In Deep Patience

Question 1:

You can never be absolutely sure about a guru, and that is not needed. What is needed is that you should be absolutely sure about yourself. How can you be sure about a master? You exist on two different levels, two different states of mind. Whatsoever you can see, whatsoever you can understand, whatsoever you can interpret, will not be of much use - and there is more possibility of your going wrong than right. But there is no need, so don't be worried about it.

You have to be sure about yourself, about your search, and if you are sure about yourself then you can devote yourself to a master totally. Remember, the totality of surrender is not going to come from the surety about the master; it is going to come from your own surety, your own totalness. The master is bound to remain paradoxical for you unless you yourself become enlightened, because only the same can understand the same.

Only when you have become a buddha will you be able to understand Buddha - never before. When you have become a christ, when Christ is known to you, you can understand; never before. Christ is bound to remain a mystery, and a mystery means paradox. Christ will appear to you as irrational, not because he is irrational but because he is supra-rational, he is beyond reason - and you don't know anything about beyond reason. At the most you can think he is below reason, he is not rational.

And the ways of a master are so secret that sometimes he will create a situation in which he will not allow you to be sure about himself, because if you can be absolutely sure about the master then your surrender is meaningless. Then what is the meaning of it? When you are absolutely sure of the master then it is a bargain, then you cannot do anything else other than surrender. When you are uncertain, then surrender is a device; in your uncertainty, hesitation, still you decide. That decision changes you.

The more mysterious a master, the more is the possibility of transformation through surrender. If the master is known to you, just as two plus two makes four, then there is no mystery. Sufi masters particularly will create rumors about themselves, so the new ones who come to them can only enter not because they are sure about the master, but because they are sure about their search - and they are ready to take a risk. Why do you want to be sure about the master? - because you don't want to take the risk. Your mind is a business mind. When a master is something mysterious....

One old woman came from England to see Gurdjieff. She had heard Ouspensky, Gurdjieff's disciple, and Ouspensky was a mathematician, a logician. He was not a master, he was not enlightened, but he was a perfect rationalist and he could explain Gurdjieff better than Gurdjieff himself. Gurdjieff would have remained unknown to the world if there had been no Ouspensky. He was nowhere near Gurdjieff, but he could think in a logical way, express in a logical way. He was professionally a mathematician. Many people were attracted to Ouspensky, and when they were attracted to Ouspensky they would start thinking about going to Gurdjieff - and then they would return frustrated, disappointed.

One old woman became very much impressed by Ouspensky, and then she went to see Gurdjieff.

Within just a week she was back, and she told Ouspensky, "I can feel that Gurdjieff is great, but I am not certain whether he is good or bad, whether he is evil, devilish, or a saint. I am not certain about that. He is great - that much is certain. But he may be a great devil, or a great saint - that is not certain." And Gurdjieff behaved in such a way that he would create this impression.

Alan Watts has written about Gurdjieff and has called him a rascal saint - because sometimes he would behave like a rascal, but it was all acting and was done knowingly to avoid all those who would take unnecessary time and energy. It was done to send back those who could only work when they were certain. Only those would be allowed who could work even when they were not certain about the master, but who were certain about themselves.

And to surrender to a Gurdjieff will transform you more than surrendering to Ramana Maharshi, because Ramana Maharshi is so saintly, so simple, that surrender doesn't mean anything. You cannot do otherwise. He is so open - just like a small child - so pure, that surrender will happen.

But that surrender is happening because of Ramana Maharshi, not because of you. It is nothing as far as you are concerned. If surrender happens with Gurdjieff, then it has happened because of you, because Gurdjieff is in no way going to support it. Rather, he will create all types of hindrances. If still you surrender, that transforms you. So there is no need to be absolutely sure about him - and that is impossible - but you have to be sure about yourself.

Just today one friend came to me and said about himself, "I am just fifty-fifty: fifty percent with you and fifty percent with Subud" - a very good Indonesian technique of meditation. So, "I am fifty-fifty, divided."

I asked him, "What do you mean by fifty-fifty?" and told him one anecdote.

It happened once that Mulla Nasruddin owned a hotel. Then he was arrested and brought to the court of the town, because he was caught mixing horsemeat in chicken cutlets. But he confessed and he said, "I have been committing this crime," and he pleaded guilty.

The magistrate asked, "Nasruddin, will you tell me what the proportion was? How much horsemeat were you mixing into how many chicken cutlets?"

Nasruddin said, very truthfully, "Fifty-fifty."

But the magistrate was not convinced so he asked, "What do you mean by fifty-fifty, Nasruddin?"

Nasruddin said, "It is so obvious. Fifty-fifty means fifty-fifty - one horse to one chicken."

So it is not certain. What do you mean by fifty-fifty? Your mind is confusion, but division will not help, a divided mind will not be of much help. Go to Subud or come to me, but be a hundred percent. And that hundred percentness is needed about you - not about me, or about Bapak Subud, or about anybody else. You must be a hundred percent here, then work becomes possible.

What to do? Your mind is cunning - clever, you call it, but it is cunning. It calculates, it cannot take a risk. That's why you have been wandering for so many lives. You were near Buddha, you were near Jesus, you have seen Mohammed - you have seen many masters, but you bypass them just because of your cleverness. Your cleverness is your stupidity. Even with a Buddha you calculate - and what can you calculate? Life is such a mystery; it cannot be explained in terms of logic. And a person like Buddha is so mysterious that whatsoever you come to conclude will be wrong, and by the time you have concluded Buddha will have changed. By the time you have come to a decision, Buddha is not the same - because Buddha is a river, a riverlike phenomenon, flowing. Conclusion will take time, and you will miss.

Religion is for those who are like gamblers, who can take risks. If you are a gambler then something can happen, but if you are a businessman then nothing is possible. Be certain about your search.

If you are really in search, then don't be afraid. And I say again: even with a master who is false, pseudo, you are not going to lose anything.

It happened that one of the Tibetan mystics, Marpa, was in search of a master. He reached a master who was not really a master, who was a pseudo-teacher, who was not himself enlightened. Marpa asked him, "What am I supposed to do?"

The pseudo-master said, "You will have to surrender to me. Surrender totally."

Marpa said, "Surrendered! I am surrendered. Now what is to be done?"

Other disciples became jealous, because this Marpa seemed to be a dangerous man: immediately, without arguing, without discussing, he said, "I have surrendered. Now tell me, what is to be done?"

He would become the leader, he would become the chief disciple - he had already become it. He had just arrived, and they had been serving the master for many years, and he had superseded them.

They became jealous, and they said to the master, "This is not easy; surrender is such a difficult thing. For many years we have been working, and yet we have not surrendered totally. This man seems to be deceiving. So we must examine whether the surrender is true or not."

The master asked, "How can it be examined and tested?"

So they said, "Tell him to jump from this hill into the valley. If he jumps, then he is surrendered. If he doesn't jump, then he is deceiving." In both ways they were thinking that they were going to be the winners. If he jumped he would be dead; if he didn't jump he would be thrown out of the ashram.

But they didn't know Marpa - he simply jumped. And they were wonderstruck. He jumped - and then he was sitting in the valley! So when they reached him they could not believe it; even the master could not believe that this could happen. So he thought, "It must have been just an accident that he is saved."

He asked Marpa, "How did it happen?"

He said, "I don't know. You must know; I have surrendered to you. Now it is up to you. I don't know what has happened - but a miracle has happened. You have done this!"

The master knew well that he had not done anything - he did not know any ABC - this must have been by accident. So another situation had to be created.

Then they saw a house that was on fire, so they said, "Enter!" Marpa entered immediately. The whole house burned, and they could not know what had happened until the fire disappeared.

Then they went inside. All over the place everything was burned, everything was destroyed and Marpa was sitting in meditation, not even perspiring. So the master asked, "Marpa, how did you do it again?"

He said, "I don't know, master. It is you. And my trust is growing; you are a miracle!"

But it is possible that even an accident can happen a second time, improbabilities are also possible.

So they thought, "It has to be tried again, a third time." So they told Marpa to walk on a river. The river was in flood and they said, "Walk on water!" And Marpa walked.

When Marpa was walking and was just in midstream, the master thought, "It seems as if I am doing something, because how can this happen? It must be my power." He thought, "If just by surrendering to me Marpa can walk on water, why cannot I walk?" So he started walking - and he was drowned.

No one has ever heard about what happened to that master, but Marpa became enlightened.

So it is not a question of the master, it is a question of your totality. Even with a pseudo-master you can become enlightened. And the reverse is also true: even with an enlightened master you may remain ignorant. Remember, my emphasis is on you. That's why I never say: Don't go to Sai Baba, or: Don't go to Bapak Subud. That is immaterial. Go anywhere. Go totally.

The second question:

Question 2:

YOU OFTEN TELL STORIES OF PERSONS WHO WENT INTO ALONENESS IN SOME FOREST AND WHO BECAME SILENT AND PEACEFUL THERE. BUT ALONENESS SEEMS TO MAKE MOST MODERN PERSONS ANXIOUS AND DEPRESSED, AND IT CREATES A YEARNING FOR HUMAN COMPANIONSHIP. INSTEAD OF THE PATTERNED MIND DROPPING, WE BECOME MORE ACUTELY AWARE OF IT AND PREOCCUPIED WITH IT. HOW TO OVERCOME THIS?

HOW CAN WE LEARN TO ENJOY LONG PERIODS OF ALONENESS, AND DROP THE OLD MIND IN IT?

This is nothing new for the modern mind; this has been always so. Mind cannot exist in aloneness; to be alone means mind will have to commit suicide. Mind becomes anxious - it is a murder. Whenever you go alone, the mind cannot exist in that aloneness.

Mind can exist only in the society; mind is a social phenomenon, others are needed for it. You cannot be angry when alone, or if you become angry you will feel very foolish; you cannot be sad when alone, because there is no excuse; you cannot be violent when alone, because the other is needed; you cannot talk, you cannot go on chattering. You cannot use the mind, the mind cannot function - and when mind cannot function it becomes anxious, worried. It needs functioning, it needs someone to communicate to.

Mind is a social phenomenon, a societal byproduct. And it has always been so. Even when Svetaketu went into the forest, he was anxious, he was worried, he was depressed in the beginning.

The difference is not in the mind; the difference is in patience. The mind remains the same, modern or old, but in the old days people were more patient, they could wait. You are not patient - that is the problem. They were not time conscious and you are time conscious.

In the old days in the ancient world, particularly in the East, there was no time consciousness. That's why watches and clocks were not invented in the East. There was more possibility for their invention in China than in India, because they had done many things and it was possible to invent clocks, to measure time, but they were not interested in time. The modern mind is too interested in time. Why?

This is a part of the Christian influence on the world. With Christianity and Islam time consciousness entered into the world. There are reasons for it.

In the East it has been believed always that life goes on forever and ever, it is eternal, it is timeless - so there is no hurry; you will be again and again. Millions of times you were here and millions of times you will be again here; there is no hurry. This life is not the last nor the first, it is a long procession, and you are always in the middle - there is no beginning and no end. So there can be no hurry about time; enough time, more than enough, is available.

With Christianity there is only one life - this is the first and the last. Once you die you don't have any time any more; so you have a lifespan of seventy years at the most. There is so much to do, and so little time with you. That's why in the West there is so much hurry; everyone is running because life is going. Every moment life is becoming less and less. Time is passing, you are dying, and you have so many desires to fulfill and no time to fulfill them, so anxiety is created.

In the East it was totally different. It is said in one of the Tibetan scriptures that even if you have to go in a hurry, go slowly. Even if you have to go in a hurry, go slowly. It is said that if you run you will never reach; if you sit you can reach, but if you run you will miss. An eternal procession, many lives, millions of lives, enough time - patience was possible.

In the West only one life, and every moment life changing into death; nothing is fulfilled, no desire completed, everything incomplete - how can you be patient? How can you wait? Waiting has become impossible. With the idea of one life, and with another idea of linear time, Christianity has created anxiety in the mind; and now Christianity has become a global influence.

Christianity says that time is not moving in a circle, it is moving in a straight line. Nothing is going to be repeated again, so everything is unique. Every event is once and for all, it cannot be repeated. It is not a circle; it is not like a wheel of a cart moving where every spoke will come again, where again and again the same spoke will be repeated.

In the East time is a circular concept, just like seasons moving in a circle. The summer comes and then the summer will come again, and it has been so always and it will be so always. And the Eastern concept is nearer to truth than the Western, because every movement is in a circle. The earth moves in a circle, the sun moves in a circle, the stars move in a circle, the life moves in a circle - every movement is circular. So time cannot be an exception; if time moves at all, it moves in a circle. The linear concept of time is absolutely wrong.

That's why in the East we were never interested in history. We have been interested in myth, but never in history. The West introduced history into the world. That's why Jesus became the center of history, the beginning of the calendar. We go on measuring time with "before Christ," "after Christ."

Christ became the center of all history, the first historic person.

Buddha is not historic, Krishna is not at all; you can never be certain whether really Krishna was ever born or not, whether the whole thing was just a story or a history. But the East was never worried about it. They say everything is a story, and it has been told many times and will be told again and again. There is no need to be concerned with facts, because facts are repetitive. It is better to be concerned with the theme, not with the facts - so you may not be able to understand many things.

It is said that before Rama was born, one of the avatars of India, Valmiki, wrote his story - before he was born! It is impossible. How can you write the history when the man is not yet born? But Valmiki wrote first, and then Rama had to follow his story, whatsoever he had said. How did it happen? This is mysterious, but not mysterious at all if you look at the Eastern concept of time.

Valmiki says, "I know Rama, because in many ages he has been born before - I know the very theme. So I create the story, because I know the theme, I know the essential. The nonessential I will put in the story."

And Rama must have thought, "Why contradict Valmiki? Why contradict this old man? Follow it."

And he followed.

The East lives in myth; myth means a repetitive theme, the essential is always there. In the West myth is meaningless. If you can prove that something is a myth it becomes meaningless. You have to prove that it is history, it has happened in time; you have to be exact about it.

This linear concept of nonrepetitive life creates anxiety, so when you go into silence, alone, you become worried. One thing is: time is wasted. You are not doing anything, you are just sitting. Why are you wasting your life? And this time cannot be regained, because they go on teaching in the West: Time is wealth. It is absolutely wrong, because wealth is created by scarcity, and time is not scarce. The whole economics depends on scarcity: if something is scarce it becomes valuable.

Time is not scarce, it is there always. You cannot finish it; it will always be there - so time cannot be economic. It is not scarce; it cannot be wealth.

But we go on teaching, "Time is wealth - don't waste it. Once wasted it never comes again." So if you go into aloneness and then you sit there, you cannot sit there for three years, you cannot sit there for three months, even three days are too much - you have wasted three days.

And what are you doing? The second problem arises - because in the West being is not very valuable, doing is valuable. They ask, "What have you done?" - because the time has to be used in doing something. They say in the West that a vacant mind is the devil's workshop. And you know it, in the mind you also know it, so when you are sitting alone you become afraid. Wasting time, not doing anything, you go on questioning yourself, "What are you doing here? Just sitting? Wasting?" - as if just being is a wastage! You have to do something to prove that you have utilized your time.

This is the difference.

In the old ancient days, in the East particularly, just to be was enough; there was no need to prove anything else. No one was going to ask, "What have you done?" Your being was enough and accepted. If you were silent, peaceful, blissful, it was okay. That's why in the East we never demanded from sannyasins that they should work - no, no need. And we always thought that sannyasins, those who had left all working, were better than those who were occupied in work.

This cannot be done in the West. If you are not working you are a vagabond, a bum. Hippies are a very new phenomenon. The East has always been hippie-oriented. We have created the greatest hippies of the world - a Buddha, a Mahavira: not doing anything, just sitting and meditating, enjoying their being, just being blissful as they are, not doing anything. But we respected them - they were the supreme, the highest, the most respectable. Buddha was begging, but even kings had to come to bow to his feet.

Once it happened that Buddha was passing through a village, and the chief minister of the king of that locality told the king, "Buddha is coming, so we will have to go to receive him and touch his feet and pay our respects."

The king said, "But is it necessary for a beggar? He is just a beggar, and I am a great king. Why should I go and respect him and bow down to him? If he wants to see me, he can come and take an appointment with me."

The old chief minister, who was a very wise man, immediately gave in his resignation. He said, "If this is the case then I cannot remain here for a single moment."

The king was worried, because this man was much too valuable to be lost, so he said, "But why?"

The old man said, "This is absolutely wrong. You may be a great king, you may become the emperor of the whole earth, but you cannot become greater than Buddha. He has left all kingdoms, and you are still obsessed with wealth, riches, prestige, power. He has left all of them, he has nothing, and only a person who has nothing is the highest, because he doesn't desire. You will have to go and respect him, otherwise take my resignation. I cannot remain in this unholy palace for a single moment." The king had to go.

The East was totally different; a different milieu was there. Being was respected. No one was going to ask, "What have you done?" Everyone was just asking, "What are you?" Enough! If you were silent, peaceful, loving; if compassion was there; if you had flowered - enough! Then it was society's duty to help and serve you. No one would say you should work, or you should create something, you should be creative. In the East they thought that to be oneself is the highest creativity, and the presence of such a man was valuable. He could go into silence for years.

Mahavira was in silence for twelve years. He would not speak, he would not go into villages, he would not see anybody. And when he started speaking, somebody asked him, "Why were you not speaking before?"

He said, "Speech becomes valuable only when you have attained silence, otherwise it is futile - not only futile, dangerous also, because you are throwing rubbish into others' heads. So this was my effort: that I would speak only when talking had completely stopped inside. When the inner talk had disappeared, only then would I speak. Then it is not a disease."

And they could wait, because the East believed in reincarnation. They could wait. There are stories that a disciple would come to the master and wait for thirty years, would not ask anything but just wait for the master to ask, "For what have you come?" Thirty years is too much - one life completely wasted - but waiting for thirty years will do the work.

People from the West come to me and they say, "This very evening we are leaving, so give us some key. How can we become silent? But we don't have any time to stay - we must go." They are thinking in terms with which they have become acquainted - instant coffee - so they think there must be some instant meditation, a key I can hand over to them and it is finished. No, there is no key. It is a long effort, it is a deep patience. And the more you are in a hurry, the longer it will take.

So remember this: if you are not in any hurry it may happen this very moment. When you are not in a hurry the quality of mind is there, silence is there.

I will tell you one story. Once it happened that two monks were traveling. They crossed a river in a boat, and the ferryman said to them, "Where are you going? If you are going to the city beyond this valley, go slowly."

But the old monk said, "If we go slowly we will never reach, because we have heard that the gates of that city are closed after sunset, and we have just one or two hours at the most, and it is a very long distance. If we go slowly we will never reach, and we will have to wait outside the city. And the outside of the city is dangerous - wild animals and everything - so we will have to make haste."

The ferryman said, "Okay, but this is my experience: those who go slowly, reach."

The other monk listened to it. He was a young man and he thought, "I don't know this part of the country, and this ferryman may be right, so it is better to follow his advice." So he walked slowly, leisurely, as if not going anywhere, not in a hurry, just for a walk.

The old man hurried, started running. He had many scriptures on his back. Then he fell down: tired, carrying weight, old, and in such a hurry, so tense, he fell down. The man who was not in a hurry simply walked and reached.

The ferryman was coming and he came near the old man. He was lying by the side of the road; his leg was broken and blood was oozing out. The ferryman said, "I told you that this has been always so: those who walk slowly reach, those who are in a hurry always manage to stumble somewhere or other. These parts are dangerous. The road is rough and you are an old man. And I had advised you, but you wouldn't listen to me."

This is one of the Korean Zen stories, and this is how it is in life. Go slowly, patiently, not in a hurry, because the goal is not somewhere else - it is within you. When you are not in a hurry you will feel it; when you are in a hurry you cannot feel it because you are so tense. If you are not going anywhere at all, then you can feel it more immediately.

In Japan meditation is called zazen. Zazen means simply sitting and not doing anything. So Zen priests, monks, have to sit for six hours a day or even more; the master never gives them anything to do, they have just to sit. They have trained themselves for just sitting, not asking for anything to do, not even a mantra - just sitting.

It is very arduous. It looks easy but is very arduous, because the mind asks for some work, something to be done. And the mind goes on saying, "Why? Why waste time? Why just go on sitting? What is going to happen by just sitting?" But for three years, or even more, the seeker sits.

Then, by and by, the mind drops asking. It is useless now, you don't listen to it. It has got fed up with you, so the mind stops asking. By and by, when the mind is not asking, you start realizing a new life force within you which was always there but you were so occupied you couldn't listen to it, you couldn't feel it. Unoccupied, you start feeling it.

Mind has always been creating problems and loneliness. Go in aloneness at least for three months, and decide beforehand that whatsoever happens you are not going to listen to the mind. Decide beforehand that you are ready to waste three months, so there is no need to think again and again that you are wasting time. You have decided that you are going to waste three months, and you are not going to do anything - you will simply sit and wait. A miracle is possible.

Just within these three months, some day suddenly you will become aware of your being. When there is no doing you become aware of being. When there is too much doing you go on forgetting the being which is hidden behind.

The third question:

Question 3:

I FEEL VERY DEVOTED TO YOU, AND SINCE BEING WITH YOU MY LIFE HAS TRANSFORMED VERY MUCH. IN MY HEART I FEEL YOU ARE MY MASTER. FOR THE FIRST TIME I FEEL A CONTENTMENT WITH MY OUTER LIFE AND MY RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS, AND THERE IS NO DESIRE FOR ANYTHING EXTERNAL. BUT AN INNER YEARNING FOR THE EVER ELUSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT AND BLISS REMAINS, AND I CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP THAT DESIRE. IS THIS A BARRIER? ISN'T IT LIKELY TO REMAIN UNTIL THE REALITY IS REALIZED, HOWEVER?

Yes, it is a barrier, because there is no question of any desire, whether for external things or for internal things. Desire is the same, there is no distinction, so don't divide desire, and don't say, "No more are worldly desires within me, but the otherworldly desire is there." The otherworldly desire is as worldly as any worldly desire - desire is worldly. So don't divide, don't play tricks.

Objects of desire are not significant; desiring is significant. You can desire wealth, you can desire God - desiring remains the same, only the object has changed. You can desire a palace here, you can desire a palace in paradise - objects have changed, but the desire remains the same. You can desire anything whatsoever, desire will be the same. Remember this.

And with desire you cannot attain realization. Desire has to be dropped. So what to do? Really there is nothing to do. You have to realize more and more that your desire creates suffering. Now this new desire is creating suffering. Before there were other desires; you have left those desires, so you feel contentment, you feel peaceful with life. Your relationships have become more loving because desires have disappeared from that field.

Now be aware: when there were desires in that field you were not content. You were frustrated, you were filled with jealousy, anger, hatred; relationship was difficult, it was suffering and misery.

Now desire has left that field; that field has become peaceful. So become aware that now you are creating a new suffering: when will this enlightenment happen? And unless it happens you cannot be content. How can you be content unless you become a buddha? So, "When will I become a buddha?"

One Buddhist, Nagarjuna, is reported to have said that the desire to become a buddha is the greatest barrier to becoming a buddha - because unless you stop desiring to become a buddha you will not come to know that you are already a buddha. This desiring dissolves and your buddhahood appears; it is there. So now feel this new misery which is coming into being with the new desire.

Every desire brings misery. There is nothing to be done - simply become aware that every desire brings misery. If you realize this, desires will disappear; internal or external, no desires are needed.

When there is no desire you have achieved. Then this very moment is ecstasy; then right here and now you have become the goal. There can be no misery then. But don't make this distinction. Mind is so cunning, it goes on deceiving you. It says, "Okay, if worldly desires create misery, leave them.

I will be content with nonworldly desires." So the object changes, but the desiring remains the same.

I will tell you one anecdote. I have heard, it happened in New Delhi that a netaji, a great political leader, dragged Mulla Nasruddin to the court. That great leader, the netaji, said to the court, "This man, Mulla Nasruddin, has insulted me in public. He has called me a donkey."

That political leader was a powerful man. The magistrate said to Nasruddin, "This is not good. You will have to be punished."

Nasruddin said, "I was not aware that it is an offense to call a leader a donkey. I was not aware. So forgive me, and I give you my promise that I will never do it again." So he was forgiven, and even the political leader was satisfied.

Then Nasruddin asked the magistrate, "But if I call a donkey netaji, leader, have you any objection?"

The magistrate laughed and he said, "There is no objection - unless the donkey comes to the court, and I hope no donkey will come. If you feel good, and if you like it, you can call any donkey netaji.

We don't have any objection to it."

Mulla Nasruddin turned immediately towards the netaji and said, "Netaji, how are you?"

The mind remains the same. It goes on changing objects, but the inner quality persists. So whether you call a leader a donkey, or you call a donkey a leader, it makes no difference - you will have to stop calling.

So a desire for the outer, or a desire for the inner, is just a change of the object - the mind remains the same. Drop it. As you have dropped the outer desire, you can drop the inner also. And you know now that just by dropping the outer you are feeling a deep contentment with yourself. So why carry this new desire? Drop it also.

When you drop all desire, you have become paradise itself. Then you are the heaven, you are the moksha. With desires you are destroying it; with desires you are so occupied you cannot be in contact with your own deepest center, your own deepest depth.

The last question:

Question 4:

THIS MORNING YOU SAID THAT THE UPANISHADIC SAGES HAD A POSITIVE APPROACH TOWARDS LIFE, AND THAT BUDDHA AND MAHAVIRA HAD A NEGATIVE APPROACH TOWARDS LIFE. WHICH IS YOUR APPROACH - AFFIRMATION OR NEGATION OF LIFE?

WHICH APPROACH WOULD YOU HAVE YOUR DISCIPLES TAKE?

I have got no approach - or, both are mine. I don't divide. To me, the positive can also lead to the same goal as the negative, so I don't say that the positive is the only approach, and I don't say that the negative is the only approach. Both are approaches, and both are as good as each other.

My emphasis is not on the approach, my emphasis is on the disciple. So I don't say that you should follow this or that wholesale. I would like you to decide whether you have a negative mind or a positive mind. If you have a positive mind then follow the positive approach; if you have a negative mind then follow the negative approach. And there are both types of people here.

That's why Hinduism cannot be a world religion, Buddhism cannot be a world religion. Up till now there exists no religion which can be a world religion, because every religion chooses one approach.

Whatsoever I am saying can be a world-comprehensive thing, because I don't choose any approach.

All approaches lead to the same goal. The goal is important, and the disciple who is to travel is important - the path is irrelevant. And both types exist.

Remember, there are males and females, and their number on the earth remains almost equal.

This is a miracle: biologists cannot explain how it happens that man and woman remain in equal numbers on the earth. And if sometimes the balance is lost, immediately the balance is regained.

For example, in a war the balance is lost because more men are killed than women. Immediately after the war more boys are born than girls. How this happens has been a mystery for biology - but the number of men and women remain equal.

The mystery is because of the polarity: man is one pole of life and woman is the other pole of life. If a man is born, immediately a woman is born, because the other pole has to be there; without the other pole this magnet cannot exist. So whenever there are wars and more men are killed, immediately more men will be born. Ordinarily also, more boys are born than girls. The proportion is this: one hundred and fifteen boys are born to one hundred girls, because boys are weaker than girls, and by the time they are sexually mature fifteen boys will have died. So by the age of sexual maturity the number will be equal - fifteen boys will have died.

Girls don't die so easily, they are stronger. And it is a fallacy created by men, male chauvinists, that man is the stronger sex. This is a fallacy, woman is the stronger sex. In every way she is stronger.

She is ill less than man, she goes mad less than man, she lives longer than man. The average life-expectancy of women all over the world, in every country, is five years more than men. If men live to be seventy-five, women are going to live to be eighty. And they die less in childhood - fifteen percent less. They are the stronger sex.

And this is how it should be, because they have to do the greatest creativity of this life - give birth. It is such a long suffering, a tapascharya, a sadhana, to give birth. Just think, if man had to give birth the world would have disappeared. Just think, for nine months carrying a baby in your stomach. It is impossible to conceive of man doing that and then bringing up the child. No man would be ready for it. He is weak.

Wherever the balance is lost it is immediately regained. Why? - because man and woman are a polarity. There is a myth in India, a Jaina myth, which you may not have heard, and I think it is very probable that sometime it may have been true. In Jaina Puranas, in Jaina mythology, it is said that in the beginning only twins were born, never a single child: twins, one boy and one girl. And they were to be married - brother and sister, twins.

In the beginning, millions of years ago in the past, only twins were born, a boy and a girl. They were the natural wife and husband, and the world was very peaceful. It must have been, because if you could get a natural wife and a natural husband, life would be totally different - because it is always the wrong person that you choose. It is so difficult to choose a right wife and a right husband - almost impossible! How can you choose?

Just think of another thing: if you had had to choose the right father and the right mother it would have been impossible. Where to choose and how to choose? And whosoever you had chosen, you would have felt frustrated in the end. But nature chooses for you, so the mother and father are always almost okay; you cannot do anything about it.

The Jaina myth says that wife and husband were born as twins. They were naturally related; they had a harmony, the deep harmony of twins. There was never a conflict between them; they behaved as two bodies and one soul. Jainas say that those were the peaceful days in the world. When that harmony was disturbed everything was disturbed. That's possible, and I think it can become again possible. Science may be helpful in the coming century to create this possibility again - then the pole is born with you. But whether the pole is born with you or not, the pole is born simultaneously somewhere: a boy is born, a girl is born somewhere; a girl is born, a boy is born somewhere.

The same polarity exists between the positive mind and the negative. Whenever there is a positive mind, just by the side of it there is a negative mind. That number is always equal. So in the world, half are always Hindus and half Buddhists - or you can name it in another way, but half are positive persons and half are negative persons.

I don't choose anything. If someone comes to me and says, "Which is right, man or woman?" I will say both are right, because neither can exist separately - their harmony is right. So if you ask me, "Which is right, positive or negative?" I say both are right, because neither can exist without the other - their harmony is right. That's why my statements seem so contradictory, because sometimes I am talking with a positive person; then I have to make totally different statements. Sometimes I am talking to a disciple who is negative; then I have to make absolutely contradictory statements. And when they both meet, they will be confused.

So remember, whenever I say something to you, I have said it to you. Don't listen to anybody else; this is personal. Whenever I have said something to you, I have said it to you, and if somebody says that I have said something contradictory to him, don't listen. I may have said it... because to me approaches are not important, persons are important.

I do not have a fixed approach. When a different type of person comes to me, I immediately change my approach. I always adjust to the person, I never try the reverse - I never try to adjust the person to an approach. To me that looks absurd. I don't make readymade clothes for you and then say, "Cut your legs a little because the dress...." I always cut the dress immediately if I feel it doesn't suit you. The dress is wrong, you are never wrong.

Then there are bound to be many contradictions - but I contain contradictions. To me they only appear contradictory; they are joined together just like man and woman, positive and negative, day and night, life and death. Both approaches are mine. That's why I go on talking about Buddha with as much love as I go on talking about Patanjali or Lao Tzu or Jesus or Mahavira or Mohammed.

I contain all.

Remember that - that will help you to be less confused.

Enough for today.