HITHERTO, it was impossible to create a society which synthesizes both polarities of science and religion, of logic and poetry. It was impossible because this synthesis can become possible only when both the alternatives, taken alone, have proved to be total failures. Now, for the first time in the history of human consciousness, we are at the stage where both the alternatives have proved failures. Chosen alone, taken alone, each has proved a failure. So this age is really of very deep significance because the human mind will transcend the old conflict and the old polarities now.
The East tried one alternative - choosing religion at the cost of science. The West tried the reverse - choosing science at the cost of religion. The East succeeded in attaining the inner center in a few individuals. The West succeeded in attaining a prosperous affluent society. The East failed economically, technologically; it remained poor. The West failed spiritually; it remained empty inwardly. Thus, a synthesis began to happen.
A few individuals in the East and in the West also were able to conceive of it. They could look into the future. They are known as prophets because of this - because they can know, because they can probe deep into the future. But prophets are never believed when they are alive because they go too far ahead. We cannot follow them and we cannot see how their innerness is working. So they are never believed, never followed. Only retrospectively do we feel that they were right.
Many times this synthesis was proposed. For example, Krishna proposed it. His was one of the most penetrating efforts of synthesis. The Gita has been read, worshipped, but no one listened to him. Really, prophets are always born before their time. So the people who can understand them are yet not, and the people who are cannot understand them. There is a gap.
In a few individual cases, the synthesis was attained. There have been a few individuals who were both - religious and scientific, logical and poetic. But that is a very subtle balance, and only a genius could attain it in the past. For example, a Michaelangelo or a Goethe or, even in our own times, Albert Einstein: they could attain a synthesis in their individuality. But then they became puzzles to us - because they moved between two polarities so easily that they appeared inconsistent.
Consistency can be had only if you belong to one extreme. If someone moves between two, if a scientist is also a poet, then he has two personalities: he moves between the two. When he goes to his laboratory, he forgets poetry completely. He changes his being from a poet's being to a scientist's being. He begins to think in totally different categories. When he moves out of his lab, he moves again into a different being. The second being is not mathematical, not experimental. It is more like a dream than like any scientific experiment.
This is very difficult, arduous, but sometimes this has been attained in a few individuals who could move. Michaelangelo was a mathematician and also a great artist. Goethe was a poet and also a very deep probing logical thinker. Einstein was essentially a mathematician, a physicist, and yet he was aware and in deep contact with that which was mysterious around him. But then this was possible for only a few individuals. This should be possible for a greater number. Now the time is ripe, and the moment will come when society need not think in terms of opposites. Rather, it must think in terms of complementaries.
Two opposites are not really two enemies. They support each other; neither can exist without the other. Deep down they are related. We can call them "intimate enemies". They depend on each other. Each cannot exist without the other, and yet they are opposite. This opposition gives a tension, a certain energy, which helps them to exist.
But this was not possible in the past. Many tried one alternative because to try one is easy. You can be religious easily, you can be scientific easily - but to be both is a very delicate balance, and then you need a very developed mind which can move from one group to another without any difficulty.
Look at our minds! When you move from your house to your office, your mind continues in the house. When you move from your office to your house, it is not that by leaving your office your mind leaves your office - it continues to be in your office. Physical movement is easy; mental movement is difficult. And between a house and an office there is no opposition.
When someone thinks mathematically, it is a totally different approach toward life; when one begins to think poetically, it is totally different. It is as if you have moved from one planet to another, and the other cannot be allowed any voice. So a very deep control and integration is needed; otherwise the mind continues in one pattern. It is easy to move in one pattern. That is why it is easy for societies to choose.
The East experimented with one choice and the West with another. Both have failed. The whole history of man is the history of two failures - Eastern and Western. Now both of these failures can be studied, and now we can become aware of the fallacies of history and the errors of the experienced standpoints. Now you can feel that a new world with a new attitude is possible - a synthetic attitude.
Obviously, that world cannot be Eastern and cannot be Western. So do not ask which land is more fertile, because then the whole world will become one world. Really, if you can still continue in terms of which land is more fertile, you again are trying to think in old categories. If East and West both have failed, then really this is the moment to drop the whole nonsense of being Eastern or of being Western. Now one humanity emerges. It is neither Eastern nor Western. It is human, and the whole planet earth becomes a small village.
A whole earth is possible, but the earth has not been whole. Now, for the first time, barriers arc breaking. This breakdown of the old barriers will have to be consciously worked out. Unconsciously, it will take a longer time. Consciously, it can be done very easily and with less pain and less suffering.
Now men should not belong to any land, to any culture, to any civilization, to any religion. Now, for the first time, men must belong to the whole earth.
The very base of thinking in terms of East and West, this and that, belongs to the past. For the future, it is not only foolish: it is deeply harmful. But how can this be made possible? This can be made possible in three ways. One, the mind must not be trained in any one attitude. The mind must be trained simultaneously in both the attitudes. A child must not be trained only in logic, doubt and science. He must be trained for trust, for meditation, for religious sensitivity, and both of these trainings must be given simultaneously.
For example, if one person marries someone who belongs to another group of languages, such as a German marrying an Indian, then the children will be bi-lingual from their very beginning. If you are born in one language group, you learn one language as your mother tongue. Then afterwards you can learn another language, but the second language will always be a second language. It will be imposed over and above the first, and the first will always colour it. Deep down in the unconscious the original language will exist, and the second language will only be in the conscious.
One of my friends was in Germany for twenty years. This was such a long time that he forgot his own mother tongue, Marathi. Then he fell ill and he was in a hospital. The doctors were in difficulty because whenever he was conscious he would use German, and whenever he became unconscious - the disease was such that periodically he would go unconscious - he would speak Marathi. Then he would not be able to understand German at all.
The deep unconscious knows the first language; the second is imposed. But for a bi-lingual child who is born between two languages, both are mother tongues. He will have no difficulty in moving from one to another. Really, he will never feel any difficulty in moving from one language to another.
Science is one language toward the reality and religion is another language toward the reality.
Science is a detached language and religion is an intimate language. They both must be taught simultaneously, they both must become one. The child must never know that they are alternatives to choose between. A mind must be trained in doubt - doubt for science; and a mind must also be trained in trust - trust for life.
They are opposites to us because we were never trained that way: that is the only thing. To us faith and doubt are opposites. We say, "I have faith, so how can I doubt?" Or, "If I am a doubting man, if I can doubt, then how can I have faith?" Really, this division is stupid because their dimensions are different. Faith is for religion, faith is for deeper penetration into the reality, faith is for love, faith is for life. This is a different passage. Doubt is not needed. Doubt is for scientific research, for scientific approach, for facts, for dead facts, for observation.
For the outer world, doubt is a basic instrument; for the inner world, faith is the basic instrument - and these two need not be in conflict. They are in conflict because we are trained in one, and we cannot move from one to another. That difficulty in movement is only a difficulty of wrong training.
Otherwise, when you are working a mathematical problem, use mathematics; but when you are looking at a flower, there is no need of your mathematics coming in between. Then be poetic. With a flower, mathematics is not needed. With a full-moon night, mathematics is not needed. Forget mathematics! Open another door of your being!
Jesus has said, "My father's house has many mansions," many dimensions. You are also not a one-door house; you need not be. If you are, it means that only one door has been opened or tried.
There are other doors, and if they are opened you will be richer for that. If you can use other doors, then your personality will be less fixed, more river-like. Then you will be less dead and more alive.
Movement is life. And the more subtle the movement, the more abundant your life will be. So use doubt as an instrument, use faith as an instrument.
How is it possible? Now the second point: it is possible only if you are not identified with either. If you become identified with doubt, then you cannot move. Then your mind is doubt, so how can you move to faith? If you are identified with faith, then you cannot move to doubt.
So do not be identified with doors. You are different; doors are different. When you and the doors are different, there is no difficulty. Then you can move. So do not think that doubt is your being or faith is your being. Faith is a door; doubt is a door. You can move from either - from one to another.
If you are identified, then there is no choice.
But we are all identified. We go on saying, "I cannot believe, I cannot have faith, because I am a sceptic." Or someone says, "I cannot doubt because I am a religious man." This shows that your consciousness has become fixed, stone-like. It is not river-like, moving, flowing. Flow? Move! So the second point: the mind has to be trained not to be identified with instruments. Then you can use them. You can use a sword - but if you so are identified that your hand has become the sword, then how can you have a rose-flower in your hand? Then you will say, "It is impossible! How can I have a rose-flower in my hand? My hand is a sword!"
And there is no relationship between a sword and a flower. You can take the sword, you can take a flower. If your hand is free from identification, only then does it become possible. So the second point is not to be identified! In the future, we have to create an educational system which teaches non-identification with instruments. Then it is very easy - very easy!
Thirdly, remember this: the world exists as polarities, so if you choose one your world will be poorer.
If you say, "I am going to be this and not that," then you will belong only to half of the world; you will be half alive. Remember, the Existence is polarity - so if you want to be one with the total Existence, be able to move.
We think that someone is a very loving man, so we wonder, "How can he hate?" Or someone is a very hateful man, so "How can he love?" But if your love is such that you cannot hate, your love will be just nothing. It will have no life, no vigour. Your love will be impotent. If you cannot hate, then your love cannot be alive. And the same for the other extreme. If you can only hate and cannot love, your hate will be just a facade.
The opposite gives life. Your love will be richer if you can hate. There is no need to hate, but if you can hate? if that is your capacity, if you are capable of hate, your love will have a different quality, a deeper quality.
Everything that looks opposite to us is related, and the opposite gives strength. But we have been trained to be fixed beings. We have been trained not as processes, but as finished events, finished things. So we say that so-and-so is a man who is kind, and so-and-so is a man who belongs to another category - anger. But if a person who is kind is simply kind, if he cannot be angry, then his kindness will be shallow, his kindness will be just a clothing. If he can be angry also, then his kindness has a depth.
There is no need to be angry, there is no necessity - but the capacity must exist. This capacity to incorporate polar opposites needs a different training. A different mind has to be brought into the world.
Remember this: all the great sages who have brought non-violence were Kshatriyas they belonged to warrior races. Mahavir, Buddha, all the twenty-four Teerthankers of the Jains, they were Kshatriyas: they belonged to warrior races. This seems absurd. It would be better if. Brahmins were teaching non-violence, but no Brahmin has preached it. No Brahmin has ever preached non- violence. Only Kshatriyas have preached it. Why? And why do Mahavir and Buddha have such a depth into non-violence? They were capable of deep violence. They could move. They really belonged to a violent tribe, a violent type of mind. They were born to it, and then they moved to the other pole. They had a depth.
This is strange: if you go and try to find the opposite pole to Mahavir and Buddha, you will find Parasuram - a Brahmin who killed millions of Kshatriyas. It is reported that many times he set about killing all the Kshatriyas in the world. This was a very violent mind, but he came from a non-violent caste. He was a Brahmin. Why? No Kshatriya can be compared to Parasuram in violence. He is unique. The world has not produced another like him again. Mahavir and Buddha, they are Kshatriyas. This is meaningful, significant. The capacity to be the other gives a certain strength.
Another example: you might have heard many anecdotes about great men, very wise men, sometimes acting very foolishly. No fool will act that way. We laugh; we say they are absent-minded.
It is reported of Immanuel Kant, after he came home one night from his regular walk with his umbrella, that he forgot which was which: he put the umbrella on the bed, covered it with a blanket, thinking it was himself, and then he stood in the corner of the room thinking he was his umbrella. And he could discover that something had gone wrong only in the morning when the servant knocked at the door. The whole night he was standing. He was sleeping: he was not standing. When the servant knocked at the door, Kant looked at the bed and then he began to think, "Why am I not going to open the door?" Then suddenly he realized that there had been a mistake.
But we can laugh at Immanuel Kant. We know that such great men are sometimes very absent- minded. But why? You cannot commit such a foolish act because you cannot move to the other extreme. Only Immanuel Kant can commit such a foolish act. He touches one extreme of intelligence, then the other extreme becomes possible. So no foolish men are reported to have committed such foolish acts as so-called wise, intelligent men are reported to have committed.
Sometimes the opposite also happens. A very foolish man, an idiot, sometimes will give you such a deep advice as no wise man can give. And this has been known throughout history, so every great king would appoint a court idiot: a court idiot was to be appointed with every great king. Such a king would have a big court of many wise men, but one idiot was to be appointed in the court - the court fool.
And it has happened many times that when wise men were not able to suggest any advice, the court fool would suggest something. Why? Because many times wise men are so wise that they become impractical. Their very wiseness becomes a barrier. And a court fool is unafraid: he is unafraid of being a fool, so he can say anything. And sometimes, if you are unafraid, then only your advice can be of any worth. Why? When you are at one polarity, the other polarity becomes possible. We must teach the future mind both the polarities. And I mean it when I say it. We must not teach a person only to be wise: we must teach him to be foolish also.
Why? Because if you are not foolish enough, you cannot enjoy life. You will become a sad and serious dead thing. All that is beautiful in life can be enjoyed by those who are capable of playing at foolishness, of being a fool, otherwise it is impossible. So the more wise you are, the more foolish you will be as far as life is concerned. We can think of a synthesis between religion and science, but we cannot conceive of a synthesis between a wise man and a fool because now the problem goes even deeper.
And when we think about a synthesis between a scientific mind and a religious mind, it is not our problem. It is far away; it is not concerned with us. But when I say that a deep synthesis is needed between being wise and being foolish, then it is directly concerned with you. Then it is neither. Then you become uneasy. Then the mind will say, "Choose wiseness; do not choose to be foolish." But why is foolishness so much condemned? And children are so beautiful because they are foolish, and animals are so innocent because they are foolish. And look at the pundits: they are so wise, so serious, so sad, that really they are pathological, diseased.
This deep synthesis between all the opposites can become a training, and for the future mind this is going to be the training. If a religious man cannot laugh and cannot dance, he is not whole. And one who is not whole cannot be holy. Wholeness is holiness.
In this way Zen Buddhism has achieved a deep synthesis. Zen saints and sages can act like fools, and that shows their wisdom. If you cannot act like a fool sometimes, that shows you are afraid to be a fool. That fear shows you are not yet wise. A wise man can move. I talk so much about Mulla Nasrudin because he is both - a deep synthesis. He can act foolish, and it is rare to find such a wise man.
One day Nasrudin's village invited him to give a talk to the town. Some festival was on, and they needed someone to give a religious talk. So Nasrudin said, "Okay, I will come." So they came to receive him. He came out of his house sitting on his donkey in reverse order. His face was toward the back of the donkey and his back toward the donkey's face.
The whole group, those who had come to receive him, followed him, but they became uneasy because villagers began to stare. They thought: "This Mulla is a fool, and those who are following him and who are going to listen to him are greater fools. Who has ever heard of any man sitting on a donkey this way?" But the followers resisted. They controlled themselves, but it was impossible.
When they were just passing the market, it became impossible. Everyone was laughing, so they asked Mulla, "Would it not be better if you changed your position?" The whole village was laughing.
Mulla Nasrudin said seriously, "If you are going to listen to me, if you are going to understand me at all, remember the first principle: you are paying more attention to what others are saying and no attention to what we are doing. Pay more attention to what we are doing. Now I will explain to you."
Mulla Nasrudin said, "Now I will explain to you! If I sit in an ordinary way, then my back will be toward you, and that will be disrespectful. If I allow you to move before me, in front of me, that will be disrespectful toward me. So this is the only human way possible. This is the only way it can be done without showing disrespect to anyone."
He looks foolish, but he is wise. But to find his wisdom will be difficult because it is shrouded with foolish acts. Only a wise man can penetrate into it. When you are paying some respect to someone, what are you doing? When you expect respect because of your age, what are you doing? When you are paying respect, you would not like to sit in such a way that your back is toward the person to whom you are paying respect, so why laugh at Mulla Nasrudin? He is just acting as the human mind acts. It is only that he goes to the very logical extreme and he says, "This is the only possible way of doing it."
Really, he is laughing at your so-called respect, honour, etc. If you can laugh at him, then laugh at the whole human stupidity. If you are sitting on a chair and your father comes into the room, what will he do? If you do not stand, he will feel that you have been disrespectful toward him. But what nonsense! Sitting or standing, how does it make any difference? So the real thing is not whether you are sitting or standing. The real thing is that everyone is an egoist and everyone is expecting some gesture so that his ego is fulfilled.
There was one great teacher, A. S. Neill. He was teaching one day in his classroom, and his students were sitting as they liked. One Indian teacher visited him that day and he was aghast. He couldn't conceive what type of class this was. One student was smoking a cigarette, one was just lying on the floor with closed eyes, and the dass was on and A. S. Neill was teaching. So the Indian teacher said, "This is indiscipline. What are you doing? Stop and first let them sit in a right way with respect toward the teacher."
Neill is reported to have said, "You do not understand what is going on here. They love me so much that they can be at ease with me. And if respect goes against love, then love is to be chosen. What can be more respectful toward me than love? They are feeling that they are at home, and I am here to teach them - not to make them sit in a proper way. If one student feels that by lying down on the floor with closed eyes he can learn better, then okay. I am here to teach them certain things, so it is okay. If I make them sit forcibly, and if only because of that they cannot learn, then I am not doing the duty of a teacher."
So Neill can understand the anecdote about Nasrudin. Life is a multiplicity, a very paradoxical phenomenon. You must be capable of moving to both the poles and yet remain beyond. And only if you are beyond both can you move.
It is reported of Gurdjieff, by many of his disciples, that suddenly, at any moment, he would act foolish. He would create such a situation that his disciples would become very uncomfortable.
Why? He was one of the wisest men possible. Why? Because to go on insisting on being wise is part of the ego.
One day one press reporter came to take an interview with George Gurdjieff. He was sitting there.
A few disciples were there and he was answering their questions. The reporter came. Of course, as he was a press reporter of a big daily newspaper he was full of ego. feeling very important. Gurdjieff told him to sit down by his side, and then suddenly he asked a lady who was on the other side, "Which day is today?" The lady said, "Today is Saturday." Gurdjieff said, "How is it possible? Just yesterday it was Friday. How is Saturday possible today? And yesterday you told me that it was Friday."
The press reporter stood up and he said, "Okay, I am going."
When the reporter left, Gurdjieff laughed. But all the disciples felt very uncomfortable because they had arranged the interview, and now the reporter was going to report that they belong to a foolish teacher and they follow a foolish man.
But only a Gurdjieff can act this way. What did he do through this? He showed to his disciples that "you are trying, through Gurdjieff, to strengthen your egos, although you may or may not be aware of it." But the disciples insisted, "He will think you are a fool!" So Gurdjieff said, "Let him think. How does it matter? What others think is irrelevant."
This is really a humble man, because if you go on considering what others think about it, you will go on using masks, false faces. You will try to appear beautiful, wise, because you are not concerned with what you are. You are more concerned what they think. and this is the foolishness of the ego.
So we must train a synthetic mind which is capable of turning beyond the duality and is capable of moving; a mind which can enjoy, be playful and be serious, and which can work. This liquidity is possible now. It was not possible before.
And because both alternatives have failed, a third possibility becomes open: meditation can help very much. Really, meditation is the only thing that can help. So if meditation makes you lopsided, it is not meditation.
If a meditation gives you a more balanced life, a more balanced consciousness, then only is it real.
If meditation makes you withdraw from life, it is not meditation. If meditation helps you to be in the world without being in the world, if meditation helps you to be in the world but does not allow the world to be in you, then you have achieved a synthesis. Janak is a synthesis; Krishna is a synthesis.
Life is not taken in opposites. One remains in both the polarities without being attached to any.
There are three states - ignorance, knowledge, and the transcendence of knowledge that is wisdom.
These three states are basic to all dimensions, whether science or religion. A religious man is ignorant: he is in the first state. He doesn't know anything higher than the body, higher than the world. He lives like a child.
Then the second state is of knowledge. He begins to think. He gathers knowledge, information; he becomes knowledgeable. But this knowledge is borrowed. It is not his own; he has not known it.
Then he throws it. Everything that is borrowed is thrown. Now he jumps into himself, to the very source of his being. Then he becomes wise. He passes through ignorance, learning, unlearning, then he becomes wise.
The same happens with science also The first stage is ignorance; then one becomes a scientist. This is a knowing about the outer world. This knowing is also borrowed. This knowing is technological.
If one clings to this knowing, then he remains in the second stage. But if he can throw this scientific knowledge also and can take a jump into the Existence, the unknown Existence, then he becomes wise. So whatsoever the dimension may be, these three states will be relevant.
Whatsoever you know through others - from others, from tradition, from scriptures, from someone else - whatsoever is not immediate, without any medium, whatsoever is not known directly by you, is knowledge. Whatsoever is known by you directly, immediately, is wisdom. So whether it is religion or science, it makes no difference. Learning must be unlearned; then there is the jump. And one can take the jump from any place, from wheresoever one is standing. Even if it is art, one must take the jump from the knowledge of art. Only then does wisdom flower. In Zen there has been training in meditation through many thing through painting, through archery, through flower arrangement. This remains a basic principle.
Bokuju was learning with his teacher. He became a great painter, the greatest ever known. And then, one day, his teacher said. "Now stop painting." When he was at the height, at the peak, the pinnacle, when his name was penetrating far and wide, when emperors had become interested in him, when everyone had started talking about his painting, his teacher said, "Now you stop painting.
For twelve years forget painting completely. Throw it!"
How difficult it was! He was just at the peak. Bokuju followed his teacher. He became just an ordinary gardener in his teacher's garden. For twelve years there was no painting, no talk of painting, then one day, the teacher said, "Now you can paint again."
Bokuju said, "Now I know. That time I simply trusted you. Now I know, because now whatsoever I paint will be mine."
This was learning, then unlearning. He said, "Now I can paint like a child without knowing anything of painting. I have forgotten everything; now I can paint like a child." And then it is reported that Bokuju would paint like a child. Then his paintings became of another world - OF ANOTHER WORLD!
They were not of this world. They were not even painted. He was just a child playing when he would paint.
Then his teacher said, "Now you are wise. There is no effort now - no training, no art, no knowledge.
You have become innocent. You cannot paint in the old way now."
One has to learn first and then unlearn. When art is forgotten, only then is the artist born. If you know that you cannot be totally in it, your knowledge will be a disturbance.
I will relate to you another story. In Thailand one temple was being built, and the greatest painter was called to plan for the great gate. The emperor said, "This gate, this temple gate, must be something unique in the world. There must be no comparison, so work hard."
This painter was a teacher, a monk. He tried hard. Whenever he would make something. it was his habit to ask his greatest disciple, who was just by his side, "Do you say it is okay?"
If the disciple approved, only then would he go ahead; otherwise he would throw it. He painted a hundred paintings, then he would look at the disciple, and the disciple would nod and say, "No!" Then he would throw it. Three months passed, and the emperor was asking again and again, "When?"
But the teacher said, "I do not know. Not until my disciple says yes."
One day when he was painting, the ink was finished. He was just in the middle, so he asked his disciple to prepare more ink. The disciple went out to prepare more ink. Then without ink, just with his pencil, he drew a sketch. When the disciple came, he said, "What! You have done the thing!
This is the thing! But how could you do it? You had endeavoured so much for three months."
The teacher laughed and said, "Because you were present, I was conscious of 'me'. That was the only error. When you were not here, I was also not here. I could forget myself. That is why this thing has come. I couldn't forget myself when you were there. Then the judge was there, and I was every moment afraid whether you were going to say yes or no each time, and I was making every effort so that you could say yes. That effort was the barrier. You were not here, so I was at ease, relaxed, and the thing happened."
The thing always happens when you are so relaxed that you are not. But a person of knowledge cannot be so relaxed. Knowledge is the burden, the tension. So whatsoever the dimension may be - art, religion, philosophy, whatsoever - these are the three stages: ignorance, learning and then unlearning. Then you become wise.
And, secondly, it is asked, "Is it not true that it is the East which has given birth to the six great Indian philosophies? Then in what sense do you consider the East anti-philosophic?"
There are many reasons. First: the Indian philosophical systems are not philosophical in the Western sense. The Western philosophies call them "religious philosophies". They call them religious philosophies! They are not philosophies like those of Aristotle, Plato, Kant or Hegel. They are not - because they state many truths, but their evidence is not logical. The ultimate verification is experience.
In the Western philosophies the ultimate verification is logical, not experiential. If I can prove a certain thing logically, it is okay. But the Indian mind is different. The Indian mind says even if you can prove a certain thing logically, it may not be true. And it may even be that I cannot prove a certain thing logically, but it is true.
For example, you say you are in love. Now prove how you are in love. What is the proof? How do you prove it? It cannot be proven. And if you try to prove it, it may happen that you yourself may become suspicious whether you are in love or not, because so many questions can be raised which cannot be argued. But still you know that you are in love.
There was a case in the court concerning Mulla Nasrudin. He was found with something which had been stolen from his neighbours' house, so he was suspected. But his advocate argued the case.
There was no evidence. He had not been seen going into the house; no one had seen him coming out of it. But the thing was with him: he was found with the thing. He argued the case so beautifully, so logically, that Nasrudin won.
When they were coming out of the court, the advocate asked Nasrudin, "Now tell me, really - were you involved in it?"
Nasrudin is reported to have said, "I thought before that I was involved, but you have argued the case so logically that now I am suspicious. You have convinced me also."
For Indian philosophy, logical conviction is not a criterion, that is the difference. The ultimate verification is experience. Indian religious philosophies talk logically. Mahavir, Buddha, Kapil - they talk logically. Every Indian system talks logically, but they do not depend on logic. They say, "Our expressions are logical so that you can understand them, but whatsoever we are proposing is not deduced from logic - it has come to us from experience."
For example, I experience something. Then I relate it to you and you begin to argue about it, so I also argue about it. But the experience has not come through argument. Rather, the argument has come through the experience; that is the difference. In the West, they say that if the argument is correct and cannot be refuted, then the conclusion is true. In India, they say that whether it is refuted or not, if it has been experienced it is true. So the truth of it lies in experiencing, not in argumentation.
So I also do not like to call Hindu systems of experiencing "philosophies". They are not! And why do I call them anti-philosophic? Because they are against the philosophical attitude. They say that Truth cannot be found through logical analysis. They say Truth cannot be proven through argumentation.
Argumentation, logic. everything, is just a method of expression, nothing else. Basically, Truth remains an experience. That is why they are anti-philosophic.
Ask Buddha something, and if he feels that you are asking for asking's sake he is not going to reply.
He will not reply! He will reply only if he feels that the inquirer is not just curious about it - if he is an authentic seeker. That means if he is ready to go to the experience. Otherwise Buddha is not interested.
Western philosophy - Greek philosophy in particular - says that philosophy starts with wonder. This has never been said in India. Hindu systems say that thinking starts in suffering, not in wonder. So note down this very deep foundational distinction.
The West says philosophy starts in curiosity. A child asks, "From where has this whole world come?"
A philosopher also asks this. If you ask Buddha, "From where has this world come," he will say, "This is childish. How are you concerned? And whatsoever the cause may have been, it is irrelevant." He says, "If you are ill, then ask for the medicine." Buddha says that we are suffering, that life is dukkha - suffering - so the question is how to go beyond it; that is the difference.
Inquiry about Truth is against error. Inquiry about Liberation is against suffering.
The Indian mind is more psychological, less philosophical - more concerned with actual human transformation, less concerned with idle curiosities And it is anti-philosophic. But we have created nine systems - six are Hindu, three non-Hindu. Those nine systems are not philosophical systems, but philosophical statements of inner experiences. They are called systems, but, really, "system" is not the right word. In Sanskrit they are called sampradaya - schools, not systems. A school is a different thing and a system is a different thing. A system means it is philosophical; a school means that it is a training ground. A school means you are trained for a particular experience. All the nine are trainings - trainings towards only one Ultimate goal: LIBERATION. That is why I call them anti-philosophic.
And because we have begun to think of them as philosophies, we are missing much. This is just one of the imitations of the Western mind. The way they teach and learn philosophy in the West has not been the way in the East ever, but now it is because our universities are just imitations of the West.
Nalanda was a different thing, Takshashila was a different thing. They were Eastern universities - very different, basically different. In Nalanda only Buddhist philosophy was taught. And what was the training? The training was not simply verbal, not scriptural, not just knowing about what Buddhist philosophy is. The training was in Buddhist yoga. The student would follow verbal instruction, and then, simultaneously, he would go deeper and deeper and deeper into meditation. Unless meditation and verbal training grow simultaneously, the whole growth is futile.
A story is reported about when Huan Chuang came to Nalanda. He was entering the main gate.
Nalanda was the biggest university in India; it had 10,000 students from all over the world. It is suspected that Jesus had been one of the students. When Huan Chuang came to the main door he met a bhikkhu - a sannyasin. He began to ask questions about the university: "What is the training and what...?" The man began to answer. Huan Chuang was impressed by the man, and he was the greatest scholar in China in those days - the greatest! He was so impressed with the man, and the man was so learned that Huan Chuang thought by chance that he was the Vice Chancellor - but he was just a doorkeeper. He reports in his memoirs that he was just a doorkeeper, but he knew everything about philosophy.
So Huan Chuang remained for three years in that university. When going back, he again passed the door, and he asked the man, "Why are you still a doorkeeper? You know so much."
The man said, "Because I only know. I have failed in experience. I only know, so I am a failure. I know as much as the Vice Chancellor; there is no difference as far as knowledge goes - but I am a failure because I couldn't grow into experience. That is why I am just a doorkeeper."
So learned men are just doorkeepers. The Indian attitude is for experience. Sometimes a Kabir can become the highest peak without any knowledge - without any so-called knowledge. Experience is the thing; that is why the East is anti-philosophical.