---
section: Library
booktitle: "Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy"
booktype: "Translations"
bookcode: "KRISHN"
dategiven: "04 October 1970 am"
place: " in"
chapternum: "Chapter #18"
chaptertitle: "Non-Attachment is not Aversion"
acode: "7010040"
shorttitle: "KRISHN18"
audio: "No"
video: "No"
esttime: ""
displaytitle: "Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy: Chapter #18"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: KRISHNA SAYS THAT BY GIVING UP DESIRING AND ATTACHMENT, WHICH HE CALLS NISKAMTA AND ANASAKTI RESPECTIVELY, ONE IS RELEASED FROM BONDAGE AND HE ATTAINS TO THE SUPREME. BUT IT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR ORDINARY MEN AND WOMEN TO BE FREE OF DESIRING AND ATTACHMENT. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DESIRELESSNESS AND NON-ATTACHMENT AND WAYS TO ACHIEVE THEM.</p>


In the first place try to understand the meaning of the word anasakti or non-attachment. It is unfortunately one of the most misunderstood words. Non-attachment is generally taken to mean aversion, but it is not aversion. Aversion is a kind of attachment -- the opposite of attachment. Someone is attached to sex and someone else is attached to its opposite -- brahmacharya or celibacy. Someone is attached to wealth; he is running after wealth, and someone else is attached to renunciation of wealth; he is running away from wealth. One person is obsessed with the idea of looking handsome; another person is obsessed with the idea of looking ugly. But those who are averse to sex, money or good looks appear to be non-attached because their attachments are negative.


Attachment has two faces, positive and negative. You can fancy a thing so much that you madly run after it, you cling to it -- this is positive attachment. And you can be so much repelled by a thing that you want to escape it, to run away from it; then it is negative attachment. Negative attachment is as much attachment as positive attachment.


Non-attachment is altogether different; it is freedom from both the positive and the negative kinds of attachment. Non-attachment means one is neither attached to something nor averse to it. Non-attachment is transcendence of both attachment and aversion.


In the world of spiritualism there are many words like non-attachment, which have been badly distorted and misconstrued. Veetrag is one such word which means transcendence of attachment, but it has become synonymous with aversion. When someone goes beyond both attachment and aversion, he achieves the state of veetrag or transcendence. This word veetrag belongs to the tradition of Mahavira, while anasakti belongs to the tradition of Krishna, and they are synonymous. But there is a difference in the approach of the two.


While Mahavira attains to the state of veetrag by renouncing both attachment and aversion, Krishna attains to the state of anasakti by accepting both positive and negative attachments. And these are the only possible ways. While their ends remain the same, their means are different. While Mahavira insists on renunciation of attachment, Krishna emphasizes its acceptance. So in a deeper sense veetrag is negative and anasakti is positive.


A non-attached mind, according to Krishna, is one who accepts everything unconditionally. The interesting thing is that if you accept something totally it does not leave a mark, a scar on your mind; your mind remains unscathed and undisturbed. But when you cling strongly to a thing it leaves a mark on your mind. And when you are strongly averse to something you detest and deny it, then also it leaves a mark on your mind.


But when you neither cling to a thing nor run away from it, when you become receptive to everything -- good or bad, beautiful or ugly, pleasant or painful -- when you become like a mirror reflecting everything that comes before it, then your mind remains unscathed and unmarked. And such a mind is a non-attached mind; it is established in non-attachment.


You want to know how an ordinary person can achieve non-attachment. In fact, everyone is ordinary until he attains to non-attachment. So the question how an ordinary person can become non-attached does not arise. As long as one is attached or averse to something he remains an ordinary person. Extraordinariness comes with non-attachment, not before. It is not that ordinary people come to non-attachment in one way and extraordinary ones come to it in another way. Only one who has transcended both attachment and aversion is extraordinary. So the right question to ask is: How can one attain to non-attachment?


Before we go into the question of non-attach ment, let us understand the matter of attachment itself. How is it that one ceases to be non-attached and becomes attached to persons, things and ideas?


According to Krishna, non-attachment is embedded in the very nature of a human being, in his very being. Non-attachment is our basic nature, our original face. So the real question is how one deviates from his nature. We ,don't have to practice non attachment, we don't have to do something to come to it. We have only to know how we have gone astray from our nature. This is our basic question.


Someone came to me the other day and said, "I want to find God." I asked him when and how he had lost his God. His answer was that he had never lost him.


Then I asked him, "How can you search for a thing that you have not lost? Search implies that you lost something and now you are trying to recover it. Therefore," I said to him, "it is not a question of finding God. You would have to find God if you had really lost him. So first you have to know if you have lost him. And if you come to know on your own that you never lost him, the search is complete."


Non-attachment is our self-nature, we are born with it. So it is strange that in life, we all become victims of attachment and aversion. Non-attachment is our very nature. If attachment is our nature, we cannot manage to be averse to anything. If aversion was our nature, we could not fall prey to attachment. For example, a branch of a tree sways westward with the westerly wind and eastward with the easterly wind. How is it that the branch sways with the winds? Because it is neither in the east nor in the west; it is just in the middle.


Let us take another example: when we boil water it becomes hot, and when we cool it it becomes cold, because water in itself is neither hot nor cold. If water was intrinsically hot it could never become cold; it could never be heated if it was basically cold. Water's own nature transcends both hot and cold, so we can easily heat or cool it as we like.


If attachment is our self-nature, there is no way to be repelled by anything. But we are easily repelled. If clinging was our self-nature we could not give up anything, but we do give things up. In the same way if renunciation was our self-nature. we could not cling to a thing, but we cling like leeches. It simply means that neither attachment nor aversion is intrinsic to our self-nature. Therefore we move in both directions -- we now become attached and then averse to something. Because our innate nature transcends both these states of mind, we can move conveniently into them.


Let us take yet another example. We can open and shut our eyes whenever we like, because basically our eyes are neither open nor shut. If to be open was the very nature of the eyes, we could never close them. And if they were inherently closed we could never open them. Eyes can be both opened and closed at will because their self-nature transcends both states, they are beyond them. Opening and closing is external to them; really it happens because of the eyelids. In the same way our consciousness is essentially non-attached; it is only its eyelids, its coverings that get attached or repelled by something.


So the first thing to understand is that non attachment is our self-nature; we are born with it. It is our original face.


Secondly, we have to understand that it is only our self-nature that we can attain to; we can never attain to that which is alien to our self-nature. Really we can achieve only that which we already are at some deeper level of our beings. A seed grows into a flower because it is already a flower in its depth. A rock cannot grow into a flower, because never mind its depth, not even its surface has anything to do with a flower. If you sow a rock in the soil like a seed, it will ever remain a rock; it can never turn into a flower. On the surface both rock and seed look alike, but if you sow them together the seed will turn into a flower, while the rock will remain always the same. ,So we can say that a seed becomes a flower because it is inherently a flower.


It is one of the fundamental laws of life that we can become only that which we already are at the center of our being; what is hidden at the center becomes manifest at the circumference.


Therefore non-attachment is our self-nature -- not attachment or aversion. That is why sometimes we get attached to a thing and then are repelled by it.


And we can return to non-attachment because it is our essential nature: that is to say, the seed can grow into a flower.


It is not that non attachment is the nature of a few; it is everybody's nature. Wherever conscious ness is, it is always beyond attachment and rejection. Our highest intelligence transcends both clinging and aversion. It is a different matter that in its behavior, consciousness attaches itself to something or rejects something else. But that is its behavioral side; it is like the eyelids open and close whenever they have to.


If I am left exclusively with my consciousness, will I be attached or detached in that moment? I will be neither. Attachment and aversion invariably happen in relationship with others. If I say Mr. X is attached, you will immediately ask, "To whom?" or "To what?" How can one be attached without the other? In the same way, if I say that Mr. Y is averse, you will soon ask, "To what?" or "From what?" Because aversion too, is possible only in relation to someone or something. Both clinging and rejection reflect our relationships; they belong to our behavioral side. In ourselves we are neither.


It is very important to understand the behavioral side of self-nature. And since it is a question of behavior, I can be attached to a person today and can reject him tomorrow. Because it is behavioral, if I am averse to someone today I can be attached to him tomorrow. And the irony is that I can be both attached and averse to someone or something at the same time. It is quite possible I can be simultaneously attached to one aspect of his personality and averse to another. We are often in conflicting relationships with the same persons or things -- attached and averse together. But one thing is certain: attachment and aversion belong to our behavior, not our self-nature. Behavior means that one enters into some relationship -- with another person or thing or thought -- but the other is essential. Behavior is not possible without the other. It is impossible when you are alone.


Self-nature means that which is all alone. Aloneness is the intrinsic quality of self-nature. Self-nature is aloneness. If I am left utterly alone, away from men and things, from ideas and images; if I am in total aloneness, will I be attached or averse in that state? No, both attachment and aversion are utterly irrelevant to aloneness, because they are reflections of relationship. Once I am out of all relationships I am all alone -- unattached and untouched.


I am explaining it at length so that you rightly understand the meaning and significance of non-attachment, its context and associated words. And once you understand them rightly you will not have much difficulty in coming to non-attachment.


Both attachment and aversion are relation ships in which the other is needed, the other is essential. Without the other these words are meaningless. And because of this "other", both attachment and aversion turn into bondages, slavery. In both cases we are dependent on others. So a person of attachment is a slave, and a person of aversion is a slave of the opposite kind. Take away the vault of one who clings to wealth and he will die. Put a vault in the room of one who is averse to wealth and he will not be able to sleep.


Someone who is addicted to sex cannot live without a woman or a man. But put one who is an avowed celibate with a beautiful woman or a man, and he will be in a mess. Both types of people are in bondage, they are dependent on the other. It does not matter whether the other exists or not; he may be imaginary, but the other has become an inseperable part of their being. They cannot think of themselves without the other. The greedy cannot think of himself without money, and the renunciate cannot think of himself in association with money. But the other is present at the center of both.


If you understand this behavioral aspect of non-attachment, then you will know that changes in behavior don't make much difference. It often happens that a person of attachments reacts and turns his back on everything he clings to. Similarly a renunciate turns into a worldly man again and begins to run after money, position, and prestige. People of considerable success in the world come to me and say they are in a mess and want to get rid of it. Renunciates also come to me and say it seems they made a mistake by leaving the world. Who knows? There may be something really worthwhile which they are missing.


A monk is always thinking that the people of the world are having a good time, while really they are wasting their lives. And worldly people think they are missing some higher experiences of life the monks and recluses are having. In fact, only their situations are different. Psychologically the householder and the monk are both in the same boat. Psychologically they are heavily dependent on others, they are in shackles. And such people cannot know freedom, truth, bliss. Really the "other" is the bondage.


Usually a renunciate thinks that he has given up the other, but he is not aware that he is mistaken to think so. He is still bound with the other; he is now in another kind of relationship with the other, a relationship of escape. What he leaves behind pursues him. Although he is no longer running after it, he is afraid of it. Because he has escaped from it, he is worried lest it overcome him again. And where can you run away from the other.


The other is everywhere. The other is everywhere except one place, and that is your innermost being, the center of your being. If you leave your home, the ashram or the monastery will take its place. And you will be attached to it the way you were attached to your home. If you leave your wife or husband or children, then the master and the disciples will take their places and you will again be attached to them. You can leave a palace for a hut, but a hut is as much a house as a palace. You can give up costly clothes and take to a loincloth, but a loincloth is as binding as a king's robe is. Even if you go naked, you will become attached to your nudity.


The other is all over. In this world you cannot run away from the other, because the world is the other, and wherever you go the world will be with you. You cannot run away from the world. Wherever you go, the other will be there, so you cannot run away from the other. Of course, the other will take on new forms, but it will be there. By changing appearances you cannot change reality.


Except one space, the space of love, the other is everywhere. At the deepest core of love there is no other -- not because the other cannot enter there, but because at your deepest core even you disappear. At the deepest center of one's being even the self, the "I", disappears; so there is no way for the "other" to be there.


Now I tell you that as long as you are, you cannot escape the other. Earlier I said that as long as you are in the world you cannot escape the other, he is everywhere. Now I tell you the other side of the same truth: that as long as you exist, as "I", as ego, the other will be there. Even if you close your eyes and the world disappears, the other will not disappear. Now the other will exist behind your closed eyes, in your desires and longings, in your dreams and imaginations, but he will be there. As long as you are, the other is inescapably with you.


In fact, svabhava or self-nature is a state where the self, the "In, the ego, ceases to be. Self-nature is also one of those unlucky words that have been greatly misunderstood. By self-nature we generally mean the sense or feeling of the self. But where svabhava or self-nature begins, the self disappears. There is no relationship whatsoever between self-nature and self. Self-nature is that which was there when I was not in this world, and it will be there when I will be gone from here.


Whether I am here or I am not, self-nature is always in existence. That which is eternal is self-nature. Self-nature is that which is and will be even when I disappear, when my "I" disappears absolutely. The association of the word "self" with nature creates all the confusion, it gives rise to a feeling that it has something to do with the self.


Svabhava means: the nature, the primordial nature, the original face, the prakriti, that which is, even without me. When you are asleep there is no self, but self-nature is. In deep sleep, which in Sanskrit is called susupti, there is no self but self-nature is. When someone is Lying in a state of coma, there is no self, but self-nature is. There is this much difference between susupti and samadhi, deep sleep and superconsciousness: in susupti the self disappears because of unconsciousness, in samadhi it disappears because of wakefulness, awareness, enlightenment.


Therefore, as long as the world exists the other will exist; as long as I exist, the other will exist. But we can look at this phenomenon in a different way. As long as I am, all that I see is the world. The world is a subjective reality which I see from the lens of my self, my "I", and therefore it is the other. The world is the other. So if the "I" ceases, the other will cease too. Then there is no one who can be attached and no one with whom one can be attached; there is no one who can be averse and no one to whom one can be averse. Then I am nowhere and everywhere and in everything.


Anasakti or non-attachment is our innate nature. But how to come to it?


The greatest mistake one commits in this regard is that he embraces aversion as a means to come to non-attachment. Remember, attachment is not as harmful as aversion is, because the face of attachment is clear-cut and simple, it can easily be recognized. No one can mistake attachment for non-attachment. It is impossible. How can you say that clinging to money is non-attachment? But the face of aversion is very deceptive, it is masked. And that is why it poses the greatest danger for one who is trying to attain to non-attachment.


There is every possibility one can mistake aversion for non-attachment, and think that by rejecting men and things he has attained to non-attach ment. Aversion is a false coin, it can easily adopt the name of non-attachment. It is therefore essential to beware of aversion, which is no better than attachment. Aversion is attachment standing on its head, and to know this is to beware of it.


Secondly, as I said, wherever you go the other will be there, because the world is the other. I also said there is only one space where the other is not, and it is the center of one's being. So let us move in that direction, let us move into that space, which is entering into the innermost core of our being. Let us descend into that shrine of aloneness and solitude. There is no one in that solitude, not even you, it is a space of absolute silence. What does it mean? Does it mean that if I shut my eyes to the world I will enter the space of my aloneness and solitude?


Every day we close our eyes, but we are never alone. As soon as we close our eyes we begin to see the same images we had seen with open eyes. Thoughts and imaginations, dreams and daydreams surround us from all sides. The world is again with us. Although it is imaginary it is nonetheless the same world. We use our eyes like a movie camera; what we see with our eyes is imprinted on our mind's film, and we then watch it inside with closed eyes. All our thoughts and images are concerned with the other. And unless they are dropped, unless this inner world of thoughts and dreams goes, we cannot be free from the other, we cannot be alone.


This inner world of thoughts and dreams and images can be dropped, it is not that difficult. It is there because we want it to be there; it exists with our cooperation. And it will disappear the moment we withdraw our cooperation. It is because we relish and enjoy our world of thoughts and images -- we find it pleasurable -- that it is alive and flourishing. Not only our enjoyment of it, even our aversion to it helps to keep it going.


I repeat: not only our addiction to this world, even our aversion is equally responsible. Not only do we think of our friends and loved ones, we also think of our adversaries and enemies whom we hate. And it is ironic that those we hate haunt us much more than those we enjoy and love. But when we neither identify ourselves with something nor condemn it, when we are neither interested in remembering something nor in forgetting it, then the thing drops and disappears on its own; we don't have to do anything. It becomes irrelevant and meaningless, and so it removes itself from the screen of the mind.


If you watch the movie which is your mind like a spectator, a witness, without identifying with it, without condemning it, with total disinterest, then you will find the whole movie dropping away. Before long, it disappears. And by and by the witnessing consciousness alone remains, without any object before it. This objectless awareness is alone; it is alone ness. And one who attains to this aloneness attains to non-attachment. The very experiencing of this consciousness, empty and alone, is non-attachment.


The behavior of a man of non-attachment will be radically different from others, and this behavior is called anasakti yoga or the discipline of non-attachment. He accepts everything -- like a mirror -- without attachment or dislike. Now he knows for himself what self-nature is, what non-attachment is.


He knows that self-nature and non-attachment are inseparably together, and he also knows that attachment and aversion are just behavioral. Having known and understood it in depth, he is not going to behave the same as he had behaved before. His behavior with the outside world will be radically different, because for him the world has ceased to be what it was before. His consciousness has undergone a mutation. It is no more like the film of a camera; now it is like a mirror, and he will use it as a mirror.


A mirror reflects everything that appears before it, but unlike the camera it does not retain impressions when the object has moved away from it. A man of such consciousness will relate with people and things, but he will not enter into relationships involving attachment and aversion. He will mix in society, but his aloneness will remain inviolate and untouched. He will love, but his love will be like lines drawn on the surface of water. Even if he goes to fight, he will fight as though in a play which leaves no marks on the player after he is finished with it. His mirror of consciousness will reflect both love and war, but in itself it will remain unaffected by either. Whatever he will do, his consciousness will be still and steady like the center of the cyclone. His behavior will be just an acting. He will no more remain a doer; he will be an actor on the stage of life.


If Krishna is anything, he is an actor -- a superb actor at that. There has never been a greater and more skilled actor in the whole history of man-kind. He is incomparable even as an actor -- he who turned the whole world into a stage. While all other actors perform their skill on petty stages, Krishna uses the whole earth for his stage.


If a wooden stage can be used why not the whole earth? It does not make much difference; the world can be turned into a leela, a theatrical performance -- which it really is -- and we all can play our roles as actors and performers. An actor weeps and laughs, but tears and laughter don't bind him; he remains untouched by them. When he loves he does not love, when he fights he does not fight; he is never involved in his roles as worldly people are. He plays a friend and a foe without being involved in friendship and enmity.


The life of one who treats everything as play-acting becomes a triangle, a complete triangle. Ordinarily our life is only two points of this triangle, while the third is submerged in darkness. While the two points of attachment and aversion are functioning and visible, the angle of non-attachment is shrouded in darkness. A person of non-attachment brings this third side into light, and the triangle becomes com-plete. While he acts around the points of attachment and aversion, he remains centered at the third -- the point of non-attachment. In his behavior he appears to be attached or averse to people and things, but it is only appearance, acting, it is not real. In reality, he exists at the third point, and to be on this third point is called anasakti or non-attachment.


In fact, all the three points of the triangle exist in each of us but we are ordinarily aware of only two -- one of attachment and the other of aversion. The third point, that of non attachment, remains unknown to us. And the two points of attachment and aversion are like the frying pan and the fire: move from one to the other, do what you can, there is no escape from suffering, pain and misery. One comes to the third point of the triangle when after long suffering, he turns in and discovers his self-nature, his center, the center of the cyclone.


When all the darkness of the mind, of the unconscious is dispelled, the third point of the triangle becomes visible. And one who achieves this third point of non-attachment achieves Krishnahood or Buddhahood, of Jinahood or godliness, or whatever you want to call it. He achieves everything that is worth achieving. Once he knows that he can remain non-attached in every situation, he can afford to play the roles of attachment and dislike.


Someone has written a book called GAMES PEOPLE PLAY. In this long book he has described all the games that people play, but he has missed the very basic game of life. What is this basic game of life? To play the game of attachment and aversion and yet remain non-attached is the ultimate game. But because very few people have played this game, the author of the book missed it.


By turning inward one attains to non-attachment. And turning in is possible only if you become a witness -- a watcher on the hill. Begin witnessing from any point of life and you will reach your innermost depth. And the moment you arrive at your center, you are non attached, you are like a lotus in water. The lotus is born in water, lives in water and yet remains untouched by it.
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: YOU HAVE EXPLAINED TO US BEAUTIFULLY THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF NON-ATTACHMENT. BESIDES NON-ATTACHMENT, KRISHNA HAS TALKED ABOUT TWO OTHER THINGS IN THE GEETA: ONE IS SANNYAS OR INACTION, AND THE OTHER IS ACTION WITHOUT ATTACHMENT TO RESULTS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NON-ATTACHMENT, SANNYAS, AND ACTION WITHOUT DESIRE FOR RESULTS.</p>


The yoga of non-attachment is foundational, and it is the third point of the triangle, the basic point of life from which arise the two other points of the triangle.


The two other points are: first, action through inaction; and second, inaction through action. One can be called sannyas -- inaction, and the other can be called action without desire for results.


Desireless action means action through inaction. If you do something without any motive, without a sense of compulsion to do it and without desire for successful results, it is desireless action. If what you do is undone or it does not bear fruits and you accept it without regret or pain, it is desireless action.


I would like to go into this question in depth. Desireless action is sannyas if the sannyasin has a sense of involvement and responsibility even in inaction, when he is not doing a thing.


It will be a little difficult to understand: a sense of involvement in inaction, when one is not doing a thing. For example, there is a sannyasin who does nothing to earn his living. So he comes to your house for alms and you share with him your food, which you have stolen from somewhere. If he is a true sannyasin he will say that he is party to theft; he is a thief too. If he is a pseudo sannyasin, he will say that he has nothing to do with the theft of the food, he is not concerned with what you do or don't do. But an honest sannyasin will admit that although he did not steal food directly yet he is responsible for your action of theft.


But suppose he does not even beg, he does nothing -- what is his position in regard to action? I think if there is a true sannyasin on this earth and if a war is going on in Vietnam -- as it is in fact happen ing, where people are being mercilessly slaughtered -- he will share the responsibility for the Vietnam War. Although he is thousands of miles away, he actually has nothing to do with what is going on in Vietnam, still he will take the responsibility on himself.


A sannyasin, a true sannyasin is aware that wherever there is consciousness embodied on this wide earth, he is inextricably linked with it. It cannot be without him, he is present everywhere. And there fore he is responsible for everything -- good or evil -- that happens anywhere.


For example, I am now in this village as a visitor, and a Hindu-Muslim riot breaks out here. I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim; I am a sannyasin. So where do I stand in relation to the riot? If I am really a sannyasin I will say, and say truly that, "I am responsible for it; I must have done something to engender it. Maybe I have done nothing to cause it. I am only a silent spectator, yet I cannot run away from the responsibility."


A sannyasin is one who, not doing a thing, knows that he is party to whatever is happening around the earth just because he is a part of the universal life. He has to be utterly responsible for all that mankind does or does not do. He is also aware that whatever he does or does not do -- even his inaction -- is going to be of great consequence.


If Hindus and Muslims were fighting some where and I silently escaped from the scene of the riot, I cannot say that I had nothing to do with it. I could have done something to avert the riot, but I did not. My abstention from action in this case was action enough, and I should hold myself responsible for not averting the bloodshed.


What is generally taken to be sannyas is not real sannyas, it is simple aversion. The sannyas of Krishna's concept is a much different and more difficult affair. Krishna's sannyas is exactly the state of a non-attached person. He lives with this awareness, that he is fully responsible for his inaction -- which is action through inaction -- just because he exists as a part of cosmic consciousness. He knows that ultimately all consciousness is united and one.


You have seen waves in the ocean; they seem to be constantly moving towards the shore. But you will be surprised to know they never move to the shore; they are virtually stationary. You will say it is unbelievable; you have seen with your own eyes how they travel a mile-long distance to come to the shores. You might have even played with waves that come rolling over the ocean.


But those who know the ocean will say that no wave moves; it only appears to be moving. The fact is that one wave gives rise to another and another and the process goes on ad infinitum. It is not that a wave rising at a mile's distance from the shore moves toward the shore, really it dies as soon as it rises, but it gives rise to another wave which in its turn gives rise to another. What really happens is that when a wave rises it depresses the water on either side, which causes another wave to rise. Thus one wave causes thousands of waves to rise. They don't move even a millimeter, but they appear to be moving because they are so contiguous and continuous.


Now suppose a child is drowned in a wave near the seashore, can you hold a distant wave responsible for his drowning? It will deny responsibility on the grounds that it never moved to the shore; there was a mile's distance between the wave and the drowned child. But Krishna thinks that if the distant wave is a sannyasin, it will own the responsibility for the child's death, because it is an integral part of the ocean. Whether the distant wave visited the shore or not, it is as much responsible as the wave that drowned the child. The ocean is one and indivisible.


A right kind of sannyasin takes responsibility for everything that happens anywhere in this wide world, even though he has no direct hand in any of it. This is a very difficult role to play. Not to be a doer when one is doing something is not that difficult, although this and the other thing are two sides of the same coin. We have lost sight of this side of sannyas, which has as much involvement in inaction. To do without being a doer, and to be a doer when one is not doing a thing are two sides of the coin of sannyas.


But unfortunately we have a very limited concept of sannyas: to us a sannyasin is one who leaves the world and shuts himself up in a mountain cave or a monastery and ceases to have any relation with the world. Such a sannyasin says now he is not at all responsible for what happens in the world. But this is a very sectarian and mistaken view of sannyas. This world is like waves rising on the surface of the ocean where no wave can say that it is not responsible for what happens to the rest of the waves.


Life is very complex, it is vast and deep. It is like an ocean of consciousness which is constantly creating waves. If I say a word here and now, do you think it will die soon after it is uttered? No, I may not be here tomorrow, but this single word uttered by me will continue to affect the world till the end of time. And if I don't say a word, if I remain silent, then my silence too will continue to affect the world endlessly. Who will be responsible for it when I am gone?


Perhaps the wave that gave rise to the wave which drowned the child in the ocean is no more in existence, and we will not hold it responsible for the child's death. But Krishna will definitely hold that wave responsible; he will never let it go blameless. Krishna will say that both our being and non-being have a hand in creating this great web of life on earth, and in no way can we escape involvement and responsibility. In fact, every wave is a member of every other wave and is responsible for every other wave.


So know well that a true sannyasin is one who is as much responsible for his non-doing as one who is responsible for his doing. Even in his inaction he is aware that he is doing. And he is not at all a sannyasin who says he is not responsible for what others do.


There are hundreds of thousands of sannyasins in India, never has there been any dearth of sadhus and sannyasins2 monks and mendicants in this country. And this country has suffered political slavery for hundreds of years. Now these renunciates from the world can say, "We have nothing to do with the politics and political slavery of India; we own no responsibility for her social and political degradation." Their argument seems to be plausible, but it is erroneous.


And I say this attitude of theirs definitely had a hand in India's downfall and long political slavery. They cannot run away from this responsibility. At least an authentic sannyasin will never run away from responsibility. He is not only responsible for himself, but also for all others. He shares in the vices and virtues of the meanest of us all. because we are not separate, we are not islands, we are one indivisible continent where everybody is a member of everybody else.


So one can remain a doer even when one does not do a thing. And it is very significant.


If I can remain a doer in non-doing. I will attain to non-attachment Now there is no difference between my action and that of others; I cannot escape responsibility. If I abstain from stealing, it will not make a difference, because theft will continue in the rest of the world. And even if I steal it is not going to make a difference. If I am responsible for everything that happens anywhere in this wide world, if all vice and virtue, hate and love, war and peace, are mine, then there is no sense in owning this and disowning that.


If all hands are mine, then what difference does it make if I disown the two hands that hang on the sides of my body? If all eyes are mine, then it makes no difference if I am personally blinded. And if all homes are my homes, then there is no sense in my running away from the one that is called mine.


Sannyas affirms that every one is inseparably involved in this vast world of action and we cannot run away from it. Therefore it is good to know, and know on our own, that we do even when we don't do anything, we are responsible even for our inaction.


The other side of the coin, according to Krishna, is to know I am not doing even when I am doing something Ordinarily this side seems simple, but knowing the side of our total involvement in the whole pattern of action, you cannot say it is that simple. It is really difficult. Someone says glibly that he can do things as if he is acting, but it is easier said than done. The truth is that even professional actors often forget they are actors; they become doers. They become so involved in acting that they think they are the very roles they are expected to play. They become so conditioned by long acting that they forget altogether their reality, they begin to identify themselves with their roles. They become what they are long accustomed to act.


This identification of an actor with his role, which is a kind of delusion, needs to be understood carefully. When even an actor is deluded into believing that he is the person whose part he is playing, how can the very person whose role is being played by the actor believe that he is acting a role. When someone playing the role of Rama in Ramaleela -- Rama's play -- sheds real tears when his wife Sita is stolen, it is difficult to think that the real Rama would not shed real tears. When even spectators in a drama begin to weep, it is quite possible the actor cries really. For the time being he forgets that he is only playing Rama's role. So when actors become victims of deluded identification it is really difficult for us in real life to conduct ourselves as if we are actors on the stage.


To take life as playacting is arduous, but not impossible. If we carefully watch the way we live, if we closely observe our daily life, it will not take long to know that we are really acting. You are passing on the street and someone asks, "How are you?" and you promptly say, "I am fine," and you never think what you are saying. Next time when it happens and you say, "I am fine," pause for a moment and think carefully if you are really fine. And you will know that what you said was nothing more than acting, it was not your reality. Someone meets you in a club and you say to him, "Good morning, I am so happy to see you." Stop then and there and look back to see if you were really happy to see him. If you carefully watch your day-to-day life you will soon come to know that it is all acting.


Whenever you do something and think yourself to be a doer -- and such moments are many -- reflect inside if what you have done is real. You say to your loved one, "I love you with all my being; I cannot live without you." Look back and examine yourself: "Is it true that I cannot live without my lover?" How many people have really died for the sake of love? And you will know clearly how you act in your day-to-day life. Watch every step of your life, every single thing that you do, every word that you say, and you will realize that it is different from playacting.
I love to tell the stories of Mulla Nasruddin.


He falls in love with a king's wife. He spends a night with her and at the break of dawn he is preparing to take leave of his beloved. With great feeling he says to her, "You are the most beautiful and loving woman I have ever met; I cannot live without you." Hearing this the queen begins to shed tears of happiness. Nasruddin then turns back and says, "But I have said the same thing to many women in the past. I say I cannot live without them and I go on living. And I am going to live so that I have occasions in life to say it to other women too. And I have also spoken the same cliche to many women; 'You are the most beautiful woman on this earth."'


This shocks the queen; she is now grievously hurt and angry. Then the Mulla says, "I was just playing a joke; really I cannot live without you." And the queen is pleased once again.


This man Nasruddin knows that life is a play and nothing more, and he can go through life as an actor, treating the world as a play. But it is not that easy for his beloved to know; she has taken it very seriously.


It is not that you will miss anything if you take life as a play. The truth is that it will add to the quality of your life; it will make for its richness and excellence. Therefore Krishna says, "Yoga brings excellence to your action." In fact, when life becomes a play, all its pinpricks and hurts go, all its thorns disappear and we are left with its flowers in our hands. If life is a play, why should anyone burn himself in the hellfire of hate and anger? Then only a madman will enact anger and hate in his life; all sensible people will enact only affection and love. If you have to dream, why dream that you are a beggar? Then everyone will dream they are kings.


If I explore my doings with attention I will find that I am playing roles all along the road of life. I am acting the role of a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, a wife and a husband, a friend and a foe. You really need to observe and examine all your actions minutely and see if they are different from acting. And you will soon laugh at yourself. Maybe you are crying and watching your tears, and soon you begin to laugh inside. Maybe you are one thing on the outside and quite its opposite within. And by and by your life will turn into a play.


A Zen monk was dying. He called a few of his friends and said, "Countless people have died; I am going to die too. But I want to die in some novel manner. It is time we should change the ways of dying. Enough is enough. Please help me."
His friends laughed saying, "What are you talking about? Is dying a joke?"


The monk queried, "Have you heard that anyone died walking? That he kept walking and died?" His friends shook their heads. But an old man among them said, "I have read in some story book about a monk who has died walking. And the dying monk had observed before his death that only a saint could die in this manner."


The dying monk said, "Then it is not a novel way; someone has already used it. Can you say if someone died standing?" One of his friends said that he had heard about such a case. Then the monk said, "One dies the way one lives. It is possible someone died standing. But have you heard if someone died in the headstand posture of yoga?" His friends said laughing, "We have neither heard nor can we think that someone can die standing on his head. It is impossible."
The monk leaped at the suggestion, stood in the headstand posture and died.


Dying in this way he created a problem for the whole monastery. How to take down his dead body was the problem. People were also scared by the very sight of such a death. It was really an unheard of way, a dangerous way of dying. They were not even sure that he was really dead. They examined him in every way and found that his breathing, his pulse, his heartbeat, had stopped. Yet they could not decide how to handle his corpse. Never before had they faced such a situation, nor heard of it. This monk was known for his unconventional ways, he had been a troublemaker all his life, and the way he chose to die created the greatest trouble ever.


So they conferred among themselves at length. Not even the intimate friends of the dead monk had a workable suggestion to offer. Then the oldest among them, the one who had read about someone dying while walking, said that the elder sister of the dead monk -- who was a nun -- lived in a neighboring monastery. She could be of some help to them, because she knows her brother well and whenever he made any trouble in the past she was called to discipline him.


His sister was a ninety-year-old woman living in a nearby village. When she came, she tapped her brother's dead body with her staff saying, "Can't you give up being naughty even when you are going to die? Is this the way to die? Die properly!"


Immediately the monk stood on his legs and said to his sister, "Please don't be angry; now I will die properly. It does not make any difference to me." And he lay on the ground and died.


His sister picked up her staff and left for her monastery. She did not even look back on her dead brother or his friends.


This man, who can die playfully, knows that life is a play. He can live playfully and die playfully. And he also knows what action without a motive, without being attached to its fruits is. When one turns his work into play, his whole life becomes a play. Then he can take everything, including death, as a play. But it is possible only when you know the real actor within you. You don't have to act; you are al, ready acting, and you have only to know the truth of it.


Krishna does not tell you to become an actor, or to practice acting. If you practice you will remain a doer, and you will become serious about every role. Krishna says you have only to know the reality of your life. As far as he is concerned, he knows for himself that it is nothing different from acting. And once you know it for yourself you will cease to be a doer in life. Then your life will turn into a play, and that is what sannyas is.


Krishna speaks of two kinds of action: one is action without attachment, and another is inaction with a sense of involvement in action. These are the two ways of sannyas and action, and it depends on you which way you choose for yourself. Someone can choose doing and yet remain a non-doer, and another can opt for non-doing and yet remain a doer.


These are really two types of people in the world, and you have to know your own type. As I see it, a male mind will choose doing and yet remain a non-doer, and a female mind will choose non-doing and yet remain a doer. There is a basic difference between the two minds -- male and female minds. While the male mind is active, the feminine is passive. If a woman has to do something she will do it as if she is not doing. And to the contrary a man, even when he is inactive, seems to be active and aggressive.


These are two broad divisions of the mind -- the male mind and the female mind. I call them broad divisions because not all men are aggressive nor are all women passive. There are men with feminine minds and women with male minds. Even if a woman wants to do a thing, she does it as if she is doing nothing. If she loves a man she does not express her love to him directly. She hides it in every way, she turns her love into a non-doing. A man on the other hand, will show off his love even if he is not really loving to a woman.


Remember, I am not talking about man and woman; I am talking about the male mind and the female mind. You will come across a few men who love passively, and similarly a few women who love aggressively. Krishna's division approximates this division of masculine and feminine mind.


As far as sannyas is concerned it is one and indivisible, but you can approach it in two ways. A person with a feminine mind, one who can surrender and wait, will approach sannyas by way of inaction. Non-doing will be his pattern, his way, but he will know that non-doing is his doing; he remains a doer even in his non-doing.


For example, when a woman comes to love a man she does not take the initiative. For this reason some men feel deceived, being unaware of the ways of feminine love. But the woman knows that she has set the ball of love rolling in her own way. Waiting is the way of her initiative; she waits. Feminine love is not articulate, while masculine love is. That is why a woman is hurt if the man she loves does not respond to her silent love in an articulate manner. If a man begins to love a woman without expressing his love in words, the woman will never come to like him. The woman will never really know that he loves her unless he expresses his love in an aggressive manner.


This is the dialectics of male and female love. While the woman on her part remains passive, wait, ing and expectant, she wants her lover to be aggressive and articulate in his love. Unless a man is assertive and aggressive in his love, the woman won't believe he truly loves her. That is why a quiet and peaceful man, rich in goodness but lacking in aggressiveness, fails to satisfy a woman. But a woman feels at home with even a mean man if his love is aggressive and articulate. On the other hand, a man is averse to a woman who is assertive and aggressive.


Krishna has made this division of action and inaction in accord with the two types of human mind -- the male mind and the female mind. The male mind will choose action without being a doer, and the female mind will adopt inaction and yet re, main a doer. Those are two sides of the same coin.
<p class="question">QUESTIONER; THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ACTION WITHOUT ATTACHMENT AND WHAT YOU CALL THE INACTION OF SANNYAS: IT KILLS INCENTIVE TO WORK. IT IS LIKE OUR PUBLIC SECTOR IN INDUSTRIES; WHILE THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM FOR INCENTIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THERE IS VERY LITTLE IN THE PUBLIC ONE. PLEASE EXPLAIN.</p>


It is possible, if people don't choose rightly between action and inaction, don't choose according to their types.


As I said, there are two types of minds -- male and female. If a person of feminine mind -- who can be a doer without doing -- becomes a sannyasin, he will turn sannyas into inaction. Action without being a doer is not his way. But if a male mind takes sannyas, then action will be his way, and he will know in his depth that he is not a doer, action just happens. If such a mind chooses inaction he will lose incentive and will become dull and lethargic. The problem always arises because of the wrong choice.


Therefore it is very important that everyone should know his type rightly. If someone's choice of action or inaction does not accord with his basic type, he will certainly have difficulties; his life will become dull and lackluster. Only if you don't commit the mistake of choosing the wrong thing for yourself, only if you choose rightly will your action gain vigor and vitality. It will be expansive and rich. There is only one thing that undermines the action of a male mind, and it is the idea of being a doer. If the doer disappears, leaving action free and on its own, then there is no end to its dynamism; you cannot even imagine how explosive it can become. The action of one who has ceased to be a doer gathers its full momentum; it becomes total. The great amount of energy that was spent in being a doer will now be exclusively available to action, making it dynamic and total.


Similarly if a person with a feminine mind, who is not meant for action as we know it, fully accepts his or her inaction, then this inaction will generate in its own way such immense action that you cannot even imagine. Because then his or her whole energy will be together and total. And this summation of energy is explosive. But the ways of a feminine mind will be totally different from those of the masculine mind.


But most of us err on this score; we often choose the opposite. And it is not without its reasons.


In all our life the opposite attracts; man attracts woman and woman attracts man. Always the opposite is attractive. Life is a play of attraction of the opposites; yin attracts yang and vice-versa. This is the way of nature, of biology. Even spiritualism is not unaffected by this rule, although it is a different journey altogether. Spiritualism is a pilgrimage to self-nature, to being oneself. You don't have to seek through spiritualism that which attracts you, that which is your opposite. On the contrary, you seek that which you are; you seek your own pristine nature, your original face.
But ordinarily your life is a search for the opposites.


I have heard... It happened once that the inhabitants of a small island in the sea became lazy and lethargic and ceased all activity. All farms and cottage industries became idle. Men and women ate whatever came to their hands and idled away their time doing nothing. The sage, the spiritual head of the island became worried; people even stopped going to him. He went about shouting that they had become idlers, but no one was prepared to listen to him. Even listening to his wise advice was heavy on them. Slowly life on the island began to shrink and wither away; it came to a standstill, which made the sage really anxious. But he could not figure out any way to help his people.


Ultimately the sage went to a very old man of the island and consulted him about the problem. The old man said, "Now there is only one way to resolve the issue: we have to segregate our women from their men. We should send all our women to a neighboring island, leaving all the men here."
The sage asked, "What will it do?"


The old man answered, "Soon the menfolk will be busy building boats and the women will begin preparations to receive their men. It is now imperative to separate them, to separate the opposites; otherwise they will never return to active life."

And the magic worked.


In youth everyone is so active, and as he grows old all activity begins to ebb. Why? Just for the reason that the youth is packed with feminine and masculine energy, so young men and women become busy building boats and preparing for adventures. With the advent of old age, the fire of life dims considerably. By this time men and women come to know all about each other, and so the pull of the opposites withers away. Too much familiarity breeds indifference.


As it is the natural law of life that the opposite attracts, so it is the natural law of spiritualism that self-nature attracts, not the opposite. Here the similar, the same attracts. Because of this, we find ourselves in trouble when we apply the ordinary law of the world to spiritual discipline. For this very reason, countries where spiritualism grows become lazy and inactive. India is the living example. We wrongly applied the law of matter in choosing our spiritual discipline. People with male minds took paths meant for feminine minds, and those with feminine minds took the opposite paths. The one who was meant to be a Meera turned into a Mahavira and another meant to be a Mahavira turned into a Meera. Naturally we made a mess of everything. It was bound to be so.


Therefore, I envision a scientific discipline for the spiritualism of the future whose basic law will clearly say: no law of biology applies to spiritualism. In biology the opposite attracts; in spiritualism self-nature is the magnet. Spiritualism is not comprised of the attraction of opposites; it is actually one's immersion in self-nature. In the spiritual journey I don't have to reach the other; I have to reach myself.
But our lifelong habits come in the way.


I have heard... When electricity became available, Sigmund Freud had his house electrified. Soon after this he had a visitor from the countryside who had never seen electricity; he was only familiar with lanterns and lamps as instruments of light.


After the night's supper, Freud put his guest in one of the bedrooms and took leave of him for the night. But his guest was immediately faced with a serious problem -- it was a problem caused by electricity.


Since the light in the room was so bright, the man could not sleep. How to extinguish the light was the problem. Because the bulb hung high from the ceiling of the room, he fetched a ladder from somewhere, climbed it and began to try to blow out the light. But he failed, and failed miserably. How can one extinguish an electric light with the breath? He was in a quandary. He looked all around the room, he examined the bulb from every side again and again to find a hole through which he could blow it out. But nothing helped. He felt embarrassed to go to Freud and tell him he did not know how to extinguish the light in his room.


And thus he kept turning and tossing in his bed till his host came to say good morning to him. When Freud asked him why he did not put out the light he said, "Now that you have asked I should tell you of my struggle with your lighting device. I could not get a wink of sleep the whole night as the lamp stubbornly refused to be blown out."
Freud pushed a button saying, "You are a fool; it is so easy."


Now this man had no idea of light controlled by a distant switch. And we cannot blame him for that.


All our life's experience can be summed up in two words; attraction of the opposites. So even when we enter the world of spiritualism -- which is a different dimension altogether -- we carry our old ways with us. We try to blow out the electric light with our breath, and we never think of the switch. This error is centuries old and enduring. For this reason all spiritually advanced communities have become lethargic. Contrarily, sex-oriented communities are active and aggressive, and they are on the march to progress and prosperity. Every dynamic civilization in the world happens to be sex-oriented, and every passive and peaceful civilization is spiritual.


It has been so up to now, but it is not necessary that it should always be the case.


It is true that sex energy is the basic drive to action and dynamism. Wherever sex is freed from its fetters there will be an explosion of action and activity. If we look at nature we will find all activity arises from sex. If flowers bloom in the spring and birds build nests and the air is filled with scent and song, know that sex is behind all these lively activities. The bird is building a nest only to lay its eggs, The cuckoo is calling not to please you, but to invite and entice its sex partner. These are all biological activities.


Man too, is familiar only with biological activity. For this reason buildings in permissive societies, where sex is free, begin to touch the skies; they are nothing but extensions of the birds' nests. Permissive societies are humming with song, music and orchestra they are full of colors and gay costumes. The same calls of the cuckoo and the dance of the peacocks! There is not much difference between the two.


Against this, countries that turn their backs on biological activities and take a different road, and yet by force of habit continue to follow the rule of opposites, become inert and sad and dull. Their houses turn into huts, their songs die and their colors fade out. Their whole life becomes flat and drab, poor and miserable.


As I see, both biology and spiritualism have their own laws. And a right kind of culture, a complete culture can come into being only if both biology and spiritualism are allowed to grow in their own ways. A right kind of culture will not suppress sex. It will accord it its due place in life; it will accept and enjoy sex without inhibition and guilt, it will celebrate sex. Such a culture will be expansive and it will generate immense activity. In the same way spiritualism, if allowed to grow on the basis of its natural laws -- if seekers choose their disciplines rightly, in accord with their types -- will lead to explosive action in the field of religion.


Krishna is in full accord with his own type; he does not deviate from his self-nature. So is Buddha. And Mahavira too. For this reason Krishna's life is crammed with action of a particular style. Not that Buddha lacks in action; his life is filled with a different kind of action. Mahavira keeps moving from one village to another for a full forty years. It is true that he does not take part in war, but he engages himself in a higher kind of war waged on a different level. Buddha does not play a flute, but his discourses resound with a note that is higher than that of the flute. It does not make a difference because Buddha is fully established in his own self-nature. He has found his authentic being at its highest. Krishna has discovered his own sublime reality, his truth, and he is complete and contented.


So far as men like Krishna, Buddha and Mahavira are concerned, they have found their true types, their authentic self-nature. But their followers often err in discovering their own authentic types: they become confused. To find one's intrinsic nature is of the highest in spiritualism. And I repeat Krishna's words: "It is better to perish in one's self-nature than to accept another's, which is perilous."
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: HOW CAN ONE KNOW HIS OWN DISTINCTIVE TYPE?</p>


It is not that difficult to know one's type. One way is to remember this simple maxim: that which attracts you is not your type; it is the opposite of your own nature, because the opposite attracts. So beware of the opposite, reflect for a while on it and know that it is not your cup of tea. It seems paradoxical, and difficult too, to understand that what repels you is your type. How does a man know he is a man? Another man does not attract him, while a woman does. How does a woman know she is a woman? She wants to be with a man, not a woman. A woman repels another woman; it is difficult to keep two women together. So take it for a rule: you are not what attracts you; you are its opposite. You are really that which repels you.


It is really arduous to figure out this paradox, but life is paradoxical. It is difficult to believe that what you detest and condemn, what you want to avoid, to keep at arm's length, is invariably your own thing. It is within you. If someone is always in opposition to sex, then know that his unconscious is reeking with sex and sexuality. It is really complex. But if you care to understand it deeply, it is not that difficult. If someone condemns money, his very condemnation says that he craves money with his whole being. Similarly he is a worldly man who is trying to run away from the world. I mean to say that it is always your opposite that seems inviting to you. So beware of it and know that it is not your type.
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: WHAT IF I AM ATTRACTED NOW BY ONE THING AND THEN BY ANOTHER?</p>


Then know that you are confused, nothing more.
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: IF TWO MEN SHARE A COMMON ADDICTION THEY BECOME FRIENDS.</p>


You say if two men are addicted to the same thing they become friends. In this context a few things have to be understood.


It is possible two persons of the same type become friends if they share a common addiction, but such a friendship is not real, it is propped up by addiction. Remove the prop of addiction and the friendship will go down the drain. Two alcoholics become friends because they drink together, attend a common club, play common games. But it is alcohol that unites them. Remove the bottle and they will turn their backs on each other.


True friendship is always without a cause. Love is causeless. If there is a cause, it is just association, not friendship. And there is a great difference between association and friendship.


If two persons are traveling by a common route, they can come together and become friendly to each other -- but it is not friendship. Reaching their destination they will part company. Friendship based on a common addiction is like friendship between fellow travelers. It is friendship in name only.


The truth is that friendship always happens between persons of opposite orientations. The opposite attracts, is the rule. The more opposite two per sons are, the deeper their friendship. In fact, opposites are not really opposites, they are complementary to each other. Because of it you will rarely find two equally intelligent persons making friends; if they do they will only quarrel and wrangle over every conceivable issue. An intelligent person will find a stupid partner to join him in friendship, so they complement each other.


Two powerful persons will not make friends; not even two persons having the same skills. You will rarely come across two poets or two painters as intimate friends. If two poets become friends, the cause of friendship will be something other than poetry. Maybe they drink together or gamble together, but then it is association and not friendship.


Psychologists believe if there is intimate friendship between two men, deep down it is a homosexual relationship. Similarly they think any such intimacy between two women to be homosexual. You will find it difficult to agree with the psychologists, but there is some element of truth in what they say. It has been observed that more or less everyone misses the intimate friendship of his early years for the test of his life, because there is a phase of homosexual relationship in everyone's life in his adolescence. Before they get interested in the opposite sex boys get interested in boys and girls in girls. In fact, before they attain sexual maturity there is not much difference between a boy and a girl as far as sex is concerned. So boys become interested in boys and girls in girls. For this reason friendships struck in the early years are so enduring.


After they attain sexual maturity, boys and girls who are psychologically natural and normal begin to take interest in the opposite sex. Then they become what psychologists call heterosexual. Old relationships are forgotten and new intimacies with the opposite sex begin to build up. Of course, about twenty to thirty percent of young men and women remain fixed at their adolescence, which means their psychological age is stuck at fourteen years. It means they are not growing psychologically; they are stunted and sick and need psychotherapy.


If a young woman of twenty-five continues to be interested in members of her own sex, if she refuses to take interest in some young men, there is certainly something wrong with her psyche and she needs treatment. It does not mean that now they will not enter into friendship with any members of their own sex; they will -- but it will be a kind of association, it can. not be real friendship. Two men or women will be friends if they ate members of the same club -- say the Rotary Club, or if they subscribe to the same political ideology -- say communism, or they are disciples of the same guru. But these relationships can never have the depth and intimacy of the early years.


The opposite has great attraction. Look at it from some different angles. Often lovers of good clothes are attracted by a naked fakir; lovers of delicious dishes become disciples of a master who is known for fasting. It is ironic that the followers of a renunciate saint comprise those who are known for their indulgence. It is deserving of serious consideration that while Mahavira, the founder of Jainism remained naked, most of the Jainas chose to sell clothes -- and they have been selling clothes down the centuries. Fot sure, people who loved good clothes were attracted by the nude Mahavira and they became his followers. It is surprising but true that Mahavira renounced a kingdom and became a beggar, and the Jainas are the richest community in India.


This is not accidental; there is a sound reason behind it. When Mahavira renounced his kingdom and wealth -- he really gave away every bit of his pos sessions to the poor before he left for the forest -- it was the wealthy class, chasing wealth that was most impressed by Mahavira's sacrifice. While they clung to every penny like leeches, there was Mahavira who threw away a whole kingdom. He became God in their eyes. Mahavira attracted them because of their attachment to wealth.


A renunciate would not be influenced by Mahavira. He would say, "There is nothing great in parting with trash; wealth is trash." But those who took trash for diamonds bowed down to Mahavira and worshipped him. Even one who cannot give up a thing cherishes a desire to give up, renunciation becomes his ideal, his dream. He knows in his heart of hearts that clinging is painful and he dreams of the day when he will be capable of renunciation. So a renunciate becomes his polestar; he worships him as his God. This is how renunciates are surrounded by those who are steeped in indulgence.


The opposite works like a magnet, it is magnetic. And it works on its own as every scientific law does. If we understand this law rightly we can divide the whole world into different magnetic fields of consciousness, as the physicists do in regard to matter and energy. Then we will know how consciousness is attracted, drawn and formed and then it disappears. Very strange things happen in the world of consciousness which are not apparent.


So whenever you are attracted to someone, know well that he is not your type -- he is your opposite, your complementary. He can never help you in your spiritual journey. He can however be helpful in your worldly life, and he can also help you in a way to know your type.


Remember, spiritualism is a search of the self, of self-nature. You have to know who you are. And once you know who you are, you will attain to inaction without quitting action. You will attain to truth without leaving the world. The world will remain as it is, but you will undergo a mutation. Everything will remain the same, but you will not remain the same, you will be transformed. And the day you are transformed, everything is transformed for you because what you see is your world. Your perception creates your world.
<p class="question">QUESTIONER: KRISHNA SAYS TO ARJUNA, "IF YOU FIGHT, TREATING EQUALLY VICTORY AND DEFEAT, GAIN AND LOSS, PLEASURE AND PAIN, NO SIN WILL ATTACH TO YOU, AND YOU WILL GO TO HEAVEN." DOES IT MEAN THAT IF ONE FIGHTS WITHOUT ATTACHMENT THEN VIOLENCE CEASES TO BE VIOLENCE?</p>


A few things need to be understood in the context of this question.


The first thing Krishna says is that violence; is a lie which does not exist; violence is an illusion, it is not real. Nobody can be killed really. Krishna says, "Na hanyate hanyamane sharire: nobody is killed when his body is killed." And so far as the body is concerned, it is already dead; so it is wrong to say that the body dies.


In the first place Krishna says that violence is impossible, it is a misnomer. But it does not mean that one should freely indulge in violence. While violence itself is not real, violent mind is real. It is true, you can desire to kill someone, although he cannot be killed. This is a different thing -- that one cannot be killed -- but if you desire to kill him then this desire is real, and this desire is sinful. Violence is not a sin, but the will to violence, a violent mind is certainly a sin. If you want to kill someone, it is enough of a sin. It is a different thing that you cannot kill, but your desire to kill is in itself sinful.


In the same way it is a virtue if you desire to save someone. Whether he will be saved or not is a different matter, but the fact that you want to save him is enough unto itself; this desire is virtuous. For example, someone is dying, he is a terminal case, and you are trying to save him. He is going to die tomorrow, but you have already earned merit by trying to save him.


The desire to hurt others is sinful, and the desire to help others is virtuous.


But Krishna soars still higher; he says one can transcend both violence and non-violence, vice and virtue, pleasure and pain, and then there is nothing -- neither violence nor non-violence, neither vice nor virtue. They all are illusory.


If one goes beyond the dialectics of violence and non-violence, pain and pleasure, if he knows for himself they are illusory, then in the very knowing all his violent thoughts and feelings will drop, he will be free of them. When you realize that no one is killed, then why will you think of killing? When you know that no one is saved, you will not be bothered with the problem. And if, in the light of truth, you know your mind with all its urges and emotions, you will attain to heaven. Then it is not a question of going to heaven in some future time, you are already in heaven.


When one attains to a state where pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat are all alike, when one transcends all dualities and divisions, when one realizes the integrity and oneness of life then he is in heaven. Because this state of equanimity and evenness itself is heaven.


According to Krishna, this samatvabuddhi, this balance and steadiness, equanimity and evenness of intelligence is called yoga.


Krishna says there are two kinds of illusions. One is that you think that someone can be killed, and the other that you can kill him. Similarly it is an illusion to think that someone can be saved and that you can save him. When you are released from the first illusion that someone can be killed or saved, then the second illusion that you sin by killing and earn merit by saving will drop by itself.


The idea of vice and virtue is part of the same ignorance which makes you believe that life and death is a reality. If life and death is an illusion, then what is, is. Then vice and virtue are equally illusory. And to know what is illusory, to know the false as false, is knowledge. It is wisdom. And one established in wisdom does not do a thing on his part, he allows everything within and without to happen on its own. It is a state of total acceptance.


Krishna says this much to Arjuna: "See and accept that which is, and don't interfere with the ways of existence. Don't swim upstream in the river of life; just float with it. If you do so you are in heaven."
			

> [!info]
> Copyright 1964-1990 Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)
>