, and again you will start fantasizing about sex. If you go unconscious, then you will miss this whole secret again and again.
It is not sex that is keeping you tethered to the world, it is unconsciousness! So the question is not how to drop sex; the question is how to drop unconsciousness. Be conscious and let your natural being have its whole flow.
And sex is a natural part. You are born of it; every cell of your body is a sexual cell. Repressing it is against nature.
But there is a transcendence which is a totally different matter. If you are alert and aware in your orgasmic moment, you will see time disappears - for a moment there is no time, no past, no future.
You are utterly herenow, and that is the beauty. It is because of that that you feel such joy, so much blessing showers on you.
Now these two secrets have to be understood: one, the disappearance of the mind for a moment, and the disappearance of time for a moment. And these are two aspects of one phenomenon: one aspect is time, the other aspect is mind. When these two disappear you are in utter bliss, you are in God. And meditation is a way to let these disappear without going into sex.
When you go into meditation you will recognize one day the truth that in meditation it happens also:
mind disappears, time disappears. And that day will be the day of great realization. That day you will see why you were so interested in sex, and that very day all interest in sex will disappear. Not that you will have to drop it by effort; it will simply disappear, just like dewdrops in the morning sun disappear, with no trace, with no wounds.
If you can create it through meditation, it is far easier to create it - because you do it alone. The other is not needed, you need not depend on the other.
Secondly, if you can do it meditatively, no energy is lost. On the contrary you become more vital because energy is saved.
Thirdly, if you can do it meditatively, then you can remain in it as long as you want. It is not momentary. You can by and by learn how to remain in it for twenty-four hours. A Buddha lives in the orgasmic state for twenty-four hours, day in, day out. Between the day Gautama Buddha became enlightened and the day he died there is a distance of forty-two years. For these forty-two years he was utterly in an orgasmic state. Just think! Those few moments you have are nothing compared to a Buddha's.
I am teaching you a new kind of synthesis. I am all for that transcendence that brings you to Buddhahood, but it is transcendence, not repression. Through repression nobody ever transcends.
Through repression one goes on moving and moving in the same rut. Repressing, you have to repress every day. To the very last moment of your death, sex will haunt you. If you really want to get rid of it... and I want you to get rid of it! But I am not against sex, because those who are against sex can never get rid of it. Hence the paradox of my teachings.
Only those who are really ready to understand will be able to understand; otherwise I am going to be misunderstood. The crowd, the mass, is going to misunderstand me. But I don't expect, either, that they should understand. I feel sorry for them, but there is no expectation either, sol never feel offended. I know that the teaching is so new that it will take centuries to create criteria on which it can be judged. Criteria are not there. It is said when a poet is really great his poetry cannot be understood, because all the old poetry is different from it. The great poet has to create his own criteria on which his poetry can be judged. So is it the case with a great painter: you cannot judge a great painter by the old painters and the old masters. He has such a new message that no old valuations will be of any help, so he has to create new values also. It takes time. And if it is so with poetry and painting and sculpture, what to say about enlightenment? That is the greatest art, the art of all the arts. It takes centuries.
The last question:
It is good that something unexpected is going to happen to you. In fact, if only the expected happened, you would be utterly bored. Just think of a life in which only that which you expect always happens. What will you do with such a life? There would be no joy in it, it would be sheer boredom. You expect a friend and he knocks on the door. You expect a headache and it is there.
You expect your wife to leave and she leaves. You expect, and it happens. Within twenty-four hours you would commit suicide! What will you do if all that happened, happened just by your expectation and according to your expectation?
Life is an adventure because the unexpected happens. The greater would be the adventure if more and more unexpected things happened to you. Feel blissful. The unexpected happens - be ready for it, make way for it. Don't ask for the expected. That's why I say remain empty for the future; don't project. Let the future happen on its own, and you will be continuously in joy. You will have a dance in your being, because each thing that will happen will be so unexpected, and when it is unexpected, it has a mystery in it....
I have heard about a clairvoyant little boy. It seems this boy had premonitions. Once while reciting his prayers he said, "God bless mommy, God bless daddy, God bless grandma, goodbye grandpa."
The next day grandpa died of a stroke.
Then later on the little boy said, "God bless mommy, God bless daddy, goodbye grandma." Then grandma was hit while crossing the street.
Sometime later in his prayers, he said, "God bless mommy, goodbye daddy." The father was really upset. He had himself driven to the office, but he could not work there at all. Finally he decided to come home early, but he was afraid to drive back so he took a taxi home and rushed in.
He was greeted by his wife, who said, "What do you think happened today dear? The most awful thing! The milkman dropped dead on the back porch!"