The first question:
YOU SAID THAT PATANJALI'S YOGA IS AN EXACT SCIENCE, ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL, IN WHICH THE RESULT IS AS CERTAIN AS TWO PLUS TWO MAKE FOUR. IF THE ATTAINMENT OF THE UNKNOWN AND INFINITE, CAN BE REDUCED TO MERE LOGIC, IS IT NOT TRUE AND AT THE SAME TIME ABSURD THAT THE INFINITE PHENOMENON IS WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THE FINITE MIND?
It looks absurd, it looks illogical, but existence is absurd and existence is illogical. The sky is infinite, but it can be reflected in a very tiny pool; the infinite sky can be reflected in a small mirror. Of course the whole of it will not be reflected; it cannot be reflected. But the part is also the whole and the part also belongs to the sky.
Human mind is just a mirror. If it is pure then the infinite can have the reflection in it. The reflection will not be the infinite, it will be just a part, a glimpse. But that glimpse becomes the door. Then by and by, you can leave the mirror behind and enter into the infinite, leave the reflection behind and enter into the real.
Out of your window, a small frame of the window, the infinite sky is there. You can look through the window, you will not see the whole sky, of course, but whatsoever you see is the sky. So the only thing to remember is don't think that whatsoever you have seen is the infinite. It may be of the infinite, it is not the infinite. So whatsoever human mind can conceive may be divine, but it is just a part of it, a glimpse. If you continuously remember that, then there is no fallacy. Then by and by, destroy the frame; by and by, destroy the mind completely so the mirror is no more there and you are freed from the reflection and you enter the reality.
On the surface it looks absurd. How, in such a tiny mind, there can be any contact with the eternal, with the infinite, with the endless? Second thing has also to be understood. This tiny mind is not tiny really, because it is also part of the infinite. It looks tiny because of you; it looks finite because of you. You have created the boundaries. The boundaries are false. Even your tiny mind belongs to the infinite; it is part of it.
And there are many things to be understood. One of the most paradoxical things about the infinite is this: that the part is always equal to the whole - because you cannot divide the infinite. All divisions are false. It may be utilitarian to divide it. I can say that the sky on my house, on my terrace, is my sky as India says the sky on the Indian continent is Indian sky. What do you mean? You cannot divide the sky. It cannot be Indian or Chinese, it is an undivided expanse. It begins nowhere, it ends nowhere.
Just the same has happened with the mind. You call it your mind; that "your" is false. The mind is part of the infinite. Just as matter is part of the infinite, mind is part of the infinite. Your soul is also part of the infinite.
When the "my" is lost, you are the infinite. So if you appear finite, it is an illusion. Finiteness is not a reality; finiteness is just a conception, an illusion. And because of your conception you are confined in it. And whatsoever you think, you become. Buddha has said - and he was repeating it continuously for forty years - that whatsoever you think you become. Thinking makes you whatsoever you are. If you are finite, it is a standpoint that you have taken. Drop the standpoint and you become infinite.
And the whole process of yoga is how to drop - how to drop the frame, how to destroy the mirror, how to move from the reflection to the reality, how to go beyond the boundaries.
Boundaries are self-created; they are not really there. They are just thoughts. That's why, whenever there is no thought in the mind, you are not. A thoughtless mind is egoless; a thoughtless mind is boundary-less, a thoughtless mind is already the infinite. Even for a single moment, if there is no thought, you are the infinite - because without thought there can be no boundary; without thought you disappear and the divine descends.
To be in thought is to be human; to be below thought is to be animal; to be beyond thought is to be divine. But the logical mind will raise questions. The logical mind will say, "How the part can be equal to the whole? The part must be less than the whole. It cannot be the equal."
Ouspensky writes, in one of the best, in one of the few best books in the world, TERTIUM ORGANUM, that the part can not only be the equal to the whole, it can be even greater than the whole. But he calls it a higher mathematics. That mathematics belongs to the Upanishads. In ishavasya it is said, "You can take out the whole from the whole, and still the whole remains behind. You can put the whole into the whole, and still the whole remains the whole."
It is absurd. If you like to call it absurd, you can call it absurd, but, really, it is a higher mathematics where boundaries are lost and the drop becomes the ocean. And the ocean is nothing but a drop.
Logic raises questions; it goes on raising. That is the nature of the logical mind, to raise questions. And if you go on following those questions, you can go on ad infinitum. Put aside the mind - its logic, its reasoning and for few moments try to be without thought. Even for a single moment if you can achieve that state of non-thought, you will come to realize that the part is equal to the whole, because suddenly you will see all the boundaries have disappeared. They were dream boundaries. All the divisions have disappeared, and you and the whole have become one.
This can be an experience; this cannot be a logical inference. But when I say that Patanjali is logical, what do I mean? In the conclusions, nobody can be logical as far as the inner, the spiritual, the ultimate experience is concerned. But on the path you can be. As far as the ultimate result of yoga is concerned, Patanjali also cannot be logical; nobody can be. But to reach that goal you can follow a logical path.
In that sense Patanjali is logical and rational, mathematical, scientific. He does not ask any faith. He asks only courage to experiment, courage to move, courage to take a jump into the unknown. He does not say, "Believe, and then you will experience." He says, "Experience, and then you will believe."
And he has made a structure how to proceed step by step. His path is not haphazard; it is not like a labyrinth, it is like a super-highway. Everything is clear and the shortest possible route. But you have to follow it in every detail; otherwise you will move out of the path and in the wilderness.
That's why I say he is logical, and you will see how he is logical. He starts from the body because you are rooted in the body. He starts and works with your breathing because your breathing is your life. First he works on the body; then he works on the prana - the second layer of existence - your breathing; then he starts working on thoughts.
There are many methods which start directly with the thought. They are not so logical and scientific because the man you are working with is rooted in the body. He is a soma, a body. A scientific approach must start with the body. Your body must be changed first. When your body changes, then your breathing can be changed. When your breathing changes, then your thoughts can be changed. And when your thoughts change, then you can be changed.
You may not have observed that you are a close-knit system of many layers. If you are running, then your breathing changes because more oxygen is needed. When you are running your breathing changes, and when your breathing changes your thoughts immediately change.
In Tibet they say if you are angry, then just run. Have two or three rounds of your house, and then come back and see where your anger has gone - because if you run fast, your breathing changes; if your breathing changes, your thought pattern cannot remain the same, it has to change.
There is no need to run. You can simply take five deep breaths - exhale, inhale - and see where your anger has gone. It is difficult to change anger directly. It is easier to change the body, then the breathing, then the anger. This is a scientific process. That is why I say that Patanjali is scientific.
Nobody has been so scientific. If you go to Buddha he will say "Drop anger." Patanjali will never say. He will say if you have anger, that means you have a breathing pattern which helps anger, and unless that breathing pattern is changed you cannot drop anger. You may do struggle, but that is not going to help - or, it may take a very long time. Unnecessary. So he will watch your breathing pattern, the breathing rhythm, and if you have a certain breathing rhythm, that means you have a certain body posture for it.
The grossest is the body and the subtlest is the mind. Don't start from the subtle because it will be more difficult. It is vague; you cannot grasp it. Start with the body. That's why Patanjali starts with body postures.
You may not have observed, because we are so unalert in life, that whenever you have a certain mood in the mind you have a certain body posture associated with it. If you are angry, can you sit relaxed? Impossible. If you are angry your body posture will change; if you are attentive then your body posture will change; if you are sleepy your body posture will change.
If you are completely silent you will sit Buddha-like, you will walk Buddha-like. If you walk Buddha- like, you will feel a certain silence merging within your heart. A certain silent bridge is being created by your Buddhalike walk. Just sit under a tree like a Buddha. Just sit, just the body. Suddenly you will see that your breathing is changing. It is more relaxed; it is more harmonious. When the breathing is harmonious and relaxed, you will feel the mind is less tense. Thoughts are less there, less clouds, more space, more sky. You will feel a silence in and out, flowing.
Hence, I say Patanjali is scientific. If you want to change the body posture, Patanjali will say change your food habits, because every food habit creates subtle body postures. If you are a meat eater you cannot sit Buddha-like. If you are non-vegetarian your posture will be different, if you are vegetarian your posture will be different - because the body is built by your food. It is not an accident. Whatsoever you are putting in the body, the body will reflect it.
So vegetarianism for Patanjali is not a moralist cult, it is a scientific method. When you eat meat you are not only taking food, you are allowing a certain animal from which the meat has come to enter in you. The meat was part of a particular body; the meat was part of a particular instinct pattern. The meat was the animal just few hours before, and that meat carries all the impressions of the animal, all the habits of the animal. When you are eating meat your many attitudes will be affected by it.
And if you are sensitive you can become aware that whenever you eat certain things, certain changes immediately come. You can take alcohol and then you are not the same. Immediately a new personality has come in. Alcohol cannot create a personality, but it changes your body pattern. The body chemistry is changed With the change of the body chemistry, the mind has to change its pattern and when the mind changes pattern a new personality has come in.
I have heard one of the oldest Chinese parables, that once it happened a bottle of whisky fell down from a table - just by accident; a cat might have jumped. The bottle was broken and the whisky was spilled all over the floor. Three mice in the night lapped the whisky. One mouse immediately said, "Now, I am going to the king, to the palace, to put him right in his place." The other said, "I am not worried about kings. I am myself going to be the emperor of the whole earth." And the third said, "Do whatsoever you like, you fellows. I am going upstairs to make love to the cat."
The whole personality has changed - a mouse thinking of making love to a cat? It can happen; it happens every day. Whatsoever you eat changes you, whatsoever you drink changes you, because body is a great part. Ninety percent, you are your bodies.
Patanjali is scientific because he takes note of everything - the food, the posture, the way you sleep, the way you get up in the morning, when you get up in the morning, when you go to sleep. He takes note of everything so that your body becomes a situation for something higher.
Then he takes note of your breathing. If you are sad, you have a different rhythm of the breathing. Just note it down. You try; you can have a very beautiful experiment. Whenever you are sad just watch your breath - how much time you take in inhalation and then how much time you take in exhalation. Just note it down. Just count numbers inside: one, two, three, four, five... You count to five and the inhalation is over. Then you count - it comes to ten; the exhalation is over. Just watch it minutely so you can come to know the ratio. Then, whenever you feel happy, immediately try that sad pattern - five, ten. And the happiness will disappear.
The reverse is also true. Whenever you feel happy, note it down how you are breathing. And whenever you feel sad, try that pattern. Immediately sadness will disappear, because mind cannot exist in a vacuum. It exists in a system, and breathing is the deepest system for the mind.
Breath is thought. If you stop breathing, immediately thoughts stop. Try it for a second. Stop the breathing. Immediately there is a break in the thinking process; the process is broken. Thinking is the invisible part of the visible breathing.
That's what I mean when I say Patanjali is scientific. He is not a poet. If he says, "Don't eat meat," he is not saying because eating meat is violence, no. He is saying it because eating meat is self- destructive. There are poets who say to be non-violent is beautiful; Patanjali says to be non-violent is to be healthy, to be non-violent is to be selfish. You are not having compassion on somebody else, you are having compassion on yourself.
He is concerned with you and the transformation. And you cannot change things just by thinking about change. You have to create the situation. Otherwise, all over the world, love has been taught, but love exists nowhere because the situation doesn't exist. How can you be loving if you are a meat eater? If you are eating meat, the violence is there. And with such a deep violence how can you be loving? Your love will be just false. Or, it may be just a form of hate
There is an old Indian tale. One Christian missionary was passing through a forest. Of course he believed in love, so he was not carrying a gun. Suddenly he saw a lion approaching. He became afraid. He started to think, "Now the Gospel of love won't do. It would have been wise if I had a gun."
But something had to be done, and he was in emergency. Then he remembered somebody has said somewhere that if you run, then the lion will follow you, and within minutes you will be caught and dead. But if you stare in the eyes of the lion, then there is some possibility, he may get impressed, hypnotized. He may change the mind. And there are stories that many times lions have changed their minds; they have slinked away.
So it was worth trying, and there was no use in escaping. The missionary stared. The lion also came near. He also started staring into the eyes of the missionary. For five minutes they were standing face to face, staring into each other's eyes. Then suddenly the missionary saw the miracle. Suddenly the lion put his paws close together and then bent over them in a very prayerful mood - as if he was praying.
This was too much! Even the missionary was not expecting so much - that a lion should start praying. He was happy. But then he thought, "What is to be done now? What I should do?" But by the time he was also hypnotized - not only the lion - so he thought, "It is better to follow the lion."
He also bent over, started praying. Five minutes again passed. Then the lion opened the eyes and said, "Man, what are you doing? I am saying the grace, but what are you doing?" The lion was a religious lion pious, but just in thought. In deed, he was a lion, and he was going to be a lion. He was going to kill the man; he was saying grace.
This is the situation of the whole human phenomenon, the whole humanity - just pious in thoughts; in deeds, man remains the animal. And this will be always so unless we don't cling to thoughts but create situations in which thoughts change.
Patanjali won't say that it is good to be loving. He will help you to create the situation in which love can flower. This is why I say he is scientific. If you follow him step by step, you will see many flowerings in you which were inconceivable before, unimaginable. You could not have even dreamed about them. If you change your food, if you change your body postures, if you change your sleeping patterns, if you change ordinary habits, you will see a new person is arising in you. And then there are different changes possible. After one change other change becomes possible. Step by step, more possibilities open. That is why I say he is logical. He is not a logical philosopher, he is a logical, practical man.
The second question:
YESTERDAY YOU REFERRED ABOUT A WESTERN THINKER WHO STARTED DOUBTING EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DOUBTED, BUT COULD NOT DOUBT HIMSELF. YOU SAID THAT THIS IS A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT IN OPENING TOWARDS DIVINE. HOW?
The opening toward higher consciousness means you must have something indubitable with you; that's what trust means. You have at least one point which you trust, which you cannot doubt even if you want to. That's why I said Descartes came to a point through his logical investigation that, "We cannot doubt ourselves. I cannot doubt that I am, because even to say that 'I doubt,' I have to be there. The very assertion that 'I doubt' proves that I am."
You must have heard the famous dictum of Descartes, cogito, ergo sum - "I think, therefore I am." Doubting is thinking: I doubt, therefore, I am. But this is just an opening, and Descartes never, never went beyond this opening. He turned again back. You can come back from the very door. He was happy that he has found a center, indubitable center, and then he started to work out his philosophy. So all that he had denied before he pulled in from the back door: "Because I am there must be a creator who has created me." And then he went - then, heaven and hell, then God and sin and the whole Christian theology came in from the back door.
He used this as a philosophical inquiry. He was not a yogi; he was not really in search of his being, he was in search of a theory. But you can use that as an opening. An opening means you have to transcend it; you have to go beyond; you have to pass it over; you have to go through it. You are not to cling to it. If you cling, then any opening will become closed.
This is good to realize that at least "I cannot doubt myself." Then the right step will be this: "If I cannot doubt myself, if I feel I am, then I must know who I am." Then it becomes a right inquiry. Then you move into religion, because when you ask "Who am I?" you have asked a fundamental question. Not philosophical - existential. Nobody else can answer who you are; nobody else can give you a ready-made answer. You will have to search yourself; you will have to dig it within yourself.
Just this logical certainty that "I am", is of not much use if you don't go ahead and ask, "Who am I?" And this is not a question, this is going to be a quest. A question may lead you into philosophy, a quest leads you into religion. So if you feel that you don't know yourself, then don't go to anybody to ask "Who am I?" Nobody can answer you. You are there inside, hidden. You have to penetrate to that dimension where you are, encounter yourself.
This is a different type of journey, the inner. All our journeys are outer: we are making bridges to reach someone else. This quest means you have to break all the bridges to others. All that you have done without has to be dropped, and something new has to be started within. It will be difficult, just because you have become so fixed with the without. You always think of others; you never think of yourself.
This is strange, but no one thinks about himself - he thinks about others. If sometimes you think about yourself, it is also in relation to others. It is never pure. It is not simply just about you. Then when you think just about you, thinking will have to be dropped, because what you can think? About others you can think; thinking means "about". What you can think about yourself? You will have to drop thinking and you will have to look inside - not thinking, but looking, seeing, observing, witnessing. The whole process will change. One has to look for oneself.
Doubt is good. If you doubt, and if you continuously doubt, there is only one rock-like phenomenon which cannot be doubted, which is your existence. Then a new quest will arise, and that is not a question. You will have to ask, "Who am I?"
Ramana Maharshi, his whole life, was giving only one technique to his disciples. He will say, "Just sit down, close your eyes, and go on asking 'Who am I? Who am I?' Use it as a mantra." But it is not a mantra. You have not to use it as dead words. It must become an inner penetration.
Go on asking it. Your mind will answer many times that you are a soul, you are a self, you are divine- but don't listen to these things, these are all borrowed; you have heard these things. Put them aside unless you come to know who you are. And if you go on continuously putting the mind aside, one day there is an explosion. The mind explodes, and all the borrowed knowledge disappears from you. And for the first time you are face to face with yourself, looking within yourself. This is the opening. And this is the way and this is the quest.
Ask who you are and don't cling to cheap answers. All answers that are given by others are cheap. The real answer can only come out of you. It is just like a real flower can only come out of the tree itself; you cannot put it from the outside. You can, but that will be a dead flower. It may deceive others, but it cannot deceive the tree itself. The tree knows that "This is just a dead flower hanging on my branch. And this is just a weight. This is not a happiness, this is just a burden." The tree cannot celebrate it; the tree cannot welcome it.
The tree can welcome only something which comes from the very roots, from its inner being, innermost core. And when it comes from its innermost core, the flower becomes its soul. And through the flower the tree expresses its dance, its song. Its whole life becomes meaningful. Just like that, the answer will come out of you, out of your roots. Then you will dance it. Then your whole life will become meaningful.
If the answer is given from without, it will be just a sign, a dead sign. If it comes from within, it will not be a sign, it will be a significance. Remember these two words - "sign" and "significance". Sign can be given from without; significance can only flower from within. Philosophy works with signs, concepts, words. Religion works with significance. It is not concerned with words and signs and symbols.
But that is going to be an arduous journey for yourself because nobody can help really, and all the helpers are, in a way, hindrances. If somebody is too much patronizing and gives you the answer, he is your enemy. Patanjali is not going to give you the answer, he is only going to indicate you the path, the way from where your own answer will arise, from where you will encounter the answer.
The great Masters have given only methods, they have not given the answer. Philosophers have given answers, but Patanjali, Jesus or Buddha, they have not given answers. You ask for answers and they give you methods, they give you techniques. You have to work your answer out yourself, through your effort, through your suffering, through your penetration, through your TAPASCHARYA. Only the answer can come, and it can become a significance. Your fulfillment is through it.
The third question:
BUDDHA FINALLY CONVEYED TO MAHAKASHYAP WHAT HE COULD NOT CONVEY TO ANYBODY ELSE THROUGH WORDS. IN WHAT CATEGORY OF KNOWLEDGE - DIRECT, INFERENTIAL AND WORDS OF THE AWAKENED ONE - DOES IT COME? WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE?
First you ask, "What was the message?" If Buddha could not convey it through words, I cannot also convey it through words. It is not possible.
I will tell you one anecdote. One disciple came to Mulla Nasrudin. And he asked the Mulla that, "I have heard that you have the secret, the ultimate secret, the key which can open all the doors of mystery." Nasrudin said, "Yes, I have got it. But what about it? Why you are asking about it?" The man fell down in his feet and he said, "I was in search of you, Master. If you have the key and the secret, tell it to me."
Nasrudin said, "If it is such a secret, you must understand it cannot be told so easily. You will have to wait." The disciple asked, "How much?" Nasrudin said, "That too is not certain. It depends on your patience - three years or thirty years." The disciple waited. After three years he asked again. Nasrudin said, "If you ask again, then it will take thirty years. Just wait. It is not an ordinary thing. It is the ultimate secret."
Thirty years passed and the disciple said, "Master, now my whole life is wasted. I have not got anything. Now, give me the secret." Nasrudin said, "There is a condition: you will have to promise me that you will keep it a secret, you will not say to anybody." The man said, "I promise you that it will remain a secret until I die. I will not mention it to anyone."
Nasrudin said, "Thank you. This is what my Master... This is my promise to my Master. And if you can keep it a secret until death, what do you think? Cannot I keep it a secret?"
If Buddha was silent, I also can be silent about it. There is something which cannot be said. It is not a message because messages can always be said. And if they cannot be said, they cannot be messages. A message is something said, something to be said, can be said. Message is always verbal.
Buddha has not a message; that's why he couldn't say it. There were ten thousand disciples. Only Mahakashyap got it because he could understand Buddha's silence. That is the secret of the secret. he could understand the silence.
Buddha remained silent under his tree one morning. And he was really going to give a sermon and everybody was waiting. He remained silent, remained silent The disciples became uneasy. It has never happened before. He will come and he will speak, and he will go. But half an hour has passed. The sun has risen, everybody is feeling hot. There is silence superficially, but everybody is inside uncomfortable, chattering, inside asking "Why Buddha is silent today?"
And he sits there under his tree with a flower in his hand and goes on looking at the flower as if he is not even aware of those ten thousand disciples who have gathered to listen. They have come from very, very far away villages. From all over the country they have gathered.
Then somebody says, somebody gathers courage and says, "Why you are not speaking? We are waiting." Buddha is reported to have said that, "I am saying. This half an hour I have been speaking."
It was too paradoxical. It was patently absurd - he has remained silent, he has not said anything. But to say to Buddha that, "You are talking absurdities," was not possible. The disciples again remained silent - more troubled now.
And suddenly one disciple, Mahakashyap, started laughing. Buddha called him near, gave him the flower, and said, "Whatsoever can be said, I have said to others, and that which cannot be said I have given to you." He only gave the flower, but this flower is just a symbol. With flower he has given some significance also. This flower is just a sign, but something else he has conveyed which cannot be conveyed by words.
You also know certain feelings which cannot be conveyed. When you are deep in love, what you do? You will feel meaningless simply to go on saying, "I love you. I love you." And if you say it too much, the other will get bored. And if you go on repeating, the other will think you are just a parrot. And if you continue, the other will think that you don't know what love is.
When you feel love, it is meaningless to say that you love. You have to do something - something significant. It may be a kiss, it may be a hug, it may be just taking the other's hand into your hand, not doing anything - but it is a significance. You are conveying something which cannot be conveyed by words.
Buddha conveyed something which cannot be conveyed by words. He gave the flower. It was a gift. That gift is visible; something invisible is passing with that gift.
When you take the hand of your friend in your hand, it is visible. Just taking the hand of your friend in your hand doesn't make much sense, but something else is passing. It is an exchange. Some energy, some feeling something so deep that words cannot express it, is passing. This is a sign; hand is just a sign. Significance is invisible; it is passing. It is not a message, it is a gift. It is grace.
Buddha has given himself; he has not given any message. He has poured himself into Mahakashyap. And for two reasons Mahakashyap became capable of receiving this. One was - he remained totally silent while Buddha was silent. Others were also silent apparently, but they were not. They were continuously thinking, "Why Buddha is silent?" They were looking at each other, making gestures - 'What has happened to Buddha? Has he gone mad? He has never been so silent."
Nobody was silent. Only Mahakashyap, in that great assembly of ten thousand monks, was silent. He was not troubled; he was not thinking. Buddha was looking at the flower and Mahakashyap was looking at Buddha. And you cannot find a greater flower than Buddha. That was the highest flowering of human consciousness. So Buddha went on looking at the flower and Mahakashyap went on looking at Buddha. Only two persons were not thinking. Buddha was not thinking, he was looking. And Mahakashyap was not thinking, he was also looking. This was the one thing that made him capable of receiving.
And the second thing was that he laughed. If silence cannot become celebration, if silence cannot become a laughter, if silence cannot become a dance, if silence cannot become an ecstasy, then it is pathological. Then it will become sadness. Then it will turn into a disease. Then silence will not be alive, it will be dead.
You can become silent just by becoming dead, but then you will not receive Buddha's grace. Then the divine cannot descend in you. The divine needs two things: silence and a dancing silence, silence alive. And he was both in that moment. He was silent, and when everybody was serious he laughed. Buddha poured himself; that is not a message.
Attain these two things; then I can pour myself into you. Be silent, and don't make that silence a sad thing. Allow it to be laughing and dancing. The silence must be childlike, full of energy, vibrant, ecstatic. It should not be dead. Then, then only, what Buddha did to Mahahashyap can be done to you.
My whole effort is that someday, somebody will become Mahakashyap. But it is not a message.
The fourth question:
YOU HAVE OFTEN SAID THAT MOST SCRIPTURES HAVE A LOT OF WHAT IS CALLED INTERPOLATIONS. DOES THE YOGA SUTRA OF PATANJALI ALSO SUFFER FROM THIS DEFECT, AND HOW WILL YOU DEAL WITH IT?
No, Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS are absolutely pure. No one has ever interpolated anything in them. There are reasons it cannot be done. First, Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS is not a popular scripture. It is not a gita, it is not a ramayana, it is not a Bible. Common masses have never been interested in it. When common masses are interested in something, they make it impure. It is bound to be so because then the scripture has to be dragged down to their level. Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS has remained only for experts. Only a few chosen ones will get interested in them. Everybody is not going to be interested. And if, by chance, you happen accidentally to have Patanjali's YOGA SUTRAS, you can read only a few pages and then you will throw it away. It is not for you. It is not a story, it is not a drama, it is not an allegory. It is a simple, scientific treatise - only for few.
And the way it has been written is such that those who are not ready for it will turn their back automatically. A similar case has happened in this century with Gurdjieff. For thirty years continuously, he was preparing one book. A man of the caliber of Gurdjieff can do that work in three days. Even three days may be more than enough. Lao Tzu had done it: in three days the whole TAO TEH CHING was written. Gurdjieff can do it in three days; there is no difficulty. But for thirty years he was writing his first book. And what he was doing? He will write one chapter, and then he will allow it to be read before his disciples. Disciples will be listening to the chapter, and he will be looking to the disciples. If they can understand, he will change it. That was the condition: if they can understand, he will change it. If he sees that they are following it, then it is wrong. Continuously, for thirty years, every chapter was read a thousand and one times, and every time he was watching. When the book became completely impossible, that no one can read and understand it...
Even a very intelligent person will have to read it at least seven times; then glimpses of meaning will start coming. And that too will be just glimpses. If he wants to penetrate more, then he will have to practice whatsoever he has said, and through practice meanings will become clear. And it will take at least one's whole life to come to the total understanding what he has written.
This type of book cannot be interpolated. Really, his first book, it is said that very few people have read it completely. It is difficult - one thousand pages. So when the first edition was published, he published it with a condition: only hundred pages, the introductory part, were cut. All other pages were not cut; they were uncut. Only hundred pages were cut, and a note was given on the book that "If you can read the first hundred pages and still think to read ahead, then cut other pages. Otherwise, return the book to the publisher and take your money back."
It is said that there are very few people alive who have read the whole book completely. It is written in such a way that you will get fed up. Reading twenty, twenty-five pages, it is enough; and this man seems to be mad.
These are sutras, Patanjali's sutras. Everything has been condensed in a seed. Somebody was asking me that, "Patanjali has condensed sutras..." Just the other day somebody came and asked me, "... and you speak so much on those sutras." I have to, because he has made a tree a seed, and I have to make the seed again a tree.
Each sutra is condensed, totally condensed. You cannot do anything in it, and no one is interested to. Just to keep the book always pure, this was one of the methods. And for many thousands of years the book was not written, it was just memorized by disciples; it was given from one to other just as a memory. It was not written, so nobody can do anything to it. It was a sacred memory, preserved. And even when the book was written, it was written in such a way that if you put something in it, it will be found immediately.
Unless a person of the caliber of Patanjali tries that, you cannot do it. Just think, if you had one Einstein formula, what can you do to it? If you do anything, it will be immediately caught. Unless a mind like Einstein tries to play with it, you cannot do anything. The formula is complete - nothing can be added; nothing can be deleted. In itself, it is a unit. Whatsoever you do, you will be caught.
These are seed formulas. If you add a single word, anyone who is working on the path of yoga will immediately come to know that this is wrong.
I will tell you one anecdote. It happened just in this century. One of the greatest poets of India, Rabindranath Tagore, translated his own book, GITANJALI, from Bengali to English. He himself translated it, and then he was a little hesitant whether the translation is okay or not. So he asked C. F. Andrews, one of the friends and disciples of Mahatma Gandhi that, "Just go through it. How the translation has come to be?" C.F. Andrews was not a poet, he was an Englishman-well educated, knowing the language, the grammar and everything - but he was not a poet.
So on four spots, on four points, he told Rabindranath to change certain words: "They are ungrammatical, and English people will not follow them." So Rabindranath simply changed whatsoever Andrews suggested. Four words in all he changed in his translation. Then he went to London, and for the first time, in a poet's gathering... One of the English poets of his time, Yeats, has arranged that gathering. It was read for the first time, the translation.
When the whole translation was read, everybody listened, and Rabindranath asked, "Have you any suggestions? Because this is just a translation and English is not my mother tongue.
And it is very difficult to translate poetry. Yeats, who was a poet of the same caliber of Rabindranath, he said, "Only at four points something is wrong." And exactly those were the four words Andrews has suggested!
Rabindranath couldn't believe it. He said, "How, how you could find? Because these are the four words I have not translated. Andrews suggested and I have put them." Yeats said, "The whole poetry is a flow; only these four are like stones. The flow is broken. It seems somebody else has done the work. Your language may not be grammatical, your language is not hundred percent right. It cannot be; that we can understand. But it is hundred percent poetry. These four words have come from a school master. Grammar has become right, but poetry has gone wrong."
With Patanjali you cannot do anything. Anyone who is working on yoga will find it immediately that someone else who doesn't know anything has interpolated something. There are very few books which are still pure, and the purity has been retained. This is one of them. Nothing has been changed, not a single word. Nothing has been added; it is as Patanjali meant it to be.
This is a work of objective art. When I say, "a work of objective art" I mean a certain thing. Every precaution has been taken. While these sutras were condensed every precaution has been taken so that they could not be destroyed. They have been constructed in such a way that anything foreign, any foreign element will become a jarring note. But I say if a man like Patanjali tries, he can do that.
But a man like Patanjali will never try such a thing. Only lesser minds always try to interpolate. And lesser minds can try that, and the thing can continue, interpolated, only when it becomes a mass thing. Masses are not aware, cannot be aware. Only Yeats became aware that something is wrong. There were many others present in the gathering; no one was aware.
This is a secret cult, a secret heritage. And even the book is written, but the book form has not been thought to be reliable. There are still persons alive who have got Patanjali's sutras directly from their Master, not from the book. And the tradition has remained alive yet, and it will continue because books are not reliable. Sometimes books can be lost. Many things can go wrong with books.
So a secret tradition is there. And that tradition has been maintained, and continuously those who know through words of their Master go on checking whether in the book form something is wrong or whether something has been changed.
This has not been maintained for other scriptures. Bible has too much interpolations, that if Jesus comes back, he will not be able to understand what has happened, how these things have come in. Because for two hundred years when Jesus died... After two hundred years, for the first time, the Bible was recorded. In these two hundred years many things disappeared. Even his disciples have different stories to tell.
Buddha died. After five hundred years, after his death, his words were recorded. There are many schools, many scriptures, and no one can say which is true and which is false. But Buddha was talking to the masses, so he is not condensed like Patanjali. He was talking to the masses, to the ordinary common people. He was elaborating things in detail. In those details many things can be added, many things can be deleted, and no one will become aware that something has been done.
But Patanjali was not talking to the masses. He was talking to a very select few, a group - a group of very few persons, just like Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff never talked before the masses. A very selected group of his disciples was able to listen to him, and that too with many conditions. No meeting was ever declared before. If he was going to talk this night, eight-thirty, then nearabout eight o'clock you will get the indication that somewhere Gurdjieff is going to talk. And you have to reach immediately because at eight-thirty the doors will be closed. And these thirty minutes were never enough. And when you reach, you may find that he has cancelled. Next day, again...
Once he cancelled for seven days continuously. The first day four hundred people had come, the last day only fourteen. By and by they got discouraged. And then it seemed impossible that he is going to talk. The last day, only fourteen people... when he looked, he said, "Now the right amount of people is left. And you could wait for seven days and you were not discouraged, so now you have earned it. Now I will speak, and only these fourteen will be able to listen to this series. Now no one is to be informed that I have started speaking."
This type of work is different. Patanjali worked with a very closed circle. That's why no religion has come out of it, no organization. Patanjali has no sect. Such a tremendous force, but he remained closed within a small group. And he worked it out in such a way that the purity should be maintained. It has maintained up to now.
The last question:
WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE WORKING OF THAT UNKNOWN FORCE WHICH KEEPS THE HUMAN MIND ATTACHED TO WORDLY THINGS AND HABITS IN SPITE OF BEING FULLY AWARE THAT THE ULTIMATE RESULT IS NOTHING BUT MISERY?
The awareness is not total, the awareness is just intellectual. Logically you follow that "Whatsoever I am doing is leading me to misery," but this is not your existential experience. Just rationally you understand. If you were reason alone then there would have been no problem, but you are "unreason" also. If you had only conscious mind then it was okay. You have unconscious mind also. Conscious mind knows that you are going into misery every day by your own efforts; you are creating your own hell. But the unconscious is not aware, and the unconscious is nine times more than your conscious mind. And that unconscious goes on persisting in its own habits.
You decide not to be angry again because anger is nothing but poisoning your own system. It gives you misery. But next time, when someone insults you, the unconscious will put aside your conscious reasoning, will erupt, and will be angry. And that unconscious has not known about your decision at all, and that unconscious remains the active force.
The conscious mind is not active, it only thinks. It is a thinker; it is not a doer. So what has to be done? Just by thinking consciously that something is wrong, you are not going to stop it. You will have to work at a discipline, and through discipline this conscious knowledge will penetrate like an arrow into the unconscious.
Through discipline, through yoga, through practice, the conscious decision will reach into the unconscious. And when it reaches into the unconscious, only then it will be of any use. Otherwise you will go on thinking something, and you will go on doing something quite the contrary.
St. Augustine says that, "Whatsoever good I know - and I always think to do it - but whenever the opportunity to do it comes, I will always do whatsoever is wrong." This is the human dilemma.
And yoga is the path to bridge the conscious with the unconscious. And when we will go deeper into the discipline you will become aware how this can be done. This can be done So don't rely on the conscious, it is inactive. The unconscious is the active. Change the unconscious; only then your life will have a different meaning. Otherwise you will be in more misery.
Thinking something, doing something else, will constantly create chaos - and by and by you will lose self-confidence. By and by you will feel that you are absolutely incapable, impotent, you cannot do anything. A self-condemnation will arise. You will feel guilty. And guilt is the only sin.