Sarvasar Upanishad, Chapter 10

Now, three situational dimensions of the being: We discussed personalities; we discussed bodies; we discussed complexes of diseases. Now the enquiry into the being itself. What is the being?

Behind all, beyond all, transcending all - what is the being itself? Three definitions have been given.

One is called SAKSHI; sakshi means the witness. Another is called KUTASTHA; kutastha means the eternal, the indestructible, the immortal. And the third is named ANTARYAMI: the innermost, the inner one. It is good and helpful for the seeker to understand these three definitions. They define the one and the same, but they define indifferent contexts.

First is the witness. This is the essential character, the essence, the very essence of the being.

Whatsoever is named is never the knower; whatsoever is objectified is never the subject. The moment we know something, we are different form the known, from the object, because the knower cannot be the known, the observer cannot be the observed. A distance is created by knowledge, by knowing. Knowing is the bridge between the known and the knower.

The being is not, and never is the known; it is always the knower - always and ALWAYS the knower.

Whatsoever you know, remember one thing certainly - that you are not that. This much is certain, that whatsoever you have known and experienced, you are not that. That's why the UPANISHADS say, "Neti, neti - not this not that." Whatsoever YOU say, the UPANISHADS say, "No, not this, not that - never!" This is the nature of the being; it always transcends objects. It is pure subjectivity, and this pure subjectivity can never be turned into any object. So in a way, you can never know yourself in the same way as you have known all else. So "self-knowledge" is in a way, a very contradictory word, because really the self cannot be made an object of knowledge. But still, self-knowledge exists. But that knowledge has to be defined and guarded, and defined in a specific way.

Self-knowledge means: where all knowledge stops. Self knowledge means: where there is no self.

Self-knowledge means: the knower is not, the known is not, the knowledge is not. But when I say that you are never the known, then one thing must be understood: if you are not the known, how can you be the knower - because the knower is just in reference to the known. The knower is just in reference to the known. If you are never the object, how can you be called a subject? - because subject means in relation to object; it means the other end of the object. That's why the UPANISHADS say, "It is just a witness - not even a knower."

It witnesses all the three: the known, knowledge, the knower. They come up, they dissolve, and the witnesser remains. It will be better not to call it even a "witnesser," but a witnessing, because when we say "witnesser," a subtle crystallization comes into the world, a subtle feeling of the ego and "I."

So it is better to say "witnessing." Then there is simply a process of knowledge without any ego, without any "I" crystallizing it.

And then in the world, there are not things, but processes. This is the difference between a materialist and a spiritualist. This! - a materialist sees in the world, and a spiritualist sees in the world events - not things. The difference is not whether matter is or not; the difference is not whether mind is or not. The difference is basically this: a spiritualist sees in the world energy, processes - energy processes, events, alive events - not dead things.

Now physicists are ready to accept this as far as matter is concerned. They say now, "There is no matter. Matter is dead; matter is not there - only energy waves, only quanta, only processes." Even a stone is just a process, it is not static; it is dynamic, it is moving. Not only is a river moving, the Himalayas also.

A Zen fakir, Bankei, has said, "I have not seen only rivers moving, I have seen bridges also moving.

And once it happened that the river was not moving, and the bridge was moving." He means by this that there are not things - static, dead - but movement, continuous processes, waves and waves and waves; and each wave is turning into the other. This is what is meant by a spiritual attitude.

So matter is energy, waves. Inside also there is no knower as fixed, as "I," because the ego is a thing - dead. So it is better to call it not the witnesser, but witnessing - with no center really, just a process.

Buddha says, "There is rebirth, but you are not." So how can rebirth be? Ordinary logic will say, "How can rebirth be? If you are not, if there is no ego to be reborn, then how is rebirth possible?" Buddha says, it is just a process - a process just like a flamelike process. In the evening you see the flame:

the lamp is burning and there is a flame. In the morning you blow it out. You say, "I am blowing out the same flame." Buddha says not, because the flame is constantly changing. It is a process, it is not a thing, so it cannot be the same. In the evening you saw one thing; this is something else - flame has been constantly changing and going into nothingness, and new flames are being replaced continuously.

It is continuity. The flame is not a thing, it is a continuity. Every moment the flame is changing, so whatsoever you are blowing out is not the same flame you saw in the night. It is the same continuity - a continuum.

Witnessing is there just like a flame.

It is a continuum.

This is the first situational definition. The rishi talks about it first, because it can be made a means; it can be used as a device; it can become a vehicle towards your being, your center.

The second is kutastha; it means: the eternal, the immortal, that which cannot be destroyed - indestructible. What can be destroyed really? What is destructible? - only the form and the name, NAMRUP. Within these two words is the whole Eastern standpoint: namrup - name and form - can be destroyed, are destructible. Your name can be changed and your form - nothing else.

The ice is transforming itself into water, and the water is evaporating. What changes? - not the essence, but only the form and the name. Now it is ice; now it is water; now it is vapor. What is changing? The essence remains the same, but the name and form change.

This whole world is just name and form. Everything is changing: the child becoming the adult; the adult becoming the old man; life turning into death; birth turning into death; health turning into disease; disease turning into health - everything is changing. Even opposites are not really opposites, because they can change into one another. The north becomes the south, the south becomes the north. The east is also the west, and the west is also the east. It depends. It depends on where you are looking.

Someone asked Mulla Nasruddin, "Where is your house on the road? On the left or on the right?"

he said, "It depends: sometimes it is on the left, and sometimes it is on the right. It depends from where you are coming."

Life is a movement, but name and form change; the essence remains the same. But when I say the essence remains the same, I don't mean it is a static thing. I mean it is a dynamic force, but still the same. DYNAMIC and THE SAME must be remembered; otherwise, God becomes just a static phenomenon - dead, with no opening.

Kutastha doesn't mean a dead thing, it means a dynamic force, essentially remaining the same, but changing its name and form all the time. Beyond name and form, the essential one is known as the kutastha. If you destroy everything - every form and every name - the remaining is the kutastha. If all my five bodies are destroyed, if all my five diseases are destroyed, then the remaining will be the kutastha - that is the essential being which cannot be destroyed. This always is.

This is the end definition; the first one was a means definition. If you proceed by being a witness, you will reach the kutastha, the eternal, but both are far away. Neither we are using witnessing, nor are we standing in the eternal. Then it is, therefore, the third definition: it is called antaryami, the innermost.

This definition belongs to us here and now, as we are. A link must exist between the kutastha, the eternal, and us; otherwise, there can be no traveling towards it, no journey towards it. Somehow, we must be linked in all these bodies, in all these diseases, in all these ignorances. Still the innermost being is here; it is just hidden. it is hidden just like the thread of the beads: the beads are apparent, but the thread is hidden. You cannot see directly, immediately; you have to make a gap between two beads, and then suddenly in the gap is the thread - the innermost running force, the innermost running energy.

So whenever one has to go deep into oneself, one has to make a gap between two diseases or between two bodies or between two thoughts. Wherever you can create a gap between two things inside you, suddenly you become aware of the thread.

For example, there are thoughts in the mind - continuously one thought is followed by another. Bring a gap between two thoughts. There IS a gap, because two thoughts cannot exist without a gap: an interval is a basic necessity. One thought is followed by another, but there is a subtle gap. Be aware of the gap.

We are aware only of the thoughts. From one thought we jump to another, and the gap is lost.

Remain in the gap, stand in the interval, slow down your thought process and you will feel a gap.

One thought has gone, another has yet to come - there is a gap, a sudden silence. In this silence you will become aware of the thread; that thread is known as antaryami. It is here and now, and we cannot proceed; otherwise, we have to proceed from here and now.

So antaryami is the definition for us. Then sakshi, witnessing is the method; then kutastha, the eternal one is the end.

Now, two more diseases, two more complexes, two more illusions. We discussed three in the night:

mind, lust for life, and desiring. Now the fourth is SATTVA - it means virtue. It means an inner accumulation of being good.

This feeling of being good is also a disease - for so many reasons. One is: you cannot feel you are good, unless you feel others are bad. Mm? that's impossible. You cannot feel you are good unless you feel others are bad, and the feeling that others are bad is a disease; the feeling of good is just a relative term. So a person who wants to feel good is bound to condemn others as bad; and the more you condemn others as bad, the more you can feel you are good. So these so-called good men go on condemning everyone.

Bertrand Russell has criticized Jesus for this reason. He says, "Everything is divine, everything looks holy, except one thing: why Jesus condemns the sinners so much - that they should be thrown into hell, and they should be condemned? Jesus cannot feel good unless he condemns." I don't think that Jesus ever condemned - a person like Jesus cannot condemn. The condemnation has come through the tradition; it is really St. Paul who speaks through Jesus, and he is one of the most deeply involved personalities who feels himself to be good. But whosoever it may be - whether Jesus says so, or St. Paul puts is in Jesus' mouth - the criticism is valid.

A good man can never be good if he is condemning others as bad, but you can never feel good unless you condemn. So a good man must be unaware of his goodness; only then it is not a disease. He must not be aware at all that he is good; only then is he not aware that others are bad.

No religion other than Hinduism has condemned even goodness - even goodness becomes a sin, because it is ego-strengthening. It feeds your ego - of course with very pure food. But sometimes poisons can also be pure, so purity in itself is not something to be hailed. Poisons can also be pure, and when the ego becomes strengthened by purity, by virtue, by being good, it is pure poison - it is dangerous. That's why you can never feel at ease with any so-called good man. Around him there is always restlessness; no one can feel at ease. and unless you can feel at ease, the man is not good, not good at all.

So around mahatmas you cannot feel at ease - never. There is a very strained atmosphere, because their feeling of goodness can exist only if they create a very tense atmosphere around them. Everyone is bad, and they are on the high pedestal. Only they are good; everyone is bad.

That's why two mahatmas condemn the other. They have always condemned. So only confirmed sinners, only persons who feel themselves inferior, who are suffering from an inferiority complex, can be around them. Two mahatmas cannot meet, because that is the meeting of two diseases, two strong egos - purified, poisonous. These are the pious sinners.

This disease must cease. Not that goodness is bad, but to feel good is bad, because to feel good is comparative; it is always in relation to someone else. And anything that is related to someone else is not of any worth for the inner journey. And man is so cunning and so deceptive that he can go on being cunning, he can go on being deceptive. He may change methods, he may change devices, but the basic disease remains the same.

For example, one can even boast of one's humility. This is the deceptiveness: one can boast even of one' humility, one can say, "There is no one more HUMBLE than me!" Now, through humility, ego is strengthened - I am again asserting my superiority in HUMILITY! But the contradiction is never seen. You can even say, "I am just a sinner," and feel good about it.

Tolstoy remembers that once he went to a church early in the morning. The streets were dark and there was no one in the church, only Tolstoy. Then the richest person of the city came. He didn't know that Tolstoy was there; Tolstoy was praying. This rich man began to pray and confess. He began to say, "I am one of the most fallen, deeply fallen, from the right path. I am a sinner. Forgive me" - and he began to relate his sins.

Tolstoy was just bewildered, because this man was known as one of the most virtuous. He listened silently; then the darkness withered away, and the rich man felt someone's presence. He looked around and he saw that Tolstoy was there. So he said, "Were you here when I was confessing?"

Tolstoy said, "I was already here. When you came I was here; I was praying." So the man said, "Look, I must make you aware of the fact that I have confessed to God, not to you. So please forget whatsoever I have said! And don't talk about it in the city, because this was a dialogue between me and my God."

This is the deceptiveness of the mind. Really, he is confessing so as to feel good. He is not authentic - he is not feeling that he is a sinner. By confessing his sins he is now feeling a very holy man. This is a disease.

The fifth disease is PUNYA - the feeling of holiness, the feeling of serving others, the feeling of doing good to others. And there is a difference: To be good is one thing, and to feel that one is doing good to others, is another. Punya means doing good to others. There are so many do-gooders. Really, the world would be less confused and in less conflict if there were less do-gooders, because their do-gooding just creates more mischievousness in the world. They are not concerned with good at all, really. They are concerned to be doers of good - so anyhow they must do good.

Kirkpatrick has written a book; a very strange statement is in it. He says, "If there will be no poverty, then what will we do service to others?" So poverty must remain, because when you cannot do service.... And without service, these scriptures say, you cannot go to heaven. So if poverty is completely destroyed on the earth, then there is no bridge form the earth to the heaven. Kirkpatrick is a good man, and whatsoever he is saying, he means it. It is not just a statement, he means it. He feels it, that if there is no poverty, then how can you serve others? And service is such a necessary thing, that even poverty is needed for service to remain, it must remain.

This is a disease. Then service itself becomes the end, not the served one - he is irrelevant. There are social workers, servants of the people; and psychologists say, "It is their need really - not the need of the people. They cannot remain without doing good to someone else; they cannot remain without serving others. This is an occupation for them." What will happen to them if a society is really there which needs no service? This has happened so many times.

Revolutionaries are chronic revolutionaries. By "chronic" I mean, if they succeed and their revolution succeeds, they become anti-revolutionary. STalin has to face these revolutionaries, and he killed all of them. The phenomenon was that those revolutionaries were just chronic revolutionaries. A Trotskyite is a chronic revolutionary; he cannot be without a revolution around him. The revolution must be there; otherwise, where will the revolutionary be?

So there are only two possibilities; whenever there is a revolution, a social revolution, there are two possibilities. If the revolution succeeds, then there are two possibilities: either the revolutionary has to turn traditionalist and orthodox and anti-revolution, or he has to continue his revolution. Stalin chose the first alternative; he became one of the most orthodox minds possible. Not even a czar was such as Stalin was - he became a czar.

Trotsky chose the other, or was forced to choose the other. He continued to be a revolutionary.

And how then can you be a revolutionary? You have to go against your own revolution. Trotsky made endeavors for this revolution, and then he was against it. He was trying for a proletarian dictatorship, and then he was against it. And Stalin was doing the same. Stalin, in a way, is more consistent; but he himself turned anti-revolutionary. He was for the revolution he had started, but then he became anti-revolutionary, because no revolution could now be allowed. So Russia, after the great revolution, has been the country without revolutions. So the chronic revolutionaries had to escape and they continued THERE.

If really, there is a society where no one needs your help and your do-gooding, your service and your revolution and reformation, then all these do-gooders will be just mad, insane - they cannot do anything.

This fifth disease doesn't mean don't do good to others - it doesn't mean that - but don't be a do-gooder. Let it be just a spontaneous thing. Don't make it a plan, don't seek it, don't go for it; let it be just your spontaneous behavior. Whenever there is a situation, do whatsoever you feel; but don't plan it, don't make it a scheme. Don't sacrifice yourself, because persons who sacrifice themselves are very dangerous: when they sacrifice themselves they begin to sacrifice others. And they have a right because they can say, "We have sacrificed ourselves, so now we have the right to sacrifice others." They become violent. Persons who have been violent to themselves in doing good to others, ultimately turn to being violent to others. But now they have the credit of being good, and their violence can continue in the garb of being good. And when someone is good AND violent, it is the most criminal, the deepest criminal combination.

If the father is good, then he can be a criminal to his son. If the mother is good, then she can be a criminal. This happens daily. Women are more good than men; not that there is any inner necessity, but they are more fearful of being bad, more suppressed. That's why wives become dictatorial, because the husband feels a bit inferior. He is bad in many ways: he smokes, he drinks, he looks all around at other beautiful faces.

Then the wife becomes dictatorial; she becomes a do-gooder. Now she can sacrifice her husband; now she can virtually kill. And because she is good, the husband is just helpless - he cannot argue.

Smoking is bad - of course; and he is smoking, so he is bad. And really, to smoke is not so bad as to feel good on account of someone smoking. It is deeply criminal... it is DEEPLY criminal; it is very violent. This is the disease.

Don't feel good on account of others, and don't try to be a do-gooder. Be good, simply naturally.

That is completely different. If someone feels restless around you, know that you are not a good man, just a do-gooder.

I have read somewhere about a Tibetan mystic, Milarepa. It is written that Milarepa was a saint, because sinners could feel at ease with him - at ease, totally at ease. There was no condemnation in his eyes, in his words, in his behavior. Really, a saint means this: one with whom sinners can feel at ease, friendly; otherwise, the do-gooder is there. That is the ego, and the ego is always destructive of others. And you can destroy in such good ways that you may not even be aware what you are doing. A good mother can destroy the whole life of the child, just by being good - too good.

This, the rishi says, is the fifth disease. And if one is identified with these five diseases, there comes into existence a personality which is not your being. That personality is known a LINGASHARIR - the subtle personality.

This word "personality" is very meaningful. It is a Greek word; it is derived form "persona." Persona means a mask. Actors use masks in Greek drama; that mask of the actors is known as persona.

You are not THAT, but you use a mask and become that. Mm? You are not a lion, but you use a mask of a lion and you behave like a lion.

Personality is not your being, it is a mask. This mask is very subtle, and this mask is created by being identified with these five diseases. If you become totally identified, and feel that you are this - this disease of the mind, this disease of desiring, this disease of being good, this disease of being virtuous - if you begin to feel that you are a combination of all these fine, these five classifications, then you create a persona, a personality. That personality is known as lingasharir - the subtle body. And behind this subtle body, lingasharir - behind this identification, behind this barrier - is the knower.

So to dissolve the personality, to withdraw yourself from the personality, to renounce the personality, is the essential renunciation. That is what is sannyas: to renounce... not the world, because how can you renounce the world? - It has never belonged to you. Mm? What nonsense talking about renouncing the world. When? When you are master of it? - it has never belonged to you.

Really, again the trick of the ego: one says, "I renounce the world," and feels very good that one has renounced the world. A beggar renouncing the empire, renouncing the throne, the palace - renouncing everything.... It has never belonged to him, so how can he renounce it?

So really, a sannyasin doesn't mean a person who renounces the world. A sannyasin means a person who renounces the personality - that belongs to you! You are the creator of it, so you can renounce it. Nothing else! You cannot renounce anything that doesn't belong to you. The personality belongs to you; you can renounce it, but you can renounce only when you begin to be aware that you are not the personality. This is known as KSHETRAGYA, the knower of the field. The field is personality, and the knower, the center which becomes aware of this personality. If you become aware of the center, of the knower, then there is not difficulty in renouncing the personality. It is just a clothing, JUST a clothing, and very dirty and very diseased.