Ego is the greatest bondage

Question 1:

It is a complex situation. You both are right, but in different senses. To really know these qualities as an experience will not strengthen the ego; the ego will be dissolved. But to know these qualities without experiencing them - because someone has suggested to you that you have these qualities...

And who does not want to have these qualities? - you immediately accept them and grab them. It is going to strengthen your ego.

So they are also right: "If we start thinking that we have these qualities it will make our ego stronger."

You are absolutely right, but you are using the word "know" in different senses. You are using it as an experience, as an existential realization; they are using it as knowledge.

As knowledge it is the most dangerous thing to accept these qualities because then you will never discover them. You will never search for them. You will become a hypocrite.

So whenever you see these qualities in a person, don't make him knowledgeable about them but help him to be curious, inquisitive about these qualities. Help him to search for these qualities in himself: perhaps he may have them. But remember the ?perhaps'.

Don't give them a certainty - everybody wants certainty, some easy guarantee - just give them a desire to explore. Just make them thirsty enough and alert that perhaps the source of water that can quench your thirst is within you; just look there.

Teach them to meditate so that they can discover these qualities one day. When they know that they have them, then there is no danger of their ego being strengthened; otherwise ego has such subtle ways to be strengthened. It is always looking everywhere to find some food to be nourished on.

It is of immense importance for every one of you, because slowly slowly you will become perceptive; you will start seeing things which people are unaware of. They have them, but they don't know that they have them. And as you become perceptive, your responsibility grows. You are not to say to them, "You have these qualities."

At the most you can say to them, "Perhaps you have them but you have to look, you have to search, you have to seek. And who knows? - I may be wrong." In no way strengthen their ego knowingly or unknowingly because ego is the greatest bondage, the only hell that I know of.

Question 2:

Not necessarily. It can be, it may not be; it all depends on the person. There is no law in existence that you always go higher; you can go lower, you can fall below the previous stage. The path of evolution becomes certain only when you are becoming more conscious; then each successive life is on a higher plane.

But how many people are trying to be conscious? On the contrary, most of the people in the world are trying to be as much unconscious as possible, because what little consciousness they know of is nothing but anxiety, anguish, worry. It is a torture, a tension. And there is no certainty that what you are deciding is the right thing, so there is a great fear, a hesitation. In the small consciousness that man has, he is always in the position of either/or - divided, split, torn apart - one part pulling in one direction, another part pulling in another direction. He is simply miserable.

It is not an accident that alcohol and other drugs which can drown your consciousness in the vast unconscious are as old as man. Thousands of times it has been impressed on man that he should drop these things. He has been punished for them - he has suffered imprisonment, fines - but these drugs give him something greater than the fear of your punishment.

All religions are basically against drugs, all governments are basically against drugs, all educational systems are against drugs. It is very strange: everybody is against drugs; then why do drugs continue? And there is not a single individual to stand up and ask why.

Drugs are as old as man and the effort to drop them is also as old as man, and every effort has failed - and the efforts are being made by the powers against individuals who have no powers. But still they have not been able to eradicate drugs from human life. And I don't think they will ever be able to eradicate them, because they don't take into account the basic cause - why man wants to be unconscious. They just go on fighting with the symptoms, which is simply stupid.

None of the religions, none of the governments, provide the exact reason why man wants to become unconscious. In fact they could not say it even if they knew it, because it is a condemnation of their whole society. The way they have created the world is so ugly that people don't want to be conscious. People want to become unconscious, people want to forget all about it. They are ready to take punishment, they are ready to go to jail, but they are not ready to drop drugs, because in the world that these so-called powers and so-called religions have created, it is not worth being conscious; it is simply terrible.

And unless we change the situation... either we make the conscious life of man so beautiful, so loving, so blissful, that he would not like to become unconscious - he would like to become more conscious - or we have to make man himself completely free from all these things that can make him miserable. Then he would not like to be unconscious. Then he would like to be more and more conscious, because the more conscious he is, the more life becomes juicy, the more life becomes an adventure, the more he comes to know of the mysteries of existence.

He wants to become more conscious, and this longing for more consciousness will not stop until he has attained absolute consciousness - until he is pure consciousness and there is not even a small corner of darkness and unconsciousness in him, until he is full of light, just light.

The whole history of man is a history of making man more and more unconscious, and drugs are not the only way. There are other things which make man unconscious. So it is possible that sometimes a man may not be interested in drugs but that does not mean that he is interested in remaining conscious; he has found some other kind of drug which is not known as a drug - for example a man who is full of the lust for power. That is also a drug, but he cannot afford to be totally unconscious; he has to fight for power, and he has to remain conscious.

Politics is a drug of the same category as marijuana, LSD, perhaps more dangerous because the people who have been taking marijuana or LSD or hashish have done no harm to the world. They may have harmed themselves but they have not harmed anybody. But the politicians? They have done nothing but harm. The whole history is full of blood. Now, the people who have been taking marijuana and things like that, they don't create history, they don't create Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Nadir Shah, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler. They don't create those kinds of monsters. Their drug is very innocent in comparison to politics.

Somebody may be after money... money becomes almost a drug to him. I used to know a man...

I have never seen any man so addicted to money. If he would see a hundred rupee note in your hand, he could not resist touching it. And the way he would touch it, it was as if he was touching his beloved. He would look at it from all sides and he would touch it. And it was not his note, he had to return it.

He never gave money back to anybody he borrowed from; he simply could not do it. I will not call it a crime; it was simply impossible for him to part with money. He had enough money. He had seven houses which he had rented and he himself was living in a free house, a dharmashala, a caravanserai where you can stay for three days free. But the city was big and it had many caravanserais, so three days he would stay in this caravanserai and then he would move to another caravanserai. And all his money was deposited in different banks. He was so afraid that some bank may go bankrupt - it is better to keep the money in different places.

I used to ask him, "What will you do with it? You don't have any wife." He never married for the simple reason that women are too much interested in spending money. That would be a trouble, and he was afraid that that would create chaos in his peaceful life - it is better to avoid women. He had no children. "For whom are you collecting the money?"

He said, "I love money."

"But," I said, "money is meaningful only when you use it; you don't use it! Whether you have one million rupees or two million or fifty million... it makes no difference whether you have anything in the bank account or nothing - it is the same. You never take anything out."

He said, "You don't understand. It gives such solace to the heart. Just to count money is such a nourishment."

Every day in the evening he used to come to see me. Nobody liked him because everybody thought that he was mean, simply mean. But I used to enquire about... I wanted to understand what kind of mind he had - he was a unique person! And he would bring his notebook and he would show me, "Now in this bank is this much, in this bank is this much, and this is the total. Do you see? The total is increasing!" And you could see the flash in his eyes. Now this man is absolutely addicted; he is no longer conscious.

He had no other worries; he was a very single-pointed person. When he died I was present. The doctors knew that I was the only man whom he used to visit every day, so they informed me that he was dying. I enquired in what number ward he was. They said, "You know him, he is in the free ward! He cannot even die in a ward where he has to pay money. He cannot withdraw money from the bank whatever happens. And he is holding all his bank accounts in his hand." That was his life.

When I reached there he was very happy. Putting all his bank accounts on his heart and holding them with both hands, he died. I have seen many people dying, but he died so beautifully. He had millions of rupees and property worth millions and he was dying like a beggar in a free ward. But he was absolutely happy.

There are people who can get addicted to money, people who can get addicted to power, but they are doing the same thing, in a little more sophisticated way, as simple people are doing by taking marijuana. No marijuana taking person can become Adolf Hitler - impossible. He will not find it interesting. No opium eater would bother to become a prime minister; then who will take the opium?

I have told you about the opium addict barber, a friend of my grandfather. I had told him, "You are so much respected" - that was a lie, but he enjoyed it so I don't think there was any harm. If somebody enjoys it and feels happy, and it costs nothing... I said, "You are so much respected that if you stand in the elections you can have any post you want."

He said, "That I know, but it is such a botheration; it is almost begging for votes. Moreover when I take opium I am the emperor of the whole world. Who cares to become a cabinet minister or prime minister? With my opium I am already."

These people have done no harm, and the people who have done harm, we don't think of them as addicts of some kind of drug. Their drugs are very sophisticated. And the struggle has been that these sophisticated drug addicts have been harassing the poor drug addicts throughout history. Still they are doing the same, and they will continue to do the same. But they cannot change the situation for a simple reason: why should a person be conscious? There is nothing.

Unconsciousness has an attraction. It helps you to forget all your worries, responsibilities. It helps you to relax. The whole world disappears, with its nuclear weapons and Ronald Reagans. That's the reason why people have not tried to be more conscious because the small consciousness has not given them the taste to desire more. It has been a really bitter experience; they don't want it.

These are the two ways: either the world becomes so beautiful that the bitterness of consciousness changes into a sweet experience - which is not going to happen, which is almost hoping against hope... The other possibility is that individuals can increase their consciousness, and as they increase their consciousness, the bitterness disappears. They come upon a fresh ground which the world has not contaminated yet. The deeper they go into consciousness, the more fresh the ground, the more fresh the water, coming directly from the glaciers - and then a great longing to have it all. Then each life they will be increasing their consciousness.

Otherwise each life has been a bitter experience: you have not gained anything of worth, you have simply lost a whole life. You have suffered in misery and somehow lived - almost carrying your own corpse on your own shoulders - and died.

This experience is not going to give you a higher quality in the coming life... perhaps a lower quality so that you are less conscious and you suffer less. It can give you a state in which you are almost unconscious so that you don't suffer. If your suffering has been too unbearable, then the next life will protect you, but that will be a going down. It can mean anything.

For example, one Indian saint, Surdas... His songs are beautiful. He was a great poet, but his life was not. Because of his devotional songs and because of his sacrifice, a tremendous sacrifice... He was a sannyasin and he used to go to beg, and one woman, a young woman, asked him, "What is the need for you to go to other houses? I will prepare every day... I love to give food to you. Can't you be so kind to me?"

He could not say no, because in the Hindu religion there is no restriction... The Buddhist monk cannot go to the same house every day, he has to change. The Jaina monk cannot go to the same house every day, he has to change. But in Hinduism there is no restriction, so he started going. She was preparing delicious food for him, and he would take the food with gratitude.

But one day he thought, "Why is this woman taking so much trouble? Every day she is preparing so much delicious food for me. I should ask her." And he asked her, "Why are you taking so much trouble?"

She said, "I love your eyes, and I want to see your eyes every day. Preparing the food is not a trouble for me, but if I don't see you then I miss something the whole day. That hurts."

Surdas thought, "This is attachment." That's the way ascetics think. "This is attachment... that woman is attached; she is attracted to my eyes, and this is not good. These eyes may create attachment in other people's minds - and I will be the cause of all these people going astray."

So he took out both his eyes and, with the help of a friend, went to the woman. He presented the eyes and said, "Because you love these eyes, you keep them. I will never be coming back again because now what you wanted and you loved is with you. And moreover it will be difficult for me to find the house. Today a friend has helped, but nobody is going to help me every day. And there is no need."

The woman could not believe what he had done. There was blood all over his face. She said, "But I never said that you should take out your eyes and give them to me. They were beautiful as part of you but now they are dead."

Hindus have made him a saint because he made such a great sacrifice to keep people from being attached. I don't think so. I think it is sheer nonsense. Now tomorrow if someone likes your nose, you cut off your nose. If somebody likes your ears, you cut off your ears. If somebody likes your head you cut off your head and be finished!

I don't think that there was any point in this. And what was wrong? The woman liked your eyes. She had not asked anything of you, and why in the first place should you think that those eyes are yours?

That is possessiveness; that is real attachment. Those eyes belong to existence. As somebody can enjoy the stars or the flowers, somebody can enjoy another person's eyes. And the woman had never asked for anything. It was a cruel act, a violent act.

I have condemned Surdas very severely. Hindus have been very angry because they think of him as one of the greatest saints. I said, "He is not a saint, he is simply a dodo. He has really hurt that woman badly. He has been violent with himself and more with the woman. Now the woman will remain miserable her whole life about why she said that she likes his eyes. She will never be able to forgive herself."

There is a possibility that that woman may have attained a better state of evolution in the next life, and there is a possibility that Surdas may have fallen down - because what he did was absolutely inhuman.

Falling down can happen in many ways. For example, Surdas can be born really blind in the next life. Then eighty percent of the experiences of life will be missed. And there has not been a single blind man who has become enlightened. There is nothing that prevents it, but it seems impossible.

It is your eyes which give you eighty percent of your experience. And that experience makes you aware that your life is not running on the right tracks, that something is wrong, that you have to change. A blind man has missed all that eighty percent. He lives at the minimum, with only twenty percent of experience; he is almost like an animal. So he may be born as a man, but he has been born on a lower rung of the ladder of evolution.

It can happen in many ways that you can be lower or you can be higher. A deaf and dumb man is a man, but nobody has ever heard... He is perfectly silent - he has never heard any sound - so he should become instantly a Buddha. He has never heard a sound, he has never uttered a sound - what more do you want? He has fulfilled all the prerequisites - more than you wanted. But no deaf and dumb fellow has ever become enlightened because it has to be understood: if you are deaf and dumb you don't know what silence is.

It is a fallacy for people to think that this man is absolutely in silence. That is only from the outside.

He knows nothing of silence, because to know silence one has to know sound, and to be silent one has to be able to speak. He cannot speak, he cannot hear: he has missed both sound and silence.

He is in a very strange situation - from where to grow? It is very difficult, almost impossible.

So you will not necessarily be growing just by being born again and again. You can go on moving in the same circle, never attaining any spiritual strength, any evolutionary consciousness.

But if you try in this life to become more conscious, whatever you gain will remain with you in the next life; it is never lost. So in the next life you can begin exactly from the place you left in the past life, because you have only changed the body; you are the same. So if something has become conscious in you, it will remain conscious in you in a new life. Everything has a fresh beginning; with nothing hanging over you, you will have more freedom to grow in consciousness. In every life you will have more chances, more opportunities to grow. It all depends on you.

I don't think, because I have never come across a single case, that you can fall so far below that from man you are born into an animal body. But Jainism and Buddhism both agree you can fall, and I cannot deny the fact - it may be possible - because they have worked for thousands of years on millions of people. They may have come across a few cases when a person has really fallen so unconscious that he was born as an animal. But I have never come across it, so I cannot say.

And I don't see much rationality in it. A man can fall, but he will remain a man; he cannot do anything that can make him an animal. I have never come across any individual with whom I tried to go into their past lives... About this thing I have a disagreement with Buddhism and Jainism, but I give them every benefit of the doubt. They may be right because their experience is long and there is no need for them to invent it, unless they had come... Perhaps it is very rare. Perhaps a man like Adolf Hitler who killed millions of people for no reason at all may have lost his humanity. It may be possible in a certain unique case.

But I also have a disagreement on another ground in which I feel that I am right and that Jainism and Buddhism, the two religions that have been working on past lives, are lying. It is impossible for them not to have come to the fact that I am going to tell you. They must have come across it, but because of their doctrines - it was contradictory to their doctrines, to their philosophical standpoint - they have simply not mentioned it. They have not lied directly, but even not mentioning it is a lie.

The fact that I have found is, that if you are born a man in this life then in the past life you were a woman. And if you are a woman in this life, then in the past life you were a man.

Neither religion mentions it, and that is strange. I have found it without exception, in every case. And I feel it is psychologically valid, because a woman gets tired of being a woman and starts feeling that man has everything - freedom, power, prestige - and she has nothing. Naturally, while dying, there must be a desire to be born in a man's body.

The same is the situation with man. Although he has power, although he has more freedom, deep down he feels inferior to woman because she has the power to create life, which he has not. She is more beautiful. She seems to be more rooted, grounded.

Even in the mother's womb... Experienced mothers who have given birth to one or two children know perfectly well after a few months whether it is a boy or a girl baby, because the girl baby remains very silent in the womb and the boy starts kicking in the mother's womb - he starts playing football.

The mother can know whether it is a boy or a girl.

In life also the woman is more rooted, more peaceful. Once in a while she throws tantrums; man never throws tantrums, he accumulates them. It is better to throw them retail than wholesale, because wholesale is dangerous. It means committing suicide or murder or going mad. The wholesale business in tantrums is very dangerous. But just a little shock and within a few minutes or hours the woman comes back. She is silent and she almost forgets...

Woman has a quality of the child that she retains. Man goes on losing that quality. He becomes more cunning because he is in the world with all kinds of cunning people. So he becomes cunning himself; otherwise to survive is difficult. So slowly slowly he feels that the woman is enjoying more.

Even sexually he feels that the woman enjoys more than he enjoys. And as they get older he starts feeling that he enjoys nothing and the woman is enjoying so much that he starts feeling jealous.

So a man who dies will think about being born a woman. This is the ordinary process. There may be exceptions - there are. If you are dying consciously, then it will be a different thing.

But both Jainism and Buddhism have been silent about this fact for the simple reason that they think man is a higher stage and woman is a lower stage. And this is where you can see that even people who are very sincere can become illogical. They are ready for a man to fall and become an animal, but they are not ready for a man to fall and become a woman! And that is closer; it is not a big fall, just one step perhaps. If they are right that a woman is lower, then why cannot a man become a woman? If it is acceptable that he can become a dog or he can become a donkey...

But to me to remain silent on this fact is very dishonest. The first thing is that they don't want to give woman the idea that it is very easy for her to be born as a man. It is so easy that just by desiring it while she is dying, she will be born as a man.

Both religions want it clearly understood that to achieve the state of man is an arduous journey; it cannot happen just by desiring it. The woman has to do all kinds of ascetic practices and disciplines which man is also doing, but man will attain to enlightenment; with the same practices the woman will attain to manhood. It seems the distance between woman and man is exactly the same as between man and enlightenment! - so the same kind of practices are needed. This is absolutely nonsense.

Secondly, it goes against man's ego that in the next life he may become a woman. He is ready to become a horse, he is ready to become an elephant, he is ready to become anything - but not a woman! Because with the elephant there is no problem, no trouble, no fight, nothing; but with the woman there is a constant conflict.

But my experience is that it is almost like a wheel: man and woman are just like the Chinese yin and yang wheel. One time you are man, another time you are woman, and the wheel moves - unless you become enlightened. Then the wheel stops. And man and woman are part of one wheel, one whole, one circle.

And now, through plastic surgery, we know that Mahavira and Buddha are both wrong. I am right...

because the plastic surgeon cannot change you into a donkey, but a plastic surgeon can change a man into a woman and a woman into a man. However much a genius a plastic surgeon is, he cannot change you into a horse or an elephant. It seems absolutely impossible; how will he manage? He can change man into woman because they are so close, so complementary; the differences are such that they can be easily transplanted.

The experience of plastic surgery will support my experience, and I don't see that... I have never come across it, so I cannot say that any man can fall so low that he will become an animal or a bird.

I don't see that possibility. He can fall lower, but he will remain in the human body.

So don't take it for granted that each successive life will automatically be higher. That is dangerous.

You have to work for it, you have to earn it. You have to deserve it.

Question 3:

Whatever is happening is absolutely right. You should simply watch it; do not disturb it. Do not interfere in any way. Don't judge that sometimes it is good: when you are feeling relaxed it is great, and when you are aching all over it is not good.

No, don't judge, because they are both complementary. That aching may be simply the body releasing its tensions so that it can become relaxed. And when it becomes relaxed it becomes capable of releasing even deeper tensions. So again there will be a stage when the body is aching all over, as if you are feeling the whole world's suffering.

Don't judge. What is happening is perfectly the way it should be. You simply and silently watch as if it is happening to somebody else. You are just a spectator, far away. Slowly slowly things will change. And right now, what appear to you as opposites - sometimes the mind is silent and sometimes it is rambling - are complementaries. If you can just remain standing aloof and watching, all these will disappear and a totally new kind of tranquility will appear which will not have its opposite.

And whenever something appears to you which has no opposite, then you are coming closer to transcendence. This is the sign, the symbol: when you don't feel any opposites that means you are coming closer to home.

After enlightenment there are no opposites; it is a simple experience which has no opposite to it.

That should be taken as a signal. But before it, what is happening is absolutely right. It is a catharsis, and each catharsis is rewarded immediately.

If the body is feeling tired, tense, and afterwards it is feeling absolutely relaxed, then tiredness was not opposite to it; it created the ground. The mind was rambling and then suddenly there is silence, so that rambling was not opposite to silence; it was simply preparing the ground.

And on your part nothing needs to be done. You just stand aloof, watching.

Certainly my presence is nothing but a mirror.

You just go on looking into the mirror and whatever is happening, remember it is happening in the reflection of the mirror, not in your reality. Your reality is always the same. Nothing has ever made anything happen to it and all that you feel has happened or is happening is only a kind of dream. Let the dream go on, but don't become part of it.

Question 4:

If it was something that could be called bothering, no master would have bothered. As far as the master's side is concerned, it is simply his love, his compassion; he cannot do otherwise. Whatever humanity does makes no difference. At the most, once in a while it brings a good laughter, that's all.

Just today I received a few news cuttings from Holland. There has been a great protest - not only by sannyasins but by non-sannyasins, and very eminent people in different fields have protested to the government that it is against freedom of expression not to let me come into their country. Two main newspapers have written editorials. Both have been against me, and they have mentioned the fact that, "We have been against Osho, and we have always tried to publish material opposing him.

But we feel we were wrong. Seeing the attitude of the government, we strongly protest. He should be allowed into the country; this is against democratic principles and human rights."

There have been other protests from individuals, and what the government has replied brought simply a great laughter to me. What they have replied is worth some consideration. They have said that they had to prevent my coming to the country because I have spoken against Holland. Asked what I have said against Holland, they said I have spoken against the Catholic religion, against the pope, against Mother Teresa - and last and most important, against homosexuality.

That means the government accepts that homosexuality is their political policy, or Holland is a homosexual country. Now this is the time that the whole of Holland should protest that, "You are condemning us." Perhaps this cabinet of ministers is homosexual.

Now it is for the people of Holland to throw out these homosexuals who unconsciously have exposed themselves... because why should they be hurt if I have spoken against homosexuality? And in what way is that related to Holland? They are making it synonymous. They are saying... I have spoken against Holland on four counts, one is homosexuality. I would like them to remember that the Catholic religion is also against homosexuality, that the BIBLE is against homosexuality.

And I have only spoken! The Christian God destroyed two cities - Sodom and Gomorrah - because they had become homosexual and had other sexual perversions. So if they are honest people then Catholicism should be thrown out of Holland, the BIBLE should be banned, all Catholic churches should be made homosexual clubs - just to be reasonable. And the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah should not be given even a tourist visa. It is so obvious.

Then I thought about the pope, because they are also making it a point that I have spoken against the pope. The pope represents the same BIBLE and the same Catholic religion. He is the head of a religion... he is a representative of a God who was against homosexuality. He should not be allowed in Holland if they are really sincere people. And if they allow the pope, that creates suspicion. It is certain that the pope before this pope was a homosexual. I don't know about this pope, but if he is allowed in Holland, that will be one of the indications that he is a homosexual. I am just worried about who will be his boyfriend... must be some Dutch man.

And why are they bothered about Mother Teresa? It seems there must be a secret order of homosexuals, a secret order of lesbians. The pope seems to be the head of the secret order of homosexuals and Mother Teresa the head of the lesbians. Then everything becomes clear: it is a homosexual country, its religion is homosexuality, its politics is homosexual, its leaders are homosexuals and lesbians!

Anybody in Holland who is not part of the homosexual ideology should stand up against this government; this government needs to be overturned. If Holland does not stand up and throw this government out of power, that will be a clear-cut indication that they agree with the government, that they have accepted themselves as a homosexual country.

Strange that nobody in Holland took any note about the government's statement. Now I want every Dutch man and woman to consider the fact. If they are really homosexuals, I have no objections; they can have this government. Otherwise an emergency vote is needed on whether the country is homosexual or not. And if, in the voting, the government is defeated, cannot get a majority of votes, it should resign immediately.

It is no more a question of my entry into their country or not - I don't care. It is a question of their own prestige, of a whole country's pride, of what kind of stupid people they have put in power. Even if they are homosexuals, they should be silent about it. But it is good that they have come out with it. Their real reason is clear: homosexuality is the unique factor. Catholicism is not their monopoly, neither is the pope nor Mother Teresa their monopoly.

And what is wrong in my criticizing? Catholicism has been criticized for hundreds of years; otherwise there would have been no Protestant religion. Do they prevent Protestants from entering Holland?

And if Catholicism can be criticized, and no Protestant is being prevented, then why should I be prevented?

When the pope was in India, I could have opposed him, but I supported him and I opposed the people who were against him, who were opposing him, and who wanted him to go back. I spoke for him and I wanted him to be listened to. If he says something wrong then he should be respectfully requested to discuss it publicly, but this is not a way... to throw stones, to create riots. This is barbarous. But the pope does not have the guts to say to the Dutch people or to the Italian people that they should not prevent me; in fact, he is making every effort to prevent me from entering any country where he has any influence in the government.

Now it is a simple phenomenon. Religions have always discussed problems; otherwise there would not be so many religions. They have criticized each other. That does not mean that they are disrespectful; that simply means they don't agree, and disagreement is one of man's basic rights.

And if they feel I have spoken against Mother Teresa... I am ready to discuss with her anywhere in the world on a public platform. Whatever I have said, I stand by it. She has not the guts; neither has the pope the guts.

And as far as homosexuals are concerned, they should not be worried. Homosexuals can protest against me when I come to Holland; I can discuss with them. I have been discussing with homosexuals... why should the government be worried about it?

And on all these four points nothing is against Holland! Basically they had said in their statement that because I have spoken against Holland they won't allow me in. And asked what I have said against Holland, these are the four things. I have never thought that these four things are Holland:

Mother Teresa is Holland, the pope is Holland, the Catholic religion is Holland, homosexuality is Holland.

I know this is an insane world, but it is not a question of "bothering." It is my love for human beings, and my hope that someday somebody somewhere will understand. Even if a few people understand the truth, that fire will be enough. That fire can be passed on from generation to generation; it can go on growing. It is my joy.