The Real Magic

The first question

Question 1:

Anand Guenter,

I SAY again that there are no miracles as such, because the whole existence is a miracle. What more miracles can there be? Each moment, each event, is miraculous.

The religious person is one for whom everything, from the most ordinary to the most extraordinary, has become a miracle. A seed growing green leaves, is it not a miracle far greater than any guy waLking on water on the Sea of Galilee? A bird flying in the sky, on the wing, is it not a greater miracle than anybody walking in fire? The roses, the lotuses, the marigolds, the millions of flowers .

. . and you don't see any miracles in them.

And you look for stupid things. Somebody materializing a Swiss-made watch - that is a miracle, and a rose is not a miracle. Somebody producing holy ash - that is a miracle, and the man who produces holy ash is nothing but an asshole! - and a cuckoo calling from the distance is not a miracle. You are blind, utterly blind and insane. You can only believe in childish things. You are not in search of the real magic of life; that's why stupid magicians can deceive vou.

Just to be is more than one can believe. To be able to breathe, to be able to see the rising sun, to be able to hear the chirping of the birds, to be able to feel love, prayer, gratitude, silence . . . This very moment - this is a miracle. The silence that encompasses you, the love that transpires between me and you, the communion, the satsang, with open hearts like lotuses - you are drinking me with such vulnerability, with such immense trust - what more miracles are needed to prove that existence is a mystery?

It happened:

A great mahatma - great because he used to walk on water - came to see Ramakrishna Paramahansa. Ramakrishna used to live in Dakshineshwar near Calcutta, on the bank of the Ganges. He was sitting under a banyan tree looking at the beautiful Ganges flowing by, and the mahatma came. And, of course, such people are on great ego trips. Because he could walk on water, of course he was great. His every vibe was saying "holier than thou."

He stood in front of Ramakrishna and said, "I have heard that people think you are a great mystic - but can you walk on water?"

Ramakrishna said, "No, I cannot walk on water. In fact, I cannot even swim! Can you?"

And the man said, "Yes, I can walk on water."

Ramakrishna asked, "Sir, please tell me how long it took for you to learn the art?"

The man said, "I have devoted eighteen years to learning the art of walking on water."

And Ramakrishna started giggling like a small child, and he said, "This is stupid, because whenever I want to go to the other shore the ferryman takes me, and he takes only one cent! Just for one cent I can go to the other side - and you wasted eighteen years? It is only worth one cent, not more than that. And you think yourself holy?"

The same type of story happened with that mysterious Mohammedan woman, Rabiya. Hasan, a Sufi mystic, came to see Rabiya and he wanted to show her his powers.

The very desire to show your powers is ugly; it is political. It is not religious, not at all spiritual. He talked about other things, but he was waiting for the right moment to arrive so that he could show his power.

And Rabiya said, "It is time now for me to read my Koran. Are you going to participate in reciting the Koran with me?"

And this was the right moment for which he was waiting. He said, "Let us go on the water." The lake was just in front of them. "We will walk on the water reciting the Koran!"

Rabiya said, "Walking on water, reciting the Koran? That does not appeal to me much. Don't you see the white cloud in the sky? We should go there, sit on the cloud and recite the Koran."

Hasan said, "But I don't know how to fly in the sky. Have you learned the art of flying in the sky?"

Rabiya said, "Birds can fly in the sky; it is not much of an art. Fishes can swim in the river, in the lake; it is not much of an art. Hasan, come to your senses! I was just joking. I cannot go to the cloud, I cannot walk on the water. But the teal miracle is: reciting the Koran, I disappear. Can you do that? Only reciting remains, singing remains - the singer disappears, I am no more."

I agree with Rabiya. There have been very few women who can be called Masters; Rabiya is one of them.

You ask me, Guenter: OSHO, I UNDERSTOOD YOU SAID THE OTHER DAY IN THE LECTURE THAT JESUS DID NOT WALK ON WATER...

Yes, because I respect Jesus so much, I cannot believe that he was so stupid as to walk on water.

And you say: YOU ALSO SAID THERE ARE NO MIRACLES AS SUCH.

Yes, there are no miracles as such because the whole of life is miraculous. Your being here and nowhere else - is it not a miracle?

It is said that once Mulla Nasruddin was making love to a friend's wife and suddenly the friend came in. The wife told Nasruddin, "Hide somewhere - my husband is coming! Be quick!"

Finding no other place, he went into the cupboard.

The husband came in. He saw the shoes of Nasruddin; he recognized them. He saw his clothes on the table; he recognized them. He saw the wife worried, embarrassed, naked. He asked, "Where is Mulla Nasruddin?"

The wife said, "I don't know. He has not been here!"

And the husband was furious - as husbands are supposed to be. He ran all over the house, looked in every nook and corner, under the bed, in the bathroom, in the kitchen. And finally he opened the cupboard, and Nasruddin, utterly naked, was standing there.

The friend asked, "Why are you standing here?"

Nasruddin said, "That's a great metaphysical question! One has to be somewhere. And I am not an expert in philosophical things. Now you are almost asking me, 'Why do you exist?' 'Why are you here?' you are asking me. This question can be asked any where; wherever I am somebody can ask, 'Why are you here?' "

The man agreed. He said, "That's right, the question is metaphysical."

Why are you here? Why does this whole existence exist? Is it not tremendously mysterious, miraculous? And you are asking for small things. Those small things are all invented; they are small magic tricks - or those things exist only in stories.

I have heard a story that Jesus, Luke, John, all three were going to the boat that was in the middle of the lake. Luke walked over the water, then John also walked over the water; they both reached the boat. Then Jesus followed them and started sinking.

Luke said to John, "Should we tell him where the rocks are?"

And this story:

In a small town there was a lake whose waters were known to be miraculous. People came to the lake, dived into its waters and came out the other side cured.

"I have seen it all," stated an old-timer of the town. "I have seen a blind man jump into the lake and emerge on the other side, yelling, 'I can see! I can see!' "

An old and poor cripple listening to this story decided to go to the miraculous lake himself. When he got there he saw a man with one leg jump into the lake and come out the other side crying in disbelief, "I can walk! I have two legs! "

The cripple could not wait any longer, so he jumped into his old wheelchair and pushed himself into the lake . . .

The townspeople pulled him out the other side, dead. But his wheelchair came out with brand new tires!

It seems the wheelchair knew Patanjali's art and the secrets of doing miracles!

Patanjali's Sutras certainly mention miracles, but for a totally different reason, not for the reason, Guenter, that you think. Patanjali has written a separate chapter about siddhis, miracles, for the specific purpose that nobody should get involved in such things. It is to debar, prohibit. It is not his purpose that you should become interested in miracles. His purpose is very clear.

He says those who get lost in miracles are lost in a jungle. Certainly there are powers within you, hidden powers within you, which you are not aware of. And when you start going deeper into meditation those hidden powers start manifesting themselves, and there is every possibility you will be tempted by those powers. There is nothing miraculous about them; they are as natural as any other law. We just don't understand the law underlying them, hence we call them miracles.

For example, if you meditate, soon you will realize the fact that you can read other people's thoughts.

Now it will look like a miracle: before the person has asked the question you can answer him. And he will be surprised, and you will be worshipped as a great saint. But you are being very stupid, because somehow you have got rid of your own ideas, now you are becoming interested in other people's ideas. Your ideas were useless; do you think other people's ideas are very significant? It took a long, arduous journey to somehow get rid of your mind, and now you have got into more trouble. Millions of minds around you, and as each person passes by you will read his thoughts. You have missed the point!

This is not intelligence. It is a very stupid act on your part, very mediocre, to get involved in other people's ideas and start reading them. Of course, they will be impressed and they will worship you, but all their worship will simply strengthen your ego. And soon you will see that as the ego becomes strong again, your mind comes back and you stop reading other people's ideas.

Then people have to invent strategies so that they can go on claiming the power that once was there and is no more there. It is very difficult to accept defeat. Then a person becomes a charlatan, a cheater. In the beginning it may have been some inner power that became manifest in him; now he has lost it. But how to say to people that "I have lost it"? The moment he says he has lost it, all the worshippers and the followers will disappear.

Patanjali has written a whole chapter just to make you aware that these things are possible. There are possibilities hidden in you, undreamt by you; they can become manifest when you go inwards.

But don't get in any way involved with them; remain a witness. Remain untempted and go on moving inwards. And the temptation will be great. There are no devils or Satans tempting you; it is your own mind and its inner capacities which tempt you.

For the same reason I deny miracles. I don't want you to become interested in any sort of thing that can become a distraction from your real search. I know perfectly well that if the fish can swim in the water and the bird can fly in the sky, there is a possibility that through certain yoga practices your body can start levitating. You can lose gravitation's grip on you, you can be free of it, through a certain process of breathing. You can become almost weightless, and then you can walk on water or fly in the sky.

But I deny all these things for the same reason that Patanjali mentions them, because my own experience has been this: that Patanjali's mentioning them has not been of help. If he had not mentioned them it would have been far better, because people are so foolish . . . In fact, people read that chapter more. Patanjali's Sutras contain only four chapters. Three chapters have to be practiced and the fourth has to be avoided. But people become interested only in the fourth, and if they are interested in the three they are interested in the three only as a means towards the fourth.

Patanjali's purpose is completely lost.

After five thousand years of spiritual search and groping in darkness and observing millions of people, this is my conclusion: that if Patanjali had not mentioned those miracles, many more people would have been benefited.

It is the same story... God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge - and they became interested in it. In the Garden of Eden there were millions of trees; they were not interested in any other tree anymore. They were tempted more and more by the Tree of Knowledge. "Why has God forbidden it?" The forbidden fruit becomes more appealing. We all know the forbidden kiss is far more sweet - and the stolen kiss can give you diabetes! It is pure white sugar.

The day God told Adam, "Don't eat from this tree," from that day Adam must have dreamt of the tree again and again. He must have gone for a morning walk, evening walk, night walk around the tree, many times a day, to see whether the tree still existed or not and how the fruits were growing. You can imagine how much he must have thought about it again and again.

And this is just nonsense to say that the Devil came in the form of a snake to tempt him - God was enough. His forbidding him was enough to tempt him. There was no need for the Devil, no need for any snake to come in.

Say to any child, "Don't do this," and there is every possibility that he will do it.

My father told me, "Before it is too late I want to tell you, don't smoke."

And I told him, "Now it will be difficult for me!"

He said, "What do you mean?"

I said, "I had never thought about it. In fact, the whole idea has always seemed foolish to me. Instead of breathing pure air, taking dirty smoke in and out . . . And you have to pay for it! And you have to suffer for it. And I have seen people coughing and still smoking."

My own grandfather suffered his whole life from a cough. And the doctors were saying, "Don't smoke," but that was impossible for him. To the very last he continued to smoke.

So I said, "Watching my grandfather was enough. Why did you say to me, 'Don't smoke'? Now I can assure you that I will smoke!"

And that very day I smoked for the first time. Of course it was bad - a bad experience: tears came to my eyes and I started coughing. I could not believe that millions of people are doing this. But I told my father, "I have smoked today and I am finished with it. Had you not told me, I may not have even tried. There are millions of things in the world to be interested in."

The same mistake has been made by Patanjali, with all good intentions. He mentions in detail all the siddhis, all the powers that are possible, just to make the seeker aware - but he himself is completely unaware of the foolish people who are going to read these sutras.

In fact. in those days Patanjali's Sutras were not written, so it was safe because they were delivered from the Masta to the disciple orally; they were delivered only to the person who was intelligent enough, capable enough. But now the danger is widespread.

Whosoever reads Patanjali's Sutras becomes immediately interested in the chapter which is specifically there to prohibit you. But that's how people are. Not even small people but people who tre very intelligent, great people, they also become interested in things which are prohibited.

For example, J. Krishnamurti, one of the most intelligent persons today, still reads detective novels, and for the simple reason that in his childhood, when everybody likes detective stories and novels, he was prohibited. Each thing was watched: what he ate, what he read, where he went . . . He was brought up like a prisoner. From the age of nine up to the age of twenty-five he was continuously watched - not even a single moment of aloneness.

And that dirty old man leadbeater who was his guardian appointed by Annie Besant, the President of the Theosophical Society, followed him like a shadow. And always somebody was there to keep an eye on him, because he was going to be the World Teacher. Now the World Teacher cannot be allowed to smoke cigarettes, to play cards, chess, or to experiment with psychedelic drugs, or to fall in love with a girl.

He was not allowed the company of any girl of his own age. When he was thirteen he was only allowed the company of a woman who was forty, and even then there were rumors all around the world that they had fallen in love. The woman was forty and the woman almost thought of him as ha son, but the rumor became so widespread that finally they were separated - forced to separate.

They had fallen in love in a way: he started loving ha as his mother and she started loving him as her son. But even that was not right - any kind of attachment may deter the progress of the World Teacher. And, of course, no detective novels, no stories...

Once he became free, once he declared at the age of twenty-five that "I am not going to be the World Teacher. I disband the organization that has been specially made for me . . ." A great organization had been created to receive the World Teacher, the Order of the Star of the East; he dissolved the Order. He returned all the properties that belonged to the Order; he returned all the donations that had come to the Order. At the age of twenty-five he became free from the Theosophists. Since then he has never read the Gita, the Koran, the Bible. the upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, the Talmud.

Since then he has been reading only detective novels. This is how mind works. That prohibition is still a hangover.

Guenter, it is not that I am not aware that there are many many hidden powers in man, but I don't want you to become interested in them. Hence I simply say they are stupid. And there are far more miraculous things happening all around. Become interested in them, because my whole effort here is to help your spiritual growth, not to hinder it.

The second question

Question 2:

Satsang,

FRIEDRICH NEITZSCHE is one of the most important beings in the whole history of man, of the same caliber as Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Mahavira, Buddha, Zarathustra. He would have become an enlightened being, but something went wrong. Instead of going through a breakthrough.

he went through a breakdown.

What really went wrong was the Western atmosphere, the whole Western intellectual climate. The responsibility is that of the Christian Church. The Christian Church is the culprit. It has destroyed the possibility of many many people like Friedrich Nietzsche becoming enlightened.

The Christian Church has destroyed all intellectual freedom in the West. The people who showed any sign of rebellion were burnt alive; their books were burnt, prohibited. The Christian Church has been one of the most fascist organizations in the history of man. It is not an accident that fascism.

Nazism, communism, all the three dangerous dictatorial trends of this century, are outcomes of Christianity.

The East cannot be held responsible because in the East intellectual freedom has always existed, has always been respected. No intellectual in the East has been crucified like Jesus; no philosopher has been poisoned like Socrates; no mystic has been murdered like Al-Hillaj Mansur. And the East has known more people like Socrates than the West, and the East has produced more people like Jesus than the West, and the East is studded with mystics like Al-Hillaj Mansur. But never, not even for a single instant, have we destroyed anybody's freedom. We have respected freedom as the ultimate value. Hence, when a man becomes enlightened and attains to the ultimate truth we say he has attained to moksha. The word moksha means absolute freedom, unconditional freedom, a freedom from which no fall is possible.

But Christianity has been very dictatorial. The ultimate consequence was that only the mediocre people remained in the Church and the intelligent people left the Church, or even if they remained in the Church they remained only formally; their hearts were not with the Church.

Friedrich Nietzsche became so disgusted with Christianity... And he knew only Christianity; he never knew anything about Zen, Sufism, otherwise he would have been a totally different man. The breakdown may not have happened; the breakdown may have changed into a breakthrough. He fought against the whole tradition of Christian domination, so much so that finally he became Anti- christ. He was fascinated by the personality of Jesus, but because Jesus is at the root, unfortunately - not that he intended to be at the root of the Christian Church, but it happened so, that the whole Church is based on Christ's idea - Friedrich Nietzsche became Antichrist. In his last days he had started signing his name "Antichrist Friedrich Nietzsche." He went mad. He risked his sanity, but he saved his freedom.

I respect the man, I love the man. I would have liked him to become a Buddha - he had all the potential - but he was in a wrong climate. He needed the Eastern freedom and the Eastern soil.

His antagonism became so great that not only did he become against Christ, he became an archenemy of God himself, because as he looked deeper into the phenomenon he found that Jesus is not the real foundation of the Christian Church - the real foundation rests on God, on the idea of God. Unless you remove that very foundation the Church cannot collapse.

Hence his statement that God is dead. You may not have heard the whole statement; this is only a part, and the whole is very significant. The whole statement is: "Rejoice! God is dead and now man is absolutely free." Then it makes sense. "Rejoice that God is dead! Now there is nobody to dominate you. There is nobody above you; you need not be afraid of any God - you can forget all about God and Jehovah."

Because the Jewish-Christian-Mohammedan idea of God is not of a very nice fellow; he is not a gentleman. The Jewish God who is at the root of both the Christian and the Mohammedan God says himself, "I am a very jealous God. Those who are against me, I will destroy them. Those who are not with me are against me. Those who are with me will have all the pleasures of heaven, and those who are not with me will suffer eternal hellfire."

Nietzsche says, "Rejoice, God is dead! There is no heaven and no hell. Don't be afraid of hell and don't be greedy for heaven, because there is no God. God is dead, and man is absolutely free."

This has been done in the East in a far more subtle, delicate way. Mahavira says there is no God - for the same reason as Nietzsche. Mahavira says if there is a God then man cannot be free. There is a very significant logic in it. If there is a God then man cannot be free. How can man be free?

because man is just a created creature. God decided to create you, so he created you. If he decides tomorrow to uncreate you, he will uncreate you. What freedom have you got? It is God's decision to create you the way you are; you are not responsible for it. How can you be held responsible for all the instincts that have been given to you by God?

Mahavira said: See the futility of the whole argument of the theists. See the ridiculousness of the whole idea of man's self-condemnation - because of sex, because of anger, because of greed.

What can man do? If God created man in this way, then God is responsible, not man. And why did he create this type of man and this type of world? If anybody has to suffer, then God has to suffer, not man. Man is only a creature.

It is like if you make toys. Now if something is wrong with the toy, who is responsible? You cannot condemn the toy. You make machines. If something goes wrong, then you are responsible, not the machine.

When atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you cannot condemn atom bombs or atomic energy; you can only condemn the politicians who used atom bombs there, you can condemn the scientists who created those atom bombs. And Albert Einstein felt it continuously after Hiroshima and Nagasaki - he was sad.

And the day he died somebody asked him, "If you are going to be born again what would you like to be? Would you like to be a physicist, a mathematician again or not?"

Einstein said, "No, never! Rather than being a physicist I would like to be a plumber, because I have done so much harm to humanity" - unconsciously, of course.

But you cannot say that about God, that he has created man unconsciously. If even God is unconscious, then what is the possibility of man ever becoming conscious?

Mahavira says there is no God, because only in the non-existence of God does man become responsible. And I agree with Mahavira, with Buddha, with Nietzsche. The first and the foremost quality of a religious person is self-responsibility, to feel that "I am responsible for whatsoever I am. It is my choice. I have been given all the alternatives. I was born open-ended; nothing was predetermined. Whatsoever I am, it is my responsibility - good or bad. There is no fate, no God."

Mahavira denied God, but he never went mad like Nietzsche. Meditation saved him. Buddha denied God - not only God, Buddha went a step further; in fact, now there is no further to go - Buddha denied God and Buddha denied self. Buddha said there is no God and no self. Buddha said if there is a self, then again you cannot be totally free. Your self will have certain qualities and those qualities will go on persisting; they will be intrinsic. Your freedom will be conditional. The first thing is to get rid of God; the second thing is to get rid of your self. Then your freedom is total. Then there is only freedom and nothing else. But Buddha never went mad for the simple reason that meditation saved him.

Nietzsche would have been a Mahavira or a Buddha, but there was no meditative dimension available to him. Once you deny God, the whole mountainous responsibility of your being falls on your own head. You can be crushed by it. That's what happened: Nietzsche was crushed under his own freedom, he was not able to cope with the freedom.

God, as Christians, Mohammedans, Jews and Hindus have conceived him, does not exist. But I will not say, like Mahavira or Buddha or Nietzsche, that there is no God. I say life is God. In fact, I don't want to use the word "God," my own preference is bhagavata, godliness. The existence is full of godliness, and in deep meditation you become part of that godliness. If God is life, synonymous with life, then there is no question of God dying. Life cannot die; it is eternal.

I have heard:

There are two tombstones seen on a remote part of the planet. On one is written: "God is dead, signed Friedrich Nietzsche." On the other is written: "Nietzsche is dead, signed God."

And I think the second is truer - Nietzsche is dead. God is not dead in Nietzsche's sense, because his idea of God was basically wrong. It was a Christian idea: God as a person, and a dominant person.

One of the great Indian mystics, a baul of Bengal . . . The word baul means a madman. The bauls are really mad - madly in love with God. This mad baul Chandidas says: "Sabar upar manusatya. Tahar upar nahin - Man's truth is the highest truth. There is no other truth higher than that." He is saying the same thing as Nietzsche, but in a more positive way. He is declaring man's godhood, man's godliness. Nietzsche simply denies, and affirms nothing. His denial brings a negative emptiness. Chandidas denies, but his denial brings a positive emptiness.

"Sabar upar manusatya . . . The highest truth is the truth of man and there is no truth higher than that. " He is also saying there is no God, but he is at the same time declaring that you are God. God is not dead because life is alive. The flowers are still flowering, birds are still singing, the existence continues - how can God be dead?

But Nietzsche is dead, and his life was a life of tremendous misery. It was unfortunate that he was born in the West in a Christian climate; he needed the Eastern atmosphere. He needed to be in a Zen monastery or a Sufi commune. He still would have come to know there is no God but then he would not have gone mad; on the contrary he would have become enlightened.

The third question

Question 3:

Devadatta,

THE NAME in itself is very beautiful. It means: given by God, by the grace of God, a gift of God. It means exactly what the English name John means. John means: a gracious gift of God. Devadatta also means the same. It was just a coincidence that this was also the name of the man who tried to kill Gautam Buddha many times.

He was Gautam Buddha's cousin-brother, and he was very jealous. He became a disciple of Buddha, but because he was a cousin-brother, almost of the same age, and they had studied in the same school and they hid played together and they had hunted together, he felt that he was equal to Buddha. And Buddha told him many times, "Not only ate you equal to me, everybody is equal to me. The moment I became enlightened, all questions of inferiority or superiority disappeared. Even rocks are equal to me - because it is all one existence."

But that was not enough to satisfy him, because Buddha was the great Master and he was just a disciple amongst thousands of disciples, just a nobody. Finally he conspired against Buddha. He collected a few disciples and betrayed Buddha, hoping that many more followers would come to him. But nobody came to him, just those few people, and even they slowly started deserting him - because he had nothing to give to them. No truth was there in his experience yet; he was as unconscious as they were. So for a few days he could deceive them - he was a great intellectual but not an enlightened person - he could argue well, he could convince people intellectually, but that does not satisfy the deep longing of the heart to attain the truth.

People slowly deserted him. Then he became very angry, enraged. Then there was only one possibility for him: to kill Buddha. He tried many times but failed, always failed.

The story is told:

Devadatta was despairing after his latest attempt to assassinate the Buddha had failed. "It looks like that guy really is divine," he sighed reluctantly to his chief assassin. "I really can't get to him!"

In desperation at his own failure as a seeker, he decided to end it all.

"Oh well," he said, "I can will the insurance money to his sangham, maybe that will earn me some merit. Tell me, old friend, how much will you charge to bump me off?"

His Old associate looked at him for a moment and said, "Oh, Devadatta, for you I will do it free!"

Remember one thing: the person who kills and the person who commits suicide are not different people. The person who wants to murder somebody is the same person who can murder himself.

Psychologists have still to discover the fact that these two people are not different. It is the same energy, the same violence. Turned on the other it becomes murder; turned on oneself it becomes suicide. Going extrovert it is murderous; going introvert it is suicidal.

Devadatta failed to Kill Buddha; in that failure he thought of committing suicide. The same happened to Judas. Indians are thinkers not doers, so Devadatta really never committed suicide, he only thought of it. But Judas really committed suicide, the next day, the very next day. One day Jesus was crucified, the next day Judas committed suicide. He was the man responsible for Jesus' murder:

he sold Jesus for only thirty silver coins. But once Jesus was killed the whole scene changed, the whole context changed.

In fact, it is something worth understanding: if you lose your friend you don't lose much, but if you lose your enemy you lose much. The moment your great enemy dies something in you becomes empty, because you were fighting with him, you were engaged with him, you were occupied with the idea. Now there is nothing to do - all is finished.

Judas was contemplating for months and years how to finish Jesus, not knowing that the moment Jesus was finished he would feel absolutely empty and meaningless. His whole meaning was around Jesus. And that's what actually happened. The next day he felt so empty, so futile, that he committed suicide.

This happens to everybody in different ways, in different situations, and everybody has to understand it.

Just the other day Sheela wrote me a letter saying that since Chinmaya's death she is feeling very empty and continuously remembering Chinmaya, and that her relationship with Veetrag is almost on the rocks. Some barrier has arisen between them; they are not as attuned to each other as they were when Chinmaya was alive.

When Chinmaya was alive, to fall in love with Veetrag was not really falling in love with Veetrag but just a way of escaping from Chinmaya. Sheela was very happy and the relationship with Veetrag was going great. And I was afraid that the day Chinmaya died the relationship with Veetrag might die also - it depended on Chinmaya's existence. Once Chinmaya was gone the whole conflict with Chinmaya was gone too. And now the mind remembers all the sweet memories and the beauty of the person.

And certainly he was a beautiful person. He lived beautifully, he died beautifully. He suffered much, but he suffered in a graceful way. And I can understand Sheela's difficulty. To live with a person who was constantly ill, who for years was almost on his deathbed . . . I knew him for at least eight years and throughout those eight years he was on his deathbed. Now you can love a person who has dengue fever - two, three days, it's okay; or even hepatitis - three to six weeks, one can conceive the end of it.

I have every compassion for Sheela. It was difficult, very difficult, to live with a person who was bound to die. The doctors in the West had said that he could not survive more than two years; he survived eight years. Those eight years were a long suffering for Sheela, and certainly she wanted some distraction, some place where she could forget Chinmaya completely. He had to be looked after twenty-four hours a day, round the clock, and Sheela served him as lovingly as it is possible in a human way. The whole night he was suffering, coughing. His breathing was hard, noisy, wheezing continuously; the whole body was in pain. It was a torture. He was witnessing it all and he was growing, but for Sheela it was far more of a torture, and she wanted some distraction.

Falling in love with Veetrag had nothing to do with Veetrag. That's my observation: that Veetrag or anybody else would have been the same. It was an excuse, but while Chinmaya lived the love affair continued. Now Chinmaya is no more. I was afraid: now some barrier was bound to come between Sheela and Veetrag, because the person from whom she was trying to escape for a few moments at least, to forget and to drown herself in somebody . . . Veetrag was just like an intoxicant, a tranquilizer, an occupation, so she could forget all about Chinmaya and his illness. It was needed, it was good, so I was not against it; I favored it. I said, "It is perfectly good." But the fear was there that once Chinmaya was gone, then what would happen? - because the source was in Chinmaya; she was withdrawing from Chinmaya. Now there is nothing to withdraw from.

So Veetrag started getting farther and farther away, and Sheela is puzzled why it is happening because now she has twenty-four hours a day available for Veetrag. Why is there a barrier coming?

It never came while Chinmaya was alive.

This is simple psychology, and everybody has to understand it. You go on doing many things for reasons you are not aware of; you become aware only when those reasons disappear.

Now this relationship can only be somehow carried on; it cannot have the same flavor. It was a negative relationship, it was not a positive relationship. It is bound to wither away sooner or later.

And if they both understand it then they can allow it to wither away joyfully, thankfully, because whatsoever it has given to them was beautiful. Why ask for more? Why be greedy? When the time comes to let go of a thing one should be capable of letting it go.

I can understand the trouble for Sheela: Chinmaya has gone and this relationship is disappearing.

She seems to be left absolutely alone. Don't be worried at all, Sheela, because out of absolute aloneness something tremendously beautiful will arise which can never arise in your so-called relationships. And if you can become capable of being alone, if you start rejoicing it, if you start dancing it, then there will be a possibility of a totally new kind of relating with people. You may love again, but that love will be out of abundance - because you have too much, so you want to share it.

Otherwise, because we are empty inside we want to stuff ourselves with somebody else's energy - and he is also empty. Two beggars trying and hoping that "The other is rich and I am going to get something from the other," are bound to fail, are bound to feel frustrated. They are doomed.

I was going to call Sheela and tell her this, but then I thought it was better to tell you all because this is an experience which is significant for everybody, because everybody has to pass through such experiences.

The last question

Question 4:

Sant Maharaj,

DON'T lose heart! There are even people far worse than the Indians - always think of them and you will feel good and cheerful. There are Polacks . . .

Bhavita has asked me: Osho, why do Polacks open the bedroom door while they are making love?

Bhavita, so that nobody can peep through the keyhole. This is intelligence!

Bhavita has also asked: Osho, do you know what the Polack answered who was walking home from a fair with a pig under his arm, and a guy who knew him came up to him and asked, "Where did you get him?"

Bhavita, before the Polack could answer, the pig replied, "I won him at the fair!"

So there are Polacks . . . Sant, don't be worried.

Bhavita asks: Osho, did you hear about the Polack who tried to take his new car for its first service?

Yes, Bhavita, it wouldn't fit through the church doors.

And Bhavita asks: Why is Polack toilet paper five hundred sheets longer than usual?

Bhavita, because the first five hundred sheets are instructions.

Sant Maharaj, cheer up! There is no need to be worried.

Bhavita asks: Why can't one put a Polack into a cannon?

Bhavita, because according to the Geneva Convention, dum-dum bullets are illegal.

And Bhavita also asks: How is a Polack ladder different from an ordinary one?

Bhavita, it has a stop sign at the top - otherwise the Polack will never stop, he will go on and on.

The ladder will be left behind.

And you say: Are Indians really as unintelligent as you say?

Not all Indians . . . Sant is not unintelligent. I make him sit by my side . . .

Somebody has asked a question. The questioner is Emilio Ducoli. He says: "Osho, if someone said to you, 'Don't speak, don't be silent, but tell me who you are?' what would be your answer?"

For that Sant is sitting by my side: he will hit him as hard as possible! In the old days, Zen Masters used to hit people themselves. I am a lazy person, and Sant is a good boxer. And you know boxing needs no intelligence! Sant will teach him a lesson. That is the special purpose for which he is allowed to sit by my side. I will not answer Ducoli; I will simply look at Sant and Sant will answer.

A man came to me once and he said, "Twenty-four avatars were born in India, twenty-four teerthankaras were born in India, Gautam Bud&a was born in India and also in his previous lives he was always born in India, as were so many saints and so many mahatmas. And God has said in the Gita that 'I will always come whenever I am needed' - and he has always been coming to India. Do you still say that India is a materialist country, do you still say that India is not very intelligent, do you still say that India has no special spirituality, that it is not a religious land?"

I said, "Yes, still I say that. In fact, all these things prove what I say." In the Gita, Krishna says, "Whenever you need me I will come. " It seems India needs gods more than any other country!

Twenty-four avatars and where are we? We still need; even forty-eight avatars won't help us much.

Whatsoever they do we are expert at undoing it. Twenty.four teerthankaras and what has happened?

It is like a man who brags about his health: "Because," he says, "look! All the doctors of this city visit me. I must have the best health in the world!" He must be the most ill person in the world if all the doctors have to visit him continuously.

God has been visiting India so much that it seems it is a mess! Yes, Buddha is intelligent, but how many Buddhas are there? Mahavira is intelligent, but how many Mahaviras are there? Yes, once in a while, among millions of people, one person has risen to the ultimate heights - but how many? They can be counted on your fingers. And don't think that their intelligence is your intelligence. Don't live in a reflected glory; that is absolutely foolish. That's what we have been doing for centuries: living in a reflected glory. Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira - and we feel so happy that we completely forget that we have to do something too, that we have to be intelligent too, that we have to create something too.

Yes, there have been spiritual people in India, but India is not a spiritual land; there have been intelligent people, but India has not proved intelligent itself. As a country, for two thousand years we have been living in slavery. Is this intelligence?

As a country, I think India has the lowest morality in the world. The whole Indian idea of morality is concentrated on sex; anything else has nothing to do with it. You can lie and nobody will think you immoral. You can deceive, you can be Insincere, you can promise to come today, and for months you may not come, and nobody will think you are immoral. In India a promise means nothing. If somebody says, "I am coming at five," he may come at four, he may come at six; he may not come at all today; he may come tomorrow at five. And you cannot say that this is immoral. People are adulterating everything - not only milk, even medicines are adulterated. You cannot rely on Indian medicines. You may be hoping that the injection is going to save you; it may kill you, because it may be just ordinary water - not even pure water. Everything is unreliable.

The whole morality consists of you clinging to your wife and yom wife clinging to you, and you remain like detectives, after each other; that is your whole morality. This is a very silly idea of morality and a very limited idea of morality.

In fact, to live with a woman you don't love is immoral; Whether she is your wife or not does not matter. To live with a man, to go to bed with a man you don't love - he may be your husband - but it is immoral. It is prostitution - of course, approved by the society, but approval cannot take any difference. And how many couples love each other?

I have been a guest in hundreds of families all over India and I have never come across more than two or three couples who are really in love. Otherwise they are enemies, fighting each other tooth and nail, always at each others' necks, but very moral because the wife remains strictly faithful to the man - to the man she does not love. What kind of faith is this? And the man remains faithful to the woman whom he always wants to murder, or hopes that somebody else will do the thing, or hopes that some natural calamity . . . the house will collapse in the rain or some illness will catch her or something. And in India things are always happening buses falling in the rivers, airplanes crashing, trains disappearing. . . So the marl goes on hoping that "Someday something is bound to happen and I will get rid of this woman." But till then he is faithful to the woman whom he has never loved.

Without love can there be faith? It is only fear, not faith. It is formality, not faith. It is just cowardliness, not faith. If you are brave, if you are really a man, you will say to the woman, "I don't love you, hence I cannot go on reproducing children with you." And the woman will say, "I don't love you either, so it is better we part company." But this is our whole morality.

Almost the whole of India is against me for the simple reaSOn that they think I am destroying their morality. I am not destroying their morality; I am bringing a real moral sense to you. Now my movement to Kutch is opposed because I will "destroy the morality of Kutch. " But I cannot go on destroying the morality of Poona only; I have to move, I have to destroy a few other people's morality!

What morality have you got? I am coming to Kutch to destroy your immorality. I call all this that goes in the name of morality immoral. It is utterly immoral.

The whole idea of marriage is immoral, and an arranged marriage is basically immoral. Only a love marriage has a morality, and that too only to the extent that the love is alive. The moment love disappears, morality disappears.

Yes, in India we have seen great enlightened people, but they are like silver lines around black clouds. Don't believe that those silver lines are of much help; you cannot even read by their light.

When there is lightning you cannot even read, you cannot write. Yes, for a moment you can see, and then all is darkness - even darker than it was before.

Whenever a Buddha dies this country falls into a deeper valley of darkness. Yes, when a Buddha is alive there is a little glory around him, a little splendor, a little light, but that too is available only to those who are courageous. And India is a country of cowards - otherwise how can you explain two thousand years of slavery?

Yes, once in a while, Sant Maharaj, there are people who are intelligent and they invent new things; they need Nobel Prizes.

I have heard this story:

At the Vatican in Rome a gathering of missionaries from all over the world met to discuss their experiences in the Third World countries.

The priests working in India and in Africa were talking together.

"Well, Father, how are things going in India?" asked the African priest.

"Very well, thank you, Father," he replied. "We have been working on ways to ease the food shortage and have found a new way to reduce the population."

"How?" inquired the African priest. "Are you using new methods of birth control?"

"No, no. After much experimentation we have seen that that doesn't work. So we have invented a very simple and effective technique: the 'Crunch Scrunch Method.'"

"What is that?" asked the priest, intrigued.

"In the big centers like Bombay and Calcutta, our organization has begun to construct new hygienic male toilets - but with a unique design. When a patron squats down to shit, his balls hang down through two separate holes and we have one of our workers standing underneath with a brick in each hand - crunch! scrunch! - we smash their balls together!"

"Holy Mother of God!" exclaimed the other priest with a gasp. "That must hurt!"

"Oh no, not really," said the Indian priest, "not if you keep your thumbs out of the way!"