You are blessed

Question 1:

I am reminded of an Arabian proverb.

It is said that whenever God creates a person he whispers into his ear 'You are my favourite. I have never made such a beautiful person before, and I am not going to make such a beautiful person again. You arc simply unique.' But this he has been doing to everybody and everybody deep down in his heart thinks 'Whatsoever God has said. one believes.'

You are my favourite. And this is not addressed to anybody in particular, but to everybody. In fact, to choose as favourite or not is not possible for me. It depends on you, you can become my favourite, you may not become; it is a one-way traffic. If you allow, you will become; if you don't allow, you will not become. As far as I am concerned I am not.

Question 2:

'Bullshit' is a far better word than 'rationalisation', but they mean the same. 'Rationalisation' is a clinical word - a word to be used by the professor, 'bullshit' is more alive. 'Rationalisation' is bloodless, 'bullshit' is very young, alive and kicking. But the meaning is the same, they are not different things.

The henpecked husband and his wordy wife were walking down the country road having one of their arguments in the usual way. She was winning. Suddenly she turned and saw a bull charging down the road. There was no time to warn her husband so she jumped into a hedge. The bull caught the man on its horns and sent him spinning fifty feet into the air. He came down in a ditch. When he finally managed to crawl out, he saw his wife standing on the road.

'Maria' he said 'if you hit me like that again you'll really make me lose my temper.'

Now this is bullshit. If you ask a psychoanalyst, he will call it a rationalisation.

The culture society was organising a group to be comprised strictly of virgins, when a young lady carrying a baby appeared.

'But, madam' protested the president 'that is evidence that you are not eligible for this society. Why do you think you will be able to join?'

'I was only foolin' around when this happened' she explained. 'So I thought I could get in as one of those foolish virgins.'

This is bullshit. 'Rationalisation' is a philosophical term. 'Bullshit' comes from the ordinary man, from the masses, people who live on the earth, with the earth, whose hands are muddy. The word 'bullshit' is also muddy as it is being used by people who are working, living the ordinary life. It does not come from the ivory towers of a university. But remember, it is more authentic, it says much more than 'rationalisation'. And always remember this, that words that are coined by professors are always anaemic. They are dead words - clinical, but do not say much; rather than saying, they hide.

Let me say it in this way, the very word 'rationalisation' is a rationalisation: it is being used to avoid the word bullshit'.

Question 3:

So allow me to commit a few more mistakes.

First: my memory is marvellous.

Mulla Nasruddin was talking to a man and he said 'My wife has a very bad memory.'

And the man asked 'Do you mean she forgets everything?'

Mulla Nasruddin said 'No, she remembers everything!'

If Mulla Nasruddin's wife has a bad memory, I have a marvellous memory. I forget everything. And I enjoy this forgetfulness; I am not worried about it.

Secondly: I am an ignorant person. I am not a scholar. I enjoy reading books, but I read the Bible.

the Gita, the Koran just as one reads novels; they are ancient, beautiful stories. Krishnamurti says he never reads any scripture; he reads only detective stories. I read the scripture, but I read in the scripture just the detective story and nothing else. And I would suggest to Krishnamurti that it would be good if he should look into the Bible; you cannot find a more beautiful story full of suspense.

Everything is there: love. Life, murder; everything is there. It is very sensational.

Scriptures, to me, have nothing special. Scriptures are as sacred as the trees and the rocks and the stars - or as secular. I don't make a distinction so I am not very serious about scriptures. The only thing I am serious about is jokes. So when I quote the scripture I quote from memory, when I quote a joke I have it written here in front of me. I never want to make any mistake about the joke - I am really serious. About everything else I am absolutely non-serious.

So it is very obvious. Listening to me you must have understood it. that my emphasis is not on what the scriptures say - that is not the point: my emphasis is on what I am saying. If you go to a Christian priest, he quotes the scripture, his emphasis is on the scripture. He is very literal. he has to be - he himself is secondary, the scripture is primary. He is a witness to the scripture. With me it is just the opposite: the scripture is just a witness to me. Whatsoever I have to say, only that have I to say. If I feel the scripture can be a witness to it, I use it.

And I go on playing with the scripture, sometimes in one way, sometimes in another. Remember always, I am not trying to prove the scripture - that the scripture is right - I am simply using it as illustration. It is secondary, you can forget about it: nothing will be lost. Whatsoever I am saying is direct. Just to help you, because you are not capable of listening to the direct truth, you need a few witnesses. So Jesus, Krishna and Buddha and Lao Tzu and Lieh Tzu - they are just witnesses to me. I am not to adjust with them. they have to adjust with me.

And this should always be so: the dead should exist and adjust with the living and for the living. Why should the living adjust with the dead? Lieh Tzu has to adjust with me, because only in adjusting with me can Lieh Tzu again have a little life. Jesus has to adjust with me, I am not to adjust with Jesus. The past has to adjust with the present. not otherwise. So I go on playing....

These are all just stories to me and. deep down, this is the approach: the whole of life is a fiction, it is MAYA, it is a dream. Jesus and Buddha and Krishna and I and you are parts of a big dream - God is dreaming. Don't be too serious about it. Scholars become too serious. I am not a scholar and I have no respect for scholars. In fact my attitude is exactly the same as Mulla Nasruddin's.

Once it happened:

A man came to Mulla Nasruddin and said 'Nasruddin. have you heard? The great scholar of the town has died and twenty rupees are needed to bury him.'

Mulla gave him a hundred rupee note and said 'Take it, and while you are doing it, why not bury five? Remember, these scholars are very calculating and cunning people - bury them as deep as possible, otherwise they will come back. And if you need more money, come to me, don't be shy about it!'

I am neither a scholar nor am I in any way respectful towards scholars or scholarship. That is all bullshit.

I was reading a beautiful poem by E.Y. Harburg. A few lines are of tremendous import. Meditate over them.

Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree; And only God who makes the tree Also makes the fools like me.

But only fools like me, you see, Can make a God, who makes a tree.

I am tremendously ignorant, and I am happy as I am. and I have no idea to improve upon myself.

So if sometimes you are in an awkward situation: somebody says that Osho has said this and this is not correct, it is your problem. Then your Master is found faulty... you feel a little disturbed, your ego is hurt. As far as I am concerned I am perfectly okay. And I will continue to create problems for you!

Now you find the answers. Invent something, be a little imaginative or inventive. When I can invent so much, why can't you? You can find some esoteric, occult meaning in it. It is always easy: when you cannot find anything else, always try to find some esoteric, occult meaning in it - there must be.

The handsome, well-dressed man handed the poor beggar a five dollar bill. 'Here, my good man'

he said 'eat your fill and there's enough for a drink or two.'

The beggar entered Tony's restaurant, where he ate the biggest dinner of his life and then topped it off with a bottle of wine and a big tip to Luigi, the waiter. 'Ah' said the handsome, well-dressed stranger 'it's a good world. Everyone is happy. The poor beggar because he is no longer hungry, Tony because he has made a big sale, the waiter because he has received a nice tip. And me?...

l'm happy too, because the bill was counterfeit.'

So make everybody happy. Create a few fictions, a few counterfeit bills; make everybody happy. The world is really beautiful.

Don't be bothered too much about facts there are none, all are fictions. Remember, ALL are fictions, even my being here and your being here is a tremendous fiction. Nothing ever happens. Truth is.

All that happens is fictitious; history is a fiction because whatsoever is, is... nothing ever happens there. God has no history and God has no biography. God only is, there is no 'was' and there is no 'will be'. There is no past and no future.

All history is fictitious. That's why in the East we have never been bothered by history, we have not written history at all - instead of history we have written myths. If you ask when Rama was born, Hindus cannot answer. Ask Hindus, and you will find as many answers as the persons you ask.

Nobody knows, in fact nobody knows exactly whether he was born or not. The fiction is that the story writer who wrote the story of Rama, wrote it before Rama was born: Balmiki wrote it before Rama was born. Look at the Eastern approach. You cannot conceive of it, that the Christian apostles should write the story of Jesus before he was ever born. But Balmiki wrote the story of Rama before he was born and then Rama had to be born to prove that Balmiki was right, otherwise people would laugh at this old man. And he had written so, 'So do it!' So he had to do the things that Balmiki had written already. He had prophesied it, it was a prediction, and then Rama followed. Look at the approach: history is thought of as fiction. Only novels are written first, then you can play, you can make a movie out of them.

In the secret traditions of the Essenes it is said that Christ never was, that in fact it was a drama, a Christ drama, that had been played for centuries before Christ was ever born. In fact he was never born, it was just a drama. By and by, people became so much attached to the drama, they started loving the drama so much, that it turned out becoming a reality; it started looking like a fact.

That's why there are so many versions. If you look into the four gospels, all are different, sometimes contradictory. Four persons writing the same story are bound to be different.

The Eastern way of looking at things is that whatsoever is cannot be seen by the eyes. And whatsoever can be seen by the eyes is just a fiction - enjoy while you are seeing it, love it - it is LEELA, God's play. So when I am saying things to you, these are not sermons - a sermon is a serious thing - these are just like the songs of the birds. So whatsoever surfaces in me, I tell you; and I am not worried whether it is proved by history or not because history itself is meaningless to me.

Question 4:

A woman cannot be a Master - it is not possible. When a woman arrives she becomes a Mistress, not a Master. The fulfilment of a woman is love. The flowering of a woman is love. Mastery is not the goal of the feminine mind; they don't become Masters, they become Mistresses. To be a Master is basically a male effort.

Awareness is the way of man, love is the way Or woman.

On the path of awareness it is possible to teach; one can become a Master. On the path of love, how can you teach love? You can flower, you can bloom in love, but how can you teach it? Yes, if somebody wants to learn from you, he will learn it, but you will not be a Master. And such women have existed: Rabiya, Meera, Mallibai, Magdalen, Teresa. Such women have existed: Sahajo, Daya, Lalla. Many women have existed, but they were not Masters. They were so surrendered to God that they became Mistresses.

Meera says 'I am a mistress to you. My Lord' - a mistress to Krishna, to God himself. She sings the song of the glory of her Lord, she dances. If somebody can catch something from her, it is overflowing; but she cannot be a teacher. She is surrendered, her surrender is absolute. Yes, if you are in her company, you will learn what surrender is... but you will have to learn, she will not teach.

A woman cannot be a teacher.

To teach, a certain different quality of energy is needed. Let me say it in this way, this is my experience: it is very difficult for a man to become a disciple, very difficult for a man to become a disciple. Even if he becomes, he becomes reluctantly. Surrender is difficult. How to surrender the will? Even if he surrenders, he only surrenders conditionally, in order to become a Master one day. He becomes a disciple in order to become a Master. It is difficult for a man to surrender; it is very simple for a woman to surrender. It is very simple for a woman to become a disciple, it is very difficult for a woman to become a Master. Even after she has arrived, she remains surrendered. And for the man, even when he has not arrived, he remains deep down unsurrendered. On the surface he will show surrender, but deep down somewhere the ego persists.

A man can become a good Master. A woman can become a good disciple because to become a disciple means to become a receiver, to be receptive, to become a womb. To become a Master means to become a giver.

The same phenomenon continues... as it is there on the biological level, it remains on the spiritual level. Biologically, a woman is ready to receive the sperm from the man she loves. The man cannot become a mother, he can only become a father. He can trigger the process: the woman will become the mother, she will carry the child in her womb for nine months, she will nourish the child with her blood and her being, she will be carrying the pregnancy. The same happens on the spiritual level too.

When a woman comes to a Master she is immediately ready to surrender. If sometimes it happens otherwise - sometimes there are women who are very reluctant to surrender that simply shows they have lost contact with their womanhood. They don't know who they are, they have become distracted from their centre. They don't know how to surrender because they don't know how to be a woman. If you know how to be a woman, if you are a woman, surrender is so simple, it comes so easily.

All the great disciples in the world were women. Buddha had thousands of disciples, but the proportion has always been the same: three women, one man. So was the proportion with Mahavir.

He had forty thousand sannyasins: ten thousand men, thirty thousand women. And so was the case with Jesus.

The really devoted people around him were not the men but the women. When he was crucified, all the men escaped, there was not a single man. All those so-called 'apostles' had all disappeared, but the women were there. Three women were there: they had no fear, they were ready to sacrifice themselves. When Jesus was taken down from the cross, it was not by men - those disciples had gone far away, and one or two were there but they were hiding in the crowd women took down the body. And it is very significant that when Jesus appeared after three days, resurrected, he appeared first to Mary Magdalen, not to a man. This is very significant. Why? What about those twelve apostles? Why to Mary Magdalen? And she immediately recognised him, and she rushed to him and she said 'So, My Lord, you are still alive!' And when Jesus appeared to the disciples, male disciples, they would not recognise him, they thought 'It seems tricky. How can this man come back?'

It is said that when he appeared before two disciples, male disciples, he walked with them for hours and they would not recognise him. And they continued talking about Jesus and Jesus was walking by their side. They were a little puzzled about the appearance of this man - he looked like Jesus but how could he be? 'Just appearance? - one should not be deceived by appearance alone.' For two hours they walked together. When they went to an inn, all three sat there to eat their dinner and when Jesus broke his bread, THEN they recognised. Very materialistic mind. Suddenly they saw... because Jesus' every act, his every gesture, was his, authentically his. Now they recognised because he was breaking the bread in the same way that they had seen Jesus break bread for years - then they recognised. But for two hours, the presence was not recognised. Magdalen recognised immediately. When she went to tell the male disciples that Jesus was resurrected, they laughed.

They said 'Woman, you are hallucinating.' And they laughed and they said 'This is how women always are - imaginative, dreaming, romantic. Now look at this foolish woman. Jesus is dead. We have seen him die on the cross with our own eyes.' But she cried and she said 'Listen to me. I have seen him.' But they would not listen.

A woman can be a perfect disciple, and this is how it should be. Woman is receptive, an opening, a womb. They have never been Masters in the sense that men have been Masters - like Mahavir, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu. No, they have never been Masters like that. But there have never been disciples like women; no man has ever been able to equal them as far as disciplehood is concerned. And let me tell you this, that as far as this division of male and female is concerned, the female mind is more blessed. Because the real thing is to receive the truth, the real thing is not to give it that is secondary. And a woman is always more total than a man. Whenever she receives the truth, she becomes luminous: her whole body, her whole being shows it; she carries an aura.

Have you not seen a woman who is pregnant, how beautiful she becomes? Her face glows, she is carrying a new life within her. And this is nothing compared to a woman who really becomes a disciple. She is carrying God himself within her. Her glory is infinite.

So don't be worried why women don't become Masters. There is no need. If you can become disciples, that is natural and you will always remain true to nature.

Question 5:

It is not a flower, it is just a meeting of two fragrances. Zen is a superflower, so is Sufism. Nothing can be added to them; they are perfect. As far as flowers are concerned, they have attained to perfection; nothing more can be added to them, they have bloomed. What I am doing here is trying to fuse their fragrances.

A rose has flowered and so has flowered a lotus. Both arc spreading their fragrances to the wind.

What I am doing here is trying to fuse their fragrance, which is a very subtle phenomenon. A flower is gross, fragrance is subtle. A flower is visible, fragrance is invisible. A flower is material, fragrance is simply spiritual. That's what I am doing here trying to bring together all the flowers of Tantra, of Yoga, of Tao, of Sufism, of Zen, of Hasidism, Jews, Moslems. Hindus, Buddhists. Jains-l am trying to bring together all the fragrances that have been released down the centuries. This is a great experiment which has never been done before. Buddha is concerned only with the path through which he has attained. so is Mahavir, so is Jesus. Never before on the earth - has this been done.

You are blessed, you are fortunate. You may not realise this right now, nobody realises it when the moment is alive. Have you ever thought about it? Were Jesus' disciples aware of what was happening when it was happening? Were they aware that something of tremendous import was happening in their lives which was going to decide the destiny of humanity for centuries to come? No, they were not aware. Were Buddha's disciples aware that something of great import was happening You are also not aware. Something of tremendous import is happening which has not happened ever, which is going to be decisive, because now the old religions cannot survive in the future; their days are gone.

In the future, a few things will disappear. Nations will have to disappear because the earth has become a small village; now they are meaningless. India and Pakistan and China and America and Canada and England and Germany are meaningless; the earth has become one. The day man became capable of going beyond gravitation, the earth became one. The first man in a spaceship started crying when he saw the whole earth as one. Nobody had ever seen the whole earth as one. He looked at the earth he could not believe how there could be any divisions of America and Russia and China and this and that. He could not think about himself as American or Russian.

He could think about himself only as an earth-dweller. And he could not see any divisions of the earth because divisions are only on the political maps; the earth remains undivided. The day man crossed the barrier of gravitation, became free from gravitation, the earth became one. It is now only a question of time.... Nations will have to disappear, and with nations will disappear the world of the politicians and the world of politics. A great nightmare will disappear from the earth.

And the second thing to disappear with the nations is Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, Judaism. Just as politics have divided the map of the earth, religions have divided the consciousness of man Certainly the division of religion is more dangerous than the division of politics, because politics can only divide the earth... religions have divided the consciousness of man. Man has not been allowed total access to his being. One has to be just a Mohammedan - a very narrow thing.

One has to be just a Hindu - just a very narrow thing. Why. when you can have the whole heritage?

When the whole past is yours and the whole future is yours, why should you divide? Why should I call myself 'a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Christian'? One should claim the total. By claiming the total you become total: you lose all narrow divisions, distinctions, you become whole. you become holy. That is going to happen, that is bound to happen. That HAS to happen. otherwise man will not be able to grow any more.

This is very crucial that man has to drop all barriers.of nation and religion and church. That's what I am doing here: trying to bring together all the fragrances released in different centuries by differing flowerings of human consciousness. Lao Tzu is a flower, so is Buddha, so is Jesus, so is Mohammed, but now we have to melt all their fragrances into one - a universal fragrance. Then, for the first time, man will be able to be religious and yet undivided. Then the church is yours and the mosque too and the temple too. Then the Gita is yours, and the Koran and the Vedas and the Bible - everything is yours. You become vast.

No, I am not trying to create a new flower - flowers have happened. I am trying to create a new perfume out of all those flowers. It is more subtle, more invisible; only those who have eyes will be able to see it.

Question 6:

The question is from Anand Prem.

The first thing, there are two dangers I have talked about: one is of egoism, another is of lethargy, laziness. And remember, if you have to fall into any trap, the trap of laziness is better than the trap of egoism. That is more dangerous, because the lazy person has never done anything wrong, a lazy person cannot do. He will never do any good - okay, but he will never do any wrong either. He will not bother to kill anybody, to torture anybody, to create concentration camps, to go to war he will not bother. He says 'Why? When one can rest, why?' A lazy person is not naturally a danger. The only thing that he may miss may be his own spiritual growth, but he will not interfere with anybody else's growth; he will not be an interference. He will not be a do-gooder and these are the greatest, most mischievous people in the world the do-gooders. A lazy person is almost absent. What can he do?

Have you ever heard of any lazy person doing anything wrong?

No, Anand Prem, the real problem comes from the egoist, and that is Anand Prem's possibility.

Don't be worried about a few people here getting lazy - let them, nothing is wrong. The real problem is from the egoist; one who wants to be spiritual, one who wants to be special, one who wants to become a SIDDHA, one who wants to attain spiritual powers. One wants to prove something spiritually in the world: that is the real danger. If you have to fall, choose laziness. If you cannot fall, if you have to avoid, good to avoid BOTH.

Laziness is just like the common cold - nothing much to worry about. Ego is like cancer. It is better not to have either. But if you have to choose and you would like to have something to cling to, the common cold is good - you can depend on it, it never kills anybody, it has never killed anybody. But never choose cancer, and that is the greater possibility.

Now she asks 'The danger of your talks on Taoism is that there are a lot of lazy, irresponsible people...'.

The first thing: the moment you start thinking about others you are getting into an ego-trip. Who are you to think about others and their life? It is their life. If they feel like being lazy, who are you to interfere? Anand Prem has a do-gooder in her being; she is very worried about others - that is a dangerous thing. And of course she is condemnatory. This question has a condemnation: 'The danger of your talks on Taoism is that there a lot of lazy, irresponsible people around who rationalise their bad habits by claiming to be inactive Taoists.' Who are you to tell them that their habits are bad?

Laziness is a better habit than to be obsessed by activity. To be obsessed by activity is madness. A lazy person can be sane. Sometimes the laziest people have been found to be the sanest. I have the feeling that if Anand Prem comes across Lao Tzu, she will think he is lazy. He will look lazy to all purposes. If she comes across Diogenes, she will think he is lazy. If she comes around Buddha she will think he is lazy. Sitting under the Bodhi Tree...'what are you doing? At least you can run a primary school and teach children, or you can open a hospital and serve ill people. So many people are dying, starving... what are you doing here sitting under the Bodhi Tree?'

Anand Prem would have jumped upon Buddha and taken him to task. 'What are you doing? Just sitting, meditating? Is this the time to meditate? Is this the time to be just sitting silently and enjoying your bliss? This is selfish!' This condemnatory attitude is really dangerous: it gives you an idea of holier than thou, 'I am better than you. You... you lazy people!' She goes on writing questions every day that I have not been answering; every day - that 'these people are hippies, these people are useless.'

She is in search of a lover, but she cannot find one here because she thinks that nobody here....

She wants a 'straight person' and she cannot find a straight person here. These are all 'hippies and yippies' and she wants somebody who is well-established. She wrote a letter. '... well-established, has a bank account, is a gentleman, a squire, has prestige, respectability. Here these people are just hobos, wanderers, vagabonds.' She would have refused Buddha, she would have refused Lao Tzu: they were not straight. She writes to me: '... these long-haired people!' With such disgust she writes, and because of this disgust she has become a very disgusting person and she will not find.

For one year she has been in the West in search. She is a Jew. First she searched in America, then she went to Israel to search for a man. She could not find in America, she could not find in Israel - she will never find anywhere. Even if she goes to heaven, God will look like a hobo. She has such condemnatory attitudes that she cannot love a simple human being. Yes, there are flaws, there are limitations, but everybody has those limitations. If you want to love, you have to love a man with all his limitations.

You cannot find a perfect person. Perfection does not exist. God never allows perfection because perfection is so monotonous. Just think: living with a perfect person... twenty-four hours, and you will commit suicide. Living with a perfect person? Then how will you live? He will be more like a marble statue, dead. The moment a person becomes perfect, he is dead. An alive person is never perfect, and my teaching is basically not for perfection but for totality.

Be total, and remember the difference. The ideal of perfection says: Be like this - no anger, no jealousy, no possessiveness, no flaws, no limitations. The ideal of totality is totally different: If you are angry, be totally angry. If you are loving, be totally loving. If you are sad, be totally sad. Nothing is denied - only partiality has to be dropped, and then a person becomes beautiful.

A total person is beautiful. A perfect person is dead.

I am not trying to create MAHATMAS here. Enough! Those MAHATMAS have done enough nonsense in the world. We need beautiful people, flowering, flowing, alive. Yes, they will be sometimes sad, but what is wrong in being sad? Sometimes they will be angry, but what is wrong in sometimes being angry? It simply shows that you are alive, that you are not a dead thing, that you are not driftwood. Sometimes you fight, sometimes you let go. Just like climates change: it is rainy sometimes and it is cloudy, and sometimes it is sunny and the clouds have disappeared.

And all seasons are needed - the cold, the heat, the winter, the summer - all seasons are needed.

And a real man, an authentic man, has all the climates in his being - only with one awareness:

that whatsoever he is doing he should do totally and should do with full awareness - enough, that's enough, and you have a beautiful person.

But Anand Prem is in search of a perfect man.

I have heard....

Once a man travelled all over the world.... Whenever I look at Anand Prem, I again and again remember that man, He travelled all over the world in search of a perfect woman. He wanted to get married, but how to accept an imperfect model? - he wanted a perfect woman. He came back, his whole life wasted; he could not find. Then one day a friend said 'But now you are seventy and you searched your whole life, couldn't you find a single perfect woman?'

He said 'Yes, once I came across one woman who was perfect.'

So the friend asked 'Then what happened?'

But the man became sad, he said 'What happened? That woman was in search of a perfect man, so nothing happened!'

Remember, the ideal of perfection is an egoistic ideal.

Ronald Coleman told Herb Stein about a Hollywood phony who spoke with a fake Oxford accent, wore a fake Purple Star and Phi Beta Kappa key - and worst of all, passed a lot of fake cheques. At the end of his rope, he decided to commit suicide, and went down to the Santa Fe railroad tracks.

He calmly smoked several imported cigarettes while three or four heavy freights puffed by. A tramp who was watching jeered. 'lf you're gonna do it, why don't you do it?'

'Don't be vulgar' squelched the phony. 'A man like me waits for the Super Chief.'

Even if an egoist goes to commit suicide, he waits for the Super Chief, the best train. He says 'Don't be vulgar. A man like me waits for the Super Chief.' Even if he is committing suicide, he will not commit under a goods train.

Marriage is like suicide - you can commit anywhere. You should not wait for the Super Chief. Anand Prem is in search and it is impossible for her, the way she looks at things with such condemnation, to find anybody whom she can love.

'Please clarify the difference between a Taoist and a lazy escapist.'

There is not much, and if there is, it is so inner that only the person will know - you will never be able to judge from the outside. Look at me. I am also a lazy person. Have you seen me doing anything, ever? It is very difficult from the outside to know. And I love lazy persons... Taoists or not; I love lazy persons because out of lazy persons never any Adolf Hitler is born, never any Genghis Khan, never any Tamburlaine. Lazy people have silently lived their lives and disappeared, without leaving any trace on history, without contaminating humanity. They have not polluted consciousness. They were here as if they were not. To be lazy and aware... and you have become a Taoist. It does not mean that you become inactive. It simply means that the obsessive activity disappears. It simply means that you have become capable of not-doing too.

It is said about a Zen Master that a person asked one of his disciples 'What miracles can your Master do?'

And the disciple said 'Are you a follower of somebody?'

And the man said 'Yes, I am a follower of a certain Master and he is a great-miracle-man; he can do great miracles. Once it happened that I was standing on this shore of the bank and he was standing on the other shore, and he shouted to me "I want to write something in your book." And it was almost a half-mile-wide river. So I took my book out, raised it, and from the other shore he started writing with his fountain pen and the writing came on my book. This miracle I have seen and the book is with me - you can see.'

And the disciple of the other Master laughed and he said 'My Master can do greater miracles.'

So the man said 'What miracles?'

And the disciple said 'My Master can do miracles, and he is so capable... SO CAPABLE that he is capable of not doing them too.'

'Not doing them too.' See the beauty of it. He is 'so capable... SO CAPABLE... of not doing them too.'

A Taoist is a man who does only that which is absolutely necessary. His life is almost like a telegram.

When you go to the Post Office you don't write a long letter when you are giving a telegraphic message. You go on cutting words, this and this can be dropped and then you come to ten or nine or whatsoever. If you write a letter you will never write only ten words. And have you watched the thing? A telegram is more expressive than all letters. It says much more in very few words. The unnecessary is dropped, only the most necessary is there. A Taoist is telegraphic, his life is like a telegram. The obsessive, the unnecessary, the feverish, has been dropped. He does only that which is absolutely necessary. And let me tell you that the absolutely necessary is so little that you will see a Taoist almost as if he were lazy.

But remember, I am not praising laziness. I am simply condemning the egoistic attitude. Against ego - I am for laziness. But I am not for laziness itself; it should be full of awareness. Then you pass from activity and from laziness both. Then you become transcendental. You are neither active, nor inactive; you are centred. Whatsoever is needed you do it, whatsoever is not needed you don't do it. You are neither a doer nor a non-doer. Doing is no more your focus. You are a consciousness.

So please don't take whatsoever I have said in the sense that I am helping you to be lazy. To be REALLY lazy means not to be inactive, but to be so full of energy that you are a reservoir of energy.

Lazy as far as the world is concerned, but tremendously dynamic inside, not dull.

A Taoist is lazy from the outside; from the inside he has become a river-like phenomenon, he is continuously flowing towards the ocean. He has dropped many activities because they were unnecessarily leaking his energy. The danger is always there - in whatsoever I say there is danger - the danger of interpretation. If I say 'Be active', there is the possibility that you will become egoists.

If I say 'Be inactive', there is the possibility that you may become dull. Man is very cunning.

I have heard....

He was the kind of a guy who would bet on anything - provided he was sure of winning. 'I'll bet my wife's first words will be "my dear" when I get home' he said to Lucky.

Lucky took him up on it. He knew his wife very well and she would be the last woman in the world to say 'my dear'.

Must have been like Anand Prem.

Lucky took him up on it and they bet a hundred dollars. When they got to the sport's house he stuck his head in the door and called 'My dear, I'm home.'

'"My dear" be hanged!' roared his wife. 'Wait till I get you inside!'

And he looked at Lucky and said 'Give me a hundred dollars. Didn't I tell you that the first words she would ever utter would be "my dear"?'

Mind is very cunning. The wife is saying '"My dear" be hanged I wait till I get you inside!' But you can interpret... so he is demanding a hundred dollars. Mind is cunning. It goes on interpreting in its own ways; it goes on finding reasons, rationalisations, tricks to defend. It wants to remain as it is.

That is the whole effort of the mind: it wants to remain as it is. If it is lazy, it wants to remain lazy. If it is active - too active, obsessively active it wants to remain active. So whatsoever I say, you have to be careful not to defend your mind. You have to come out of your mind.

The man burst angrily through the door, threw his wife off the stranger's knee and angrily demanded 'How do I find you kissing my wife?'

'I don't know' said the stranger. 'Maybe you're home early?'

People can find reasons. Be alert. And be alert about your own self, not about others. This is none of your business what others are doing. This should be one of the basic attitudes of a religious person - not to think about what the other is doing; that is his life. If he decides to live it that way, that is his business. Who are you even to have an opinion about it? Even to have an opinion means that you are ready to interfere, you have already interfered. A religious person is one who is trying to live his life the best, the most total way he can; the most alert way that he can he is trying. And he is not interfering with anybody's life, not even by having an opinion. Have you watched, observed?

If you pass somebody and you have a certain opinion about him, your face changes, your eyes change, your attitude, your walk. If you are condemnatory, your whole being starts broadcasting condemnation, disgust. No, you are interfering.

To be really religious means to be non-interfering. Give freedom to people; freedom is their birthright.

Once it happened, I stayed with one of my professors, my teachers. Though I was a student and he was my teacher, he was very respectful of me. He was a rare, religious man but he was a drunkard, and when I stayed in his home, he was very afraid to drink in front of me. What would I think? I watched him, I felt his restlessness, so the next day I told him 'There is something on your mind. If you don't relax, I will immediately leave and go to a hotel; I will not stay. There is something on your mind. I feel that you are not at ease, my presence is creating some trouble.'

He said 'Since you have raised the problem, I would like to tell you. I have never told you that I drink too much, but I always drink in my home and go to sleep. Now that you are staying here I don't want to drink before you and that is creating the trouble. I cannot remain without drinking but I cannot even conceive of drinking in front of you.'

I laughed. I said 'This is foolish. What have I to do with it? You will not force me to drink.' He said 'No, never.'

'Then it is finished; the problem is solved. You drink and I will keep you company. I will not drink but I can drink something else Coca-Cola or Fanta, I will keep you company, you drink. I can fill your glass, I can help you.'

He could not believe it, he thought I was joking. But when in the night I filled his glass, he started crying. He said 'I had never thought that you would not have any opinion about it. And I have been watching you' he said 'and you don't have any opinion about my drinking, about my behaviour, about what I am doing.'

I said 'To have an opinion about you is simply foolish. It is not something very great that I haven't any opinion about you. Why should I have in the first place? Who am l? It is your life - you want to drink, you drink.'

To have an opinion about you means that deep down somewhere I want to manipulate you. To have some opinion about you, this way or that, means that I have a deep desire to be powerful over people. That's what a politician is. A religious person should be non-interfering.

Question 7:

First, diminishing it is not going to help. You can diminish it to such proportions that it will almost become invisible, but that is not going to help. Diminishing simply means that you are throwing it into the unconscious and it goes into your basement of being more and more deeply. It becomes invisible. You may not be able to see it, but it will go on working from the back, it will go on pulling your strings from the back. It will become more subtle. Please don't try to diminish it.

The first thing to remember: rather than diminish it, magnify it so you can see the whole of it. That is the whole process of all the groups going on around here - Gestalt, Encounter, Psychodrama.

The whole process is that whatsoever the problem is, please don't diminish it but magnify it. Bring it totally as it is - even exaggerate it so that you can see every detail of it. Down the centuries in the past, jealousy, anger, sadness, this and that, all have been repressed. The effort was to diminish it. No, a seed is a diminished tree, but a seed is tremendously powerful. A seed can at any time again produce a tree. The right situation, the right season... and the tree will again sprout. You can diminish your jealousy, it can become just a seed, and you will not be able to see it the tree has disappeared, but it is there.

Diminishing is not the right process. That's what you have been doing, that's what you have done to your life: you have diminished everything. And one thing more. When you diminish jealousy, your love will be diminished alongside, because your love and jealousy are so much entangled with each other. If you diminish your sadness, your happiness will be diminished, because your happiness and sadness are so much together. If you diminish your hate, your love will disappear - that's what has happened. You have been taught not to hate and the total result is that you have become incapable of love.

No, please don't diminish anything. That is not the way. Rather, magnify, exaggerate, bring it to its total blossoming and then see it - every detail of it, every minute detail of it. In that very awareness, in that very seeing, you will become capable of transcending it and then there will be no need to do anything about it.

The second thing: you say 'You speak a lot about the ugliness of jealousy. Yes, it is ugly...'. No, you don't know. You are simply repeating what I have been saying. If you know it is quite ugly, in that very knowing it will disappear. You don't know. You have listened to me, you have listened to Jesus, you have listened to Buddha and you have gathered opinions. You don't know. It is not your own feel that jealousy is ugly. If it is your own feel, why should you carry it? It is not an easy thing, it takes a lot of investment. To be jealous is a very difficult thing: it needs a lot of effort on your part, a lot of involvement. It is so destructive of your own self that if it is ugly and you have known the ugliness of it, you cannot carry it for a single moment. But listening to me you become knowledgeable.

I have heard...

'You can't come in here' the worried mother warned 'my son is sick.'

'I want to catch your son's measles' the man said 'because if I kissed the nurse she'd get it. She would kiss the doctor and he'd get it. The doctor would kiss my wife and she'd get it. My wife would kiss the landlord and that's the guy I'm after.'

It is a great investment, a great effort and a very complex phenomenon.

And finally, it may destroy. It may not destroy others - it certainly destroys you; it is suicidal. Not only that it is ugly, it is poisonous; it is suicidal, it is killing yourself every day, slowly, slowly.

See the fact of it. Don't just become knowledgeable. What I say will not become an experience for you unless YOU experience it. And what is the way to experience it? The way is to bring it in front of you. It is hiding behind you.

Don't just become knowledgeable. What I say will not become an experience for you unless YOU experience it. And what is the way to experience it? The way is to bring it in front of you. It is hiding behind you.

Don't repress it, express it. Sit in your room, close the doors, bring your jealousy into focus. Watch it, see it, let it take as strong a flame as possible. Let it become a strong flame, burn into it and see what it is. And don't from the very beginning say that this is ugly, because that very idea that this is ugly will repress it, will not allow it total expression. No opinions! Just try to see the existential effect of what jealousy is, the existential fact. No interpretations, no ideologies! Forget Buddhas and work, forget me. Just let the jealousy be there. Look into it, look deeply into it and so do with anger, so do with sadness, hatred, possessiveness. And by and by you will see that just by seeing through things you start getting a transcendental feeling that you are JUst a witness; the identity is broken.

The identity is broken only when you encounter something within you.

Question 8:

You cannot put, by the very nature of it. Those paths are so diametrically opposite that you cannot put one foot on one path, the other foot on another path - that is impossible. You must be imagining, you must be dreaming, hallucinating. It is so diametrically opposite - just as you cannot be alive and dead together. If you think you are both, you are simply alive and nothing else, because even to think one has to be alive.

It is said Mulla Nasruddin once asked....

Somebody had died and he rushed home and asked his wife 'You are very wise, just tell me one thing: if some day I die, how am I to decide whether I have really died or not? I have seen somebody die, one day or other I am going to die. but how will I know?'

The wife said 'Don't be foolish, you will know it. You will become cold.'

So, one day it happened. He was cutting wood in the forest, and it was a very cold day and he started feeling cold. He said 'Okay, so the last day has come. So I am becoming cold.' So he said good-bye to his donkey - because only the donkey was there - and thinking that he was going to die, he made himself comfortable under the tree, closed his eyes.... What else to do? Of course, when he closed his eyes, lying down under the tree, he became even more cold. So he said 'Certain...

death is certain; now it is coming. I am becoming more and more cold.'

Then, just out of curiosity, he opened one of his eyes and looked at the donkey... what was happening to the donkey? And a wolf had attacked the donkey! So he said 'What can I do?'

But still he said loudly 'You can take freedom with my donkey because I am dead. If I had been alive I would have shown you! But what can I do now?'

Talking, thinking, how can you be dead? Even to think this much is enough proof that you are alive.

No, you must have misunderstood. You cannot be on both paths. Look again. It is possible you may not be on either, but you cannot be on both.

Question 9:

I will not even shrug my shoulders.