Aha!

Question 1:

Deva Amrito, J. Krishnamurti has made it known worldwide that "the observer is the observed." I want to refute him completely. The moment there is no observer, there is nothing to be observed.

The observer and the observed disappear simultaneously - and there is only silence; neither the knower nor the known.

This is something very complex to understand, because the mind always wants duality. With the two the mind is absolutely at ease. The knower and the known... and the two always create the third, the knowledge. The observer and the observed are bound to create the third, the observation. And then there is no end to this infinite regress.

My own silence is, that there is no observer and there is no observed. Hence nothing can be said about it. The moment you say it, you lie.

It is one of the reasons Lao Tzu never said anything, never wrote anything. He had a great following, but a very strange following. Every disciple had come to listen, to understand, to know, but Lao Tzu insistently, his whole life long, refused to say anything about truth, or to write anything about truth.

He was ready to talk about anything else - but the people had come to know about the truth....

Finally the day came. Lao Tzu left for the Himalayas to enter into the eternal peace of those beautiful mountains. But the emperor of China was also interested to know what Lao Tzu had been hiding and not telling, not even giving a hint about what truth is. He ordered all the borders to be closed to Lao Tzu: "He cannot leave China unless he writes something about truth."

Lao Tzu was caught crossing the border towards the Himalayas - respectfully, lovingly; the emperor was not an enemy but a disciple.

The emperor himself was present there, because that was the route they assumed he would take towards the Himalayas. A beautiful house was made for him so that he could rest and write down his experience of truth. Unless he did it, the doors would not be open for him, and he was guarded continuously. This was a strange situation - perhaps no other master has ever encountered such a situation - loaded guns in the hands of the disciples!

And we can understand the situation of the disciples: they wanted to preserve the most important experience of truth for future generations. Under compulsion, Lao Tzu closed himself in the house and wrote a small book. The first sentence in that book says, "That which can be said cannot be true. That which can be written is bound to be a lie. Remember these two statements while you read my book."

Even loaded guns cannot force a master to say something which cannot be said. When the emperor got the book, Lao Tzu was released. But he had deceived them. If you remember these statements, that truth said becomes untrue, truth expressed loses the quality of being true - if these conditions have to be remembered while reading the book, in fact there is no point in reading it! But Lao Tzu was gone.

What had been the difficulty for Lao Tzu? because every Tom, Dick, and Harry is talking about truth.

Only Toms, Dicks and Harrys can talk about truth because they know nothing about it. To enter that silence where the two disappear....

Krishnamurti has chosen to say that when the two disappear only one remains. But that goes against all the mystic experiences of the world. Because if one remains, the other is just around the corner; you cannot conceive what one means if you do not have some idea of the two.

A great mystic, Shankara from India, instead of using one tried a different way. It makes not much difference, but it is certainly better than J. Krishnamurti's idea. Shankara says a nonduality remains.

He does not say one remains, because one reminds you of two. He reverses the process. He says the two are no more - that will remind you of the one. But even reminding you in an indirect way is still the same.

Perhaps Gautam Buddha comes very close to saying the unsayable, but I am saying "very close."

I am not saying that he has said it - almost. He denies rather than affirms. Krishnamurti affirms:

"the observer is the observed." Gautam Buddha says, "Neither is there an observer nor is there the observed." In the whole history of mankind, perhaps he comes closest. He simply denies, and his denial is such that it does not provoke the idea of one; neither the observer nor the observed. And he keeps silent about what remains. Just pure silence, nobody even to experience it, nobody even to express it.

I repeat that J. Krishnamurti has been confusing thousands of people in his long life of ninety years.

If you ask me, Amrito, I will say just be quiet about it.

Let it be.

Don't try to describe what it is.

This is a deep itch in the mind, to describe everything. Unless the mind describes it, the itch remains.

It is a kind of sickness. When everything has come to a standstill, when you are not, who is going to experience? Who is going to observe, and what is going to be observed? Just a stillness... you have disappeared in it and the observed has also disappeared in it.

This is unsayable and will remain unsayable. Howsoever close you come to it, you are still far away.

My own understanding is just to avoid talking about it. Don't mention it. Experience, but there should be no experiencer.

In ordinary human life, there is nothing which can be compared to this experience - that creates great difficulty. Otherwise some indications, some hints... and all kinds of ways have been tried:

"It is one."

"It is not two."

"It is neither this nor that."

Just one thing has been left, which I am trying:

It is that neither are you an observer nor is there an observed. A pure oceanic vastness, an utter silence which cannot be reduced into language in any way....

But the mind is more cunning than you understand it to be. I will read your question to show you how the mind brings everything from the back door. "A few weeks ago I was awake..." You were there, and you were also experiencing that you were awake. The observer was there, the observed was there. The duality was perfectly following you.

"... and suddenly saw there was only talking..." Still the duality - who saw the talking? You were still there, listening to the talking. Because you were listening, you thought there was only talking, but the talking cannot exist without a listener. This is something to be understood.

The moment you leave your room and lock it, do you think your clothes in the room continue to remain the same color? The white remains white, the blue remains blue, the green remains green?

You are wrong. The moment you are out of the room and there is nobody to see, colors disappear.

For a color to exist, the eyes are absolutely necessary. Who is going to see the color? Ordinarily we don't think so - that the moment you leave your room everything changes - but the fact is scientific, that every color disappears with you. And the moment you look through the keyhole they all come back! It looks strange, but the whole of life is such.

You stand and look at the sun. There is light, tremendous beauty. But close your eyes: for you, the sun is no more a light, and it creates no more colors. For you, all flowers lose their colorfulness.

It is not a new question. For almost five thousand years in India the philosophers have discussed it, and the discussion still continues even in this century. One British philosopher, Bradley, and his colleague, Bosanquet, insisted that if a man is deaf no sounds exist for him, and if all people become deaf there will be no sounds. If all people become blind there will be no colors, no flowers, no rainbows, no stars. It looks very illogical, because the flower has its own color... It does not have.

This strange experiment has finally come to the conclusion that when you see a color as red, it is all colors except red. Why does it look red? Because the sun rays fall on your bodies, on your flowers, on your trees; every flower absorbs rays from among the seven colors of the rainbow. Perhaps if all colors are absorbed, then the flower will look black. But if the flower resists and does not allow the red to be absorbed, the flower will look red. The red is the rejected ray of the sun that reaches your eye. And if the flower rejects the whole range of seven colors then it will look white.

It is not coincidental that in all the traditions of the world white has always been thought to be something pure - without knowing exactly why; the reasonings that science has produced are very new. But white somehow represented purity, innocence, cleanliness. And every religion has depicted the devil as black. These are symbolic. The devil is nothing but greed. He goes on absorbing everything; he never rejects anything. The white is non-greed. It never accumulates anything, it goes on reflecting it back to its source. The devil is a beggar; hence he has been depicted as black. But the white is utter simplicity. These symbols have persisted for thousands of years, but their implications and their scientific reasons have become available only now.

When you say, Amrito, "Suddenly I saw there was only talking," you forgot the seer, the listener. You became so much focused on listening that you forgot who is listening. This is what I call mind's very subtle cunningness. It was still two, but it managed to deceive you as one: "There was no talker."

These are the rationalizations of the mind. It said, "Look, there is only talking, no talker!" But what about the listener?

Wherever there are two, there are three. And you became impressed by the fact that there is no talker and the talking is going on, and you forgot - who is being aware that there is no talker?

And who is being aware of the talking? You were there, perfectly there, and the duality had not disappeared.

"For years I had listened to the statement that the observer and the observed were one." You have listened to that statement by J. Krishnamurti. But sometimes I feel so strange that J. Krishnamurti perhaps talked more than anybody else before him... I am saying before him, not after him - I am still alive; that poor fellow is dead! When he said the observer and the observed were one, who was making this decision? Who was being aware that the observer and the observed are one? Who was the witness?

And not a single person throughout his fifty years of continuous teaching ever raised the question, that "I can understand the observer is the observed, but who is the witness?" Certainly a witness is needed, somebody who is standing behind and seeing that the observer and the observed are one.

Again he has fallen into the same fallacy. That's why I said I am going to refute it completely.

You say, "I saw there was no room." Then where were you?

The word 'room' is very meaningful. It simply means space. People have completely forgotten the root meaning of the word 'room'. When you take out all the furniture from your room, all the bookshelves, everything out, you say, "Now the room looks roomier." All those things were obstructing the room. They were filling the space. If you say, "I saw there was no room" you were there, and your very presence needs a certain space. That is your room. There may not be walls to your room. Even if you make the whole sky your room - it does not matter how big the room is; if you are there, you will be surrounded by space. Without space you cannot be there. And that space is the real room.

I used to stay in a very rich man's house. He was so rich that he used to collect all kinds of junk, and in the guest house where I used to stay, he had put everything you can possibly conceive. When he took me for the first time to the guest house he said, "This is going to be your room."

I looked inside and I said, "But where is the room?" A big, beautiful piano, radios, very costly furniture, many paintings and even though television had not come to that city at that time, he had a beautiful television set. Some day, television will come. I said, "I can see so many things, they have destroyed the room completely! If you want me to stay in this place, I refuse. You take all this junk so that I can have some room."

He could not understand me. He said, "What do you mean by room?"

I mean that "room" simply means spaciousness. The room can be bigger, can be smaller, but if you are there, your very presence creates a room around you. As far as you can see - that is the wall of your room. They will both disappear together. But then there will be no one to say, "The room has disappeared. I have also disappeared." You cannot say that "I have also disappeared." There will be nobody to say anything.

No room, no you, no observer, no observed.

Just a pure silence without any ripples.

A famous Sufi story about Mulla Nasruddin... He was always bragging in the town's cafeteria that he is a very generous man, very compassionate. People were getting tired of it. They said, "We have listened to this so many times, but we have never seen a single act of compassion, generosity, friendliness. Prove it!"

He said, "Okay, you are all invited" - a group of a hundred people from the cafeteria - "to come to my house for dinner today. Just follow me and you will see the act."

In the heat of discussion he said this, but as he started approaching closer to the house he realized what he had done. In the morning his wife had sent him to fetch some vegetables from the market,

and the whole day he had been wandering here and there. He had not come back all day to the house. And he knew perfectly well, as every husband knows, that there is only one kind of husband in the world: they are all henpecked.

He was also aware that there was nothing in the house for one hundred people - and he has invited them for dinner! He cooled down, slowed down, and then finally he said, "Listen, you are all husbands and we all know the real situation. I don't have to explain it to you. You please wait outside the door. First let me go in and find a way to tell my wife that without informing her, I have invited one hundred guests for dinner."

It was understandable. Everybody was a husband, so there was no question of not understanding it. They remained outside. Mulla Nasruddin went in, closed the door... and the wife was furious!

The whole day she had been waiting, hungry because there was no food, no vegetables, nothing in the house. Mulla Nasruddin said, "That is a secondary problem. I am in a more troublesome state.

First help me."

The wife said, "What is the trouble?"

Mulla Nasruddin said, "In the heat of discussion, I have invited one hundred people for dinner. They are standing outside the house."

The wife said, "My God, are you mad? There is no food even for two of us! Now what do you want me to do?"

He said, "Just a simple thing. You go out and ask them why they are standing there. Naturally they will say, 'Mulla Nasruddin has invited us for dinner.' Tell them that there must have been some misunderstanding because since the morning he has not been seen: 'Where did you see him? I am waiting for him.'"

The wife also felt a little weird, because Mulla was standing inside the house... but there was no other way. Finally, hesitantly, she went to the door, just opened the door a little bit and asked, "Why this crowd? What are you doing here?"

They said, "We are not a crowd. We are friends of Mulla Nasruddin, your husband. And he has invited us for dinner."

The wife said, "He left the house in the morning and since then he has not returned. There must be some misunderstanding."

They said, "There is no misunderstanding. A hundred people are witnesses: he came with us and he entered this door."

The wife was at a loss what to do because the Mulla was inside. Mulla was also listening. He went upstairs and from the window he said, "Listen you fellows! Can't you understand a single thing, that Mulla may have come with you and may have gone out from the back door. And feel ashamed!

Arguing with a poor woman!"

Sufis have used the story for centuries. These stories are so simple and so beautiful, but so pregnant with meaning.

You say, Amrito, "I saw there was no room." It is impossible. You will have to understand Mulla Nasruddin's situation. He is denying that he is in the house. His very denial is a proof that he is in the house.

You cannot say, "I am not." Then who is saying it? In saying "I am not," you have proved that you are.

You go on saying, "... no necessity for a thinker..." Who is thinking this no necessity for a thinker?

It is certainly a thought. The necessity or no necessity are both thoughts. "Only consciousness"...

but that is again a thought - "and the arising of phenomena." So everything has come back from the back door! "Arising of phenomena" - certainly you are the observer and the phenomena is the observed. The mind has come back, saying to you, "There is no necessity of thinking." But this is thinking. If you are, you cannot get rid of the other. The other will follow you just like your shadow.

You may become oblivious to it, you may not see it. Mind knows very cunning ways.

And I am analyzing your question for a certain reason, because it is going to be everybody's problem sooner or later. A man comes to me and says, "I experienced bliss." It is nonsense. Either you can be or bliss can be. Both cannot be together. And if there is only bliss, who is going to report it?

Lao Tzu's greatest disciple was Chuang Tzu. He was moving on the path. He was reporting every day his experiences - arising of spiritual phenomena, experiences of light, lotuses flowering - but Lao Tzu never paid any attention to what he was saying. The only thing that he could see from Lao Tzu's face was, "Don't waste my time. Just go, start meditating again." But one day Chuang Tzu never came - he used to come early in the morning. Lao Tzu waited for him. It was time for sunset and he inquired, "Where is Chuang Tzu?"

They said, "He is sitting under a tree. From the morning he has been sitting there."

Lao Tzu said, "It seems I will have to go and see what is happening. Something is certainly happening for the first time." And he went, shook the body of Chuang Tzu and said, "Aha! But keep your mouth shut! Now there is no need every day to come to me to describe all that rubbish."

And Chuang Tzu fell at the feet of Lao Tzu with tears of joy and he said, "Your compassion is great.

How many years have I tortured you? And your compassion was so great, you never said anything.

You simply said, 'Continue.' You never denied. And today you have come to me just to say, 'Aha!'"

Nothing more can be said.

"I saw," you are saying, Amrito, "there was no room, no necessity for a thinker; only consciousness."

Why are you putting the word only? Unconsciously you are also aware that if there is only consciousness, there is no need for the adjective "only." You know perfectly well you were there, and with you all the luggage that you have been preserving in the mind was there.

"... and the arising of phenomena. Instead of jumping out of bed, I turned around and slept." That is the only good thing that you did! And if ever again such stupid things happen to you, remember -

don't jump out of the bed, just take a turn and go to sleep. Sleep is far better than dreaming. Your experiences were nothing but dreams, soap bubbles, with no validity of their own.

"Insight seems to be like a gentle breeze." Insight does not "seem to be" like a gentle breeze. It is.

And the difference is great. Do you say to someone, "It seems I love you... it almost seems I love you"? Either you love or you don't.

Again you have started dreaming, because just turning on your side does not make much difference.

You can dream facing to one side, you can dream facing to another side and there are dreamers who are dreaming with open eyes walking in the streets. Dreaming is possible in every situation.

"Insight seems to be like a gentle breeze, a whisper." No. When the insight opens there is no way to describe it, you cannot say it "seems like a gentle breeze" or "a whisper." It is absolute silence. A whisper is too loud, and a gentle breeze is far below.

In our ordinary experiences nothing exists that can be compared to the flowering of your insight.

Those who have come to the insight have suddenly become utterly silent because they cannot find how to say it, what to say about it, whom to say it to. Who is going to understand?

Gautam Buddha became enlightened one full-moon night and for seven days he did not utter a single word. The story is so beautiful. It needs to be understood from different angles, because it brings new meanings, new implications. Why did he remain silent for seven days?

First, he was so overwhelmed there was no question of doing anything about it. Everything was HAPPENING....

Later on... he had five disciples. He thought, "At least I should say something to those five disciples.

I was ignorant, but I pretended to be a master." And there are many who are doing the same all over the world, because it is easier to be a master than to be a disciple. The disciple has to go through such a transformation.

He felt compassion for those five who had followed him, but what to say to them? Will they understand? He knew perfectly well that if he himself had not been overwhelmed with the explosion, nobody could have explained it to him. He would have laughed. And he does not want to become a laughingstock, but the compassion is there... which is intrinsic as you become more and more centered, more and more yourself, more and more inseparable from existence. Compassion simply comes to you. It is not something to be cultivated, not something to be disciplined. Just as the spring comes and the flowers start blossoming, the morning comes and the trees start awakening, something spontaneous... so is compassion.

He tried hard - in what way to convey it? But all words were empty. All words were contaminated.

And the problem was more complicated: he will speak the word, and something of the truth will be lost in speaking. Then the person will hear it, and whatever is left will be lost in his hearing, because he is going to interpret it in his own way according to his own prejudices.

On the seventh day he decided not to speak at all. Those seven days were a continuous anguish - "I know it now, but I am absolutely helpless." The story is that five gods... in Buddhism there is not one god, there are as many gods as there are living beings, because every living being ultimately

has to flower into a god. As far as the question of gods is concerned, Mohammedanism, Judaism, Christianity, are very dictatorial. Their gods resemble Ronald Reagan more than anybody else.

Buddhism has a very democratic idea about god. Everybody has the potential. It is up to you when you realize it. And there is no hurry either, because eternity is available.

Five gods came to Gautam Buddha, prayed to him, "It happens very rarely, in millions of years, that a man comes to this state, to this space, to this blissfulness, to this truth. And the whole existence waits that now your fragrance will raise the consciousness of all those who are ready to move, who are ready to transform, and you have decided not to speak! We have come to pray to you, please speak."

They had to argue with Gautam Buddha for many days, because each argument was refuted by him. And the gods also felt that he was right: nobody is going to understand, everybody is going to misunderstand. Rather than helping people, the greater possibility is that the people will stone him to death!

But they were adamant. They went aloof into the forest to prepare for the final argument with Buddha..."Whatever he is saying, he is right and we cannot convince him to speak. First, the truth is unspeakable. Second, it is not understandable. Thirdly, it goes against people's ideas of truth, and that creates enmity."

I can say it from my own experience....

Dale Carnegie wrote a book, HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE. My own experience is in how to influence people and create enemies! I have created so many enemies around the world, perhaps nobody can be a competitor to me. Twenty-five countries have passed laws in their parliaments that I cannot enter their countries. Not only can I not enter, I cannot even land my airplane at their international airports to be refueled. It takes not more than fifteen minutes.

In fifteen minutes at the international airport - and I will not be coming out of the plane - their whole morality is in danger. Their thousands-of-years-old tradition is in danger. Their church is in danger.

Their whole new generation can be corrupted just by me sitting in an airplane at an international airport!

The gods worked hard - how to persuade Gautam Buddha? Arguments don't seem to lead anywhere. Finally they came the last time and they said, "Whatever you have been saying to us is true. Just one point more: there are millions of people who will not understand you, and there are millions who will become antagonistic to you because your truth is going to destroy their lies. And their lies are their comforts, their consolations, their only hope. Your truth is too dangerous. We are convinced of your arguments; just one simple point: amongst millions of people, there may be one person... You cannot deny the possibility of one person who is just on the boundary line and needs only a little push. Are you not going to help that man to cross the boundary line?"

Gautam Buddha agreed: "There is a possibility of someone, somewhere, who is just at that point but is clinging because he is afraid of moving into the unknown. A little push, and even before he realizes it, he has opened his wings and flown into the unknown. I will speak. I will speak to the last of my breath." And he spoke for forty-two years. He was a man of immense commitment to his promise. To the very last, he continued - an impossible task. To stand for truth is to stand against

the whole history of mankind. To stand for truth is to stand absolutely alone against the whole world.

And I am saying this from my own experience.

Just the other day I received a letter from a man who works for TIME magazine in America. He has asked two questions - one is important for you. He says, "Your effort is to save humanity; then why have you spoken against Jesus?"

In the first place, I am not making any effort to save anyone. And I have spoken against Jesus because he was giving consolations to people..."I will save you." That is the most dangerous and poisonous statement. It makes you relaxed - you need not worry, you simply believe in Jesus and he will save you. On the last day of judgment, Jesus will sort out his sheep and tell God, "These are my people." They will enter into paradise, and the remaining humanity will fall into the abysmal darkness of hell for eternity. I am against such consolations.

And the man seems to be a Jesus freak. He cannot even understand what question he is asking.

Who is saved by Jesus? He could not save himself, and at the last moment on the cross he became utterly disillusioned. Very few people have lived in such deep illusions as Jesus Christ, because he believed he is the only begotten son of God. What happened? - God started using birth control methods? Why only one begotten son? The reality is, Jesus was not the son of his own father, Joseph. Some hooligan has played a trick on the poor innocent Mary. That hooligan has become the Holy Ghost.

If such things are holy, then what is unholy? Making other people's wives pregnant without their permission - if this is holy then there is nothing unholy in the world. But he remained with this idea that he is the only begotten son of God and he has come to save humanity.

On the cross... because people finally got too bored; Judea was a very small place and he was roaming around Judea saying the same thing; "I have come to save you." And everybody knew he was uneducated, uncultured. He knows nothing of the scriptures, he is not even a rabbi, he has been working with his so-called father Joseph in his carpentry workshop, and suddenly he has become the only begotten son of God. Naturally he irritated people, annoyed people. If you don't want to be saved you will be annoyed if somebody comes every day knocking on your door to say that he has come to save you.

Jesus was crucified for different reasons than Socrates was poisoned. Socrates was poisoned because he had a truth which made the consolations of people absolutely absurd. Jesus, on the contrary, is giving consolations. Who were the people who gathered around him? He had twelve apostles. All were fishermen, farmers, gardeners. Except Judas, nobody was educated. And naturally they thought, "This is a good chance. On our own we cannot hope to be saved. And this man is so authoritative, let us cling to him. There is nothing to lose."

But on the cross, even Jesus became suspicious. Because he was waiting - God will come sitting on a white cloud, create a miracle, save his only begotten son and prove to the Jews that "You have been wrong, you have mistreated my son." But nothing happened, not even a white cloud.

He looked again and again towards the sky. There was no indication of any miracle, not even a rehearsal. Everything was silent and finally he blurted out, "Father, have you forsaken me? Have you forgotten me?" But still there was no answer.

There is no father in the sky and the skies don't answer anybody.

This man from TIME magazine says to me, "You have come to save humanity..." Who gave him that idea? I don't want to save anybody. It is your business, why should I interfere in your life? even if the interference is for the good. I can explain my own experiences, I can indicate possible ways, but I am not going to save anybody. You have to walk the path alone, without any illusions.

Yes, certainly if I find someone just on the borderline, I will push him. I am lazy, but that much I can do. I am trying to push Amrito; he is just on the borderline, but there is always a nostalgia to look backwards... the beautiful experiences of the mind, and ahead is an open sky with no limits. It creates fear and trembling. But Amrito has come closer and closer to me so I am going to take the risk and push him into the unknown.

He is saying, "Will you say something about the non-dramatic quality of real insight?" In real insight there is no drama; it is absolutely ordinary. People like drama, although they know it is only a drama.

All the religions are creating dramas for people's entertainment. People love to be entertained. But Amrito, now there is not going to be any dramatic experience - just a push and a sound following you, "Aha!"

Milarepa has asked, "Why do you like the childlike quality?" The reason is very simple. Because they are such innocent people, so nonserious, unaware of all kinds of games people play - mundane, sacred, human, superhuman. I will give you a few examples so that you can forget Amrito and what happened to him.

The Goldberg family is on a picnic. Hymie is standing near the edge of a high cliff, admiring the sea crashing on the rocks far below.

Little Herschel comes up to him and says, "Hey Dad, Mom says it is not safe here. So either you stand back or give me the sandwiches."

Little Ernie is at the seashore when a pretty blond comes out of the surf and finds that she has lost the top half of her bathing suit.

Embarrassed, she crosses her arms in front of her chest and hurries across the beach.

She almost reaches to where she has left her towel when little Ernie asks, "Lady, if you are giving away those puppies, could I have the one with the pink nose?"

Miss Goodbody, the teacher, is approaching her classroom when little Ernie comes towards her from the other direction, deliberately winking his left eye.

"Ernest," says Miss Goodbody, quite shocked. "Are you winking at me?"

"No," says Ernie, making a left turn into the classroom, "I have just got my turn signal on."

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Beloved Master.