---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Sword and the Lotus"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "SWORD"
dategiven: "05 February 1986 pm"
place: " in"
chapternum: "Chapter #16"
chaptertitle: "Life is a school"
acode: "8602055"
shorttitle: "SWORD16"
audio: "Yes"
video: "Yes"
esttime: "124mins"
displaytitle: "The Sword and the Lotus: Chapter #16"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">BELOVED MASTER,
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS READY TO PREACH -- NO MATTER TO WHOM, NO MATTER ABOUT WHAT, AND NO MATTER WHETHER ANYBODY RECEIVES IT OR NOT?</p>


Man is very much afraid of being ignorant. The reality is that he is ignorant. Now there are only two ways to get out of it. One is to seek and search the truth about his own being, which is a long path, arduous, needs guts. Very few travel on that path.


The second is very easy. That is through accumulating borrowed knowledge. It gives you a false sense of knowing. You really don't know, but you have a treasure in your memory. You can recite the Vedas, the Koran, the Bible without knowing anything actually, existentially, without ever being at the very center of your being. You can talk like a parrot. This is the easiest way to forget that you are ignorant -- and it fulfills your ego, gives you the idea that you know. But this creates a trouble for others. You want to exhibit your knowledge -- without exhibiting it how are you going to convince yourself that you know about the truth? That's why everybody is ready to preach. Very few are ready to seek. Very few are ready to question.


Everybody is ready to answer, because answers are cheap. They are available in books, millions of books. A man's brain has the capacity to contain all the knowledge that is contained in all the books in existence.


You can go on gathering as much as you want. And certainly then you need to exhibit it. Any chance of preaching, of giving advice, whether you have been asked or not, whether the person is willingly listening to you or is simply bored... you go on telling people. Advice is one of the things in existence which everybody gives and nobody takes. But to exhibit your knowledge gives a deep satisfaction to your ego.


Today I received more than half a dozen questions from one Western woman. So I have dropped them. I have not chosen any of them for the simple reason that, in the name of questions, she is simply exhibiting her own knowledge. For example, she says, "You teach compassion, and still you have called a few thinkers idiots. There is a contradiction in it." Now this is not a question. She is simply showing a contradiction in me -- she understands better. The question is just an excuse.


My difficulty is that I simply call a spade a spade. Who has told you that idiots cannot think? Who has told you that idiots cannot philosophize? In fact, only idiots do that! The intelligent person lives truth. He does not think about it, because by thinking nobody has ever found it. Only idiots think about it. By thinking he shows his stupidity. I have called many so-called great thinkers idiots because they are idiots. What can I do?


For example, Aristotle is one of the great thinkers. He is thought to be the father of Western logic. But he himself is not very scientific in his approach. In his book of logic he writes that women have less teeth than men. He had two wives. Only one was enough, but he had two. So he could have asked Mrs. Aristotle 1, or Mrs. Aristotle Number 2 -- whoever was less terrible -- to open her mouth, and count the teeth before writing such a statement. That would have been a scientific approach, an intelligent approach. But because it has been believed for centuries that women have to have everything less than men, how can they have an equal number of teeth?


So in Greece it was a long tradition, but not a single man ever tried to count. Not a single woman ever tried to count to prove that this is absolutely nonsense. And when a man like Aristotle writes in his book that women have less teeth than men, what do you want me to call him? What is the purpose of having two wives if you cannot even do such a small experiment...? His approach is not experimental, it is not existential. It is not scientific. He is simply accepting a superstition which is absurd. Now I cannot say that he is a man who knows. He has not even learned the ABC of knowing.


The woman is very much troubled that I have called a few thinkers idiots. But what else is one supposed to do?


Immanuel Kant, a great German thinker, remained unmarried his whole life for the simple reason that he could not decide whether to marry or not. He researched all possible sources about marriage. One woman had even asked him; they were friendly. She waited a long time so that he would ask. Women are not supposed to take the initiative -- that looks unwomanly. But she was getting tired. And he could not ask because he was still continuing the research.


Finally, the woman asked. He said, "I was worried that one day you were going to ask, and I have not come to the conclusion. I have found reasons for marriage; I have found reasons against marriage -- and they are equal. If I find one reason more in favor or against I can be decisive. But how can I decide with such a situation? Just give me a little time."


He took three years more, and still he remained indecisive. This is not the way to get married. This is a very idiotic way. And after three years, finally, he managed one reason more in favor of marriage. It was a simple thing which should have been the first thing, not the last thing.


Finally, he thought that marrying or not marrying may have equal reasons, but marrying has one thing: it will give you experience, and not marrying will not give you any experience. But this should have been the first intelligent thing. He ran towards the house of the woman -- because it was already three years since he had seen her -- and knocked on the door. The father opened the door. Immanuel Kant said, "I am ready, because I have found one reason more."


The father said, "It is too late. She has already two children; she is married. You will have to find some other woman."


But no other woman ever asked him, and he could never gather the courage to ask because he was afraid the woman would say no, and he was not willing to hear no from anybody.


One has to take the risk. If you want to get married you have to ask, and you have to take the risk. There is the possibility somebody may say no, but there is no harm. You can ask another woman -- there are so many women. Somebody is bound to go with you however idiotic you may be. Every idiot gets a wife. Why Immanuel Kant could not get...!


Now this woman has already decided that I am in a contradiction -- that I am not compassionate, and I teach compassion. To call an idiot an idiot -- do you think it is against compassion? Should I call him a genius? Should I call a sick man healthy, a dead man alive... out of compassion?
In another question, she asked, "You are a religious man, but you call Christianity a third-rate religion. There is a contradiction." Now she is here just to find contradictions. What can I do if Christianity is a third-rate religion? As far as I am concerned, all the religions are no longer needed. All organized religions have hindered humanity from progress. But there is a difference of degrees.


For example, Buddhism to me seems to be the purest. It is a chain, but it is made of gold. I would not like anybody to be chained because the chain is made of gold. A chain, after all, is a chain. It makes no difference whether you are encaged in a golden imprisonment. But the distinction is still there -- Buddhism is the most refined religion. It has less superstitions than any other religion. It has even dropped the idea of God, seeing that it is a superstition, it is not a truth -- nobody has ever experienced it. It needs tremendous courage to have a Godless religion. And that too, twenty-five centuries ago, when Jesus was not even born. It was still five hundred years before Jesus was born.


Buddhism has no prayer. There is no God, hence there cannot be any prayer. It is one of the greatest contributions of Buddhism that it has developed meditations to their utmost purity. There is no prayer, there is only meditation.
Prayer needs a God; meditation needs no God.
Prayer needs a belief; meditation needs no belief.


Prayer is some kind of motivation, some greed... you are asking for something. That is the meaning of praying: you are begging for something. You are asking God to do something for you, as if what he is doing is not right.


For example, your wife is sick and you pray to God, "Make my wife healthy." You are trying to advise God -- who is omnipotent according to your religion, omniscient. He knows all, but you seem to think you know better. You are suggesting to him, advising him to do what is right. Perhaps he has forgotten your wife. But your religion says he is present everywhere, even by the side of your wife's bed. He is more present than you are. Sitting by the side of your wife's bed you are thinking about some actress! You are not present there.


Prayer means you are begging for something, you are trying to improve on God, you are trying to advise him. He is going wrong, you are putting him on the right way.


Buddhism has no prayer, only meditation. And meditation means a totally different dimension. Christianity has no meditation at all, except prayer. It does not lead you towards yourself, your own being. It simply projects a God in which you have just to believe. You cannot doubt it. Doubt is a sin. Now this is hindering man's progress, man's intelligence.


Christianity has nothing parallel to Buddhism. It is a third-rate religion. And for two thousand years, whatever it has done has proved it a danger to humanity, more dangerous than Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Mohammedanism is a little further ahead. But for two thousand years, Christianity has been killing millions of people in the name of love, in the name of God, burning living people in the name of religion.


Christianity has burned thousands of women -- innocent women -- declaring them witches. Nobody knows what criterion you have got to declare a woman a witch. Now there are no witches. How did Christianity manage? They forced women to accept that they were witches, that they were in the service of the devil. They tortured women -- old women, innocent women -- because the devil does not exist.


Your God is bogus, your devil is bogus. Both are nonexistential. How could they have served the devil? But the pope made a special court of investigation, and that court tortured women in every possible way. Anybody was able to report that a certain woman was in the service of the devil. That was enough for beginning the investigation -- and investigating was not just questioning.


What communists are doing in the Soviet Union is similar to what Christians have done a long time ago. They tortured... they would not allow the woman to sleep for days unless she confessed. Finally, just out of torture, it seems a relief to accept and confess that, "Yes, I am in the service of the devil." And once the woman herself said it, then it became a case against her, and the court decided that she should be burned in the middle of the city. Live women in thousands were burned by Christianity. And you want me not to call the religion a third-rate religion?


All these popes have been making crusades for two thousand years. A crusade means a religious war. Now, no war can be religious. How can destroying, killing, arson, rape, murder, be religious? And these Christian crusaders were running over, killing Jews, killing Mohammedans. It was a religious phenomenon that the more you killed the non-Christians, the more virtue you gained, the greater possibility to be in paradise after death. You are accumulating a bank account in the other world by killing people!


On the one hand you go on saying that God is love, and on the other hand your love simply proves poisonous, destructive. And these popes who represent Jesus Christ are infallible. Only idiots can say they are infallible. No intelligent man can say that. And the strangest thing is, before a person is chosen to be a pope, for example, the present pope -- he is a Polack, and Polacks are well-known idiots all over the world....


Before he is chosen to be a pope he is not infallible. Just the election by two hundred topmost cardinals, and within minutes the fallible man, through election, becomes infallible. Then whatever he says is absolute truth and whatever he does is absolute truth. And only five minutes before that he was a fallible person!


There is proof and evidence that all these popes were as fallible as any man. One pope denounced Joan of Arc who was one of the most beautiful and one of the most courageous women born anywhere on the earth.... A male chauvinist mind was so against Joan of Arc simply because she proved herself more courageous, more strong than any man. And the chauvinist mind of man feels very inferior; he cannot allow that.


So many reported that she was a witch -- all her power... otherwise, women don't have such strength. All her power and all her charisma, her influence over people was nothing but the devil behind her; otherwise an ordinary girl, a poor girl, uneducated -- how could she lead the whole country to freedom? "The devil must be behind her" -- and she was burned alive. The evidence was enough, there was no need for any investigation that these were not womanly acts that she had done. They are reserved only for men.


This courage, this charismatic personality, this influence over thousands of people, this quality of inspiration to bring people together to fight for freedom and to bring the fight to a victory -- it was enough proof that the woman was possessed and she should be burned alive. And she was burned alive. Thousands of people felt that this was absolutely ugly, because the woman had worked for the freedom of the country and this was not a reward, this was a punishment -- and she was not more than twenty years old.


After three hundred years, the sympathy for Joan of Arc became so strong that another pope declared that she was a saint. He had to declare it, because people had started worshipping her grave and they were becoming anti-pope. So the pope had finally to declare that the woman was a saint. Now, one pope declares her a witch; another declares her a saint. Certainly, at least one of them must be fallible? Most probably both are fallible -- but both cannot be right.


Now, because the pope declared that she was a saint, her bones were dragged out of the grave, worshipped. A beautiful marble memorial has been made, and now she is known as Saint Joan of Arc. And for three hundred years she remained a witch.


This is not religion. This is politics. And because I called it third-rate, the woman was offended. She is a Western woman, and must be a Christian. I can understand that she feels hurt. But if truth hurts, be a little strong; otherwise, don't listen to the truth.


If your eyes are weak and you cannot open them in the light, then keep them closed. What else can be suggested to you? Do you want that the light should be destroyed, the sun should be destroyed because your eyes are weak and they feel hurt?


All my life I have been facing hundreds of cases in the courts because somebody's religious feelings are hurt. And I have been telling the courts, "This is strange. If their feelings are hurt, it simply means that whatever I have said, they could not argue against it. They have no evidence against it, otherwise there would have been no hurt feelings. If they had any other argument... because they don't have any argument, I am not responsible for it. They should not have such a religion which is so weak, so stupid that it gets hurt. Religion should make you more understanding."


Just two days ago, one of the Mohammedan leaders, Khaddafi, called President Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler Number 2. I am in absolute agreement with Khaddafi. And when he hears my argument, I am absolutely certain he will agree with me.


My certainty comes because I say that Ronald Reagan is millions of times more powerful than Adolf Hitler. And what Adolf Hitler has done was nothing compared to what Ronald Reagan can do and for which he is continuously preparing. No man in the whole history has been so powerful as he is. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I would like Khaddafi to know that Ronald Reagan is Adolf Hitler Number 1. Adolf Hitler himself was Number 2!


Whatever the second world war has done has been undone long ago. It has not left any wound; in fact, wherever the war happened, people have built better cities than were destroyed. Now Germany is much richer than it was before the second world war. Now Japan is much stronger and much more rich than it was before the second world war.


The second world war was dangerous and harmful, but what is coming ahead is millions of times more dangerous. Ronald Reagan is a fanatic Christian who would like to have this war as quickly as possible, because right now America is in a better position. It has already made arrangements to defend itself against nuclear weapons. Because of this fact, that no nuclear weapon can enter America... they have a device which is protecting the whole of the USA. Within seven minutes any nuclear weapon will be returned. Now nobody will know where it is going to fall.


Russia is still in the process of creating a protection; it has no protection yet. That's why Russia is being very polite, nice, is ready to cut production of nuclear weapons. It is even ready by the end of the century to stop, to put a complete stoppage to nuclear weapons. But why the end of the twentieth century? Why not now? If you are really willing to be peaceful, then why go on for sixteen years still producing dangerous weapons of which you already have more than needed? Russia needs time. That's why this polite talk of reducing.


America is in an embarrassing situation, because this is the time for America: if the war happens, then Russia will be destroyed. And perhaps with Russia, the whole world will be destroyed. Only America will be saved. And Ronald Reagan is ready to risk the whole world just to save America. Russia would like to have a little time. Once its protection is ready, then it won't be so nice. It has never been so nice. It is a sudden change. To say the truth hurts.


One of the woman's questions is that I am saying to people that they are my friends, that they need not worship me; that I am not their savior, I am only their friend. Now the woman again finds a contradiction: "Why are they wearing beads with my picture as a locket?"


A Christian wearing a cross has a motivation: greed. That cross is going to save him. I am not a savior. I am not giving any motivation. Having my picture around your neck is not worshipping me -- because you are not getting anything out of it. But what is the contradiction if people love somebody and want to be associated with the person? They love the person so much, and they have a certain reverence for the person -- which is totally different from worshipping.


Worshipping has greed in it that the person is going to give you something -- you are going to get something in return. Reverence has no motivation. It is just the highest quality of love. If somebody has a loving reverence, there is no problem. I have not asked them to wear the mala. I will not ask them not to wear it. Who am I to decide for them?


This is not a religion, this is not a church. This is simply a movement of love and meditation. In this love and meditation, if reverence grows, if you feel grateful, if you feel thankful, there is no harm. Just don't have any motivation.


I can show you the path. I cannot take you to the truth. You will have to go alone. And just to keep company, if you want to keep my picture with you, I have no objection. I don't see any contradiction.


But the woman seems to be determined to see contradictions. She is knowledgeable; she has already concluded. Your question is not a question. A question should be open. You should not conclude. You can ask the question, but you have to be ready to hear the truth. It may hurt you -- that is one of the problems. People like to listen to preachers. I am not a preacher. I say things to you which may disturb you. You may feel hurt -- and for strange reasons!


I received a letter from the president of the American fascist association that I should not speak against Adolf Hitler. I have received thousands of letters: I should not speak against Krishna, I should not speak against Mahatma Gandhi... but I have never received anything like this. This was strange and very exciting. The president of the American fascist association says, "You, being a religious man, must know that Adolf Hitler was the reincarnation of the Old Testament prophet Elijah. So our religious feelings are hurt when you speak against him." Now, even to speak against Adolf Hitler is difficult! Religious feelings are hurt!


This world seems to be strange, full of mad people. Adolf Hitler is the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah...! You cannot prevent them, because there is no guarantee or evidence. What is the proof? Except his own word, there is no proof. Any madman can declare himself anything he likes.


Krishna declares himself to be the perfect incarnation of God. And all that he does is to persuade Arjuna to go into a great war that has broken the backbone of this country, and we have not again been able to stand up for five thousand years. This man is responsible for two thousand years of slavery in this country, for the poverty of this country, for the backwardness of this country; otherwise, this country was at the highest peak of its glory. But the war was so destructive that it simply damaged the whole genius, the whole intelligence of the land.


And what was he saying to Arjuna? He was saying, "It is God's will that you should fight." If I had been in Arjuna's place I would have said, "Let me listen to God's will. It is strange that he should speak through you. Why can't he speak directly to me? Because I am going to fight, he should speak directly to me. And what I am hearing is that this war is absolutely futile. It is simply destructive to the country, to its riches, to its people, and I don't want to take part in it. That's what I am hearing. I am hearing that I should retire from this war so that there is no need for this destruction to happen."


That's what Arjuna was trying to say. But he was saying it on his own behalf and Krishna brought God in: "It is God's will."


The moment God is brought in, the believing mind surrenders.


It is a strange trick, a great cunning strategy, to tell people this is God's will. Then naturally they cannot doubt it, because doubt is sin. You have to do it. Arjuna had to fight a war which destroyed the whole country and its whole destiny and future.


All these so-called prophets, incarnations, saviors, messiahs -- they are representing God. I am not representing any God. I am simply speaking to you as a man to a man, as one human being to another human being. Worshipping me is not going to help you. What is going to help you is meditation, is your own search for truth. I cannot give you the guarantee that just believing in me is enough; that you need not do anything else -- your paradise is guaranteed...! I cannot promise anything.


It is in your hands to have your paradise right now. Why wait for death? Only fools wait. Those who are intelligent start living right now, in this moment. Don't listen to knowledgeable people. They are just parrots.


I have heard that one woman was purchasing a parrot....


She liked one parrot very much, but the owner of the shop said, "Please don't purchase that parrot, there are many others. That parrot comes from a wrong place. Sometimes he uses dirty words, he has been in wrong associations. It is better you don't take it, because you have children, you have a husband, and sometimes you may have guests. This parrot is a rascal. He looks so silent right now, so saintly, but the moment he finds an opportunity he may say something and disturb you."


But she said, "If he is so clever and so cunning, I am interested. I like the parrot and we will teach him."


She was so insistent, she took the parrot. She wanted to give a surprise to her husband, so she hid it with a curtain. And as her husband, Mulla Nasruddin, came in, she pulled off the curtain and the parrot said, "Hi, Mulla Nasruddin. Every day a new girl! Where have you found this woman?"


Now... you cannot rely on parrots! The poor woman wanted to give a surprise to Mulla Nasruddin. She herself got a surprise! The parrot had come from a prostitute's house where Mulla Nasruddin used to visit, so they were old acquaintances.


All your pundits, your rabbis, your bishops are nothing but parrots repeating words which they don't understand, which they have not experienced. Whenever somebody starts giving you advice, stop him. Just out of courtesy don't listen, because the man must be stupid. You have not asked for the advice and he is giving it to you.


It was a rule of Gautam Buddha that he would not answer a question unless the person asked three times. It was strange. Many times people asked, "Why three times?"


Buddha said, "I want to be certain that you are really interested, that you really want the answer, that you are going to listen. Unless I hear you three times, I am not going to answer."


That will always be the attitude of the wise man. He will answer you, but only when you are thirsty for it. If you are not thirsty, if your being is not a question mark, he will remain silent. I receive many questions every day. Unless I feel some question is really coming from the heart, that the person means it and he will miss if he does not get the answer, then only will I choose it. Otherwise I go on resisting.


It is not enough that you have asked, that I have to answer it. Unless I feel the intensity, a burning quest behind it, I am not going to answer, because I am not a preacher. I speak only for those who are ready to go on a pilgrimage towards the ultimate truth.
<p class="question">BELOVED MASTER,
BUDDHA TOLD HIS DISCIPLES THAT HE WOULD COME BACK TO THIS EARTH. TWENTY-FIVE CENTURIES HAVE PASSED, BUT HE HAS NOT YET COME BACK. IT SEEMS HIS DISCIPLES ARE STILL EXPECTING HIM. WILL YOU DO THE SAME THING TO US?</p>


I cannot do that. I cannot promise you anything, particularly about the future. I can do everything for you in the present, but to promise you about the future is dangerous.


Gautam Buddha has said that he will be coming after twenty-five centuries exactly. His time has already passed. He should be here by now. He is not, and he is not going to come for the simple reason that once a person becomes enlightened he cannot come back. To come back into the womb of a mother one needs desires, and to become enlightened is to become desireless. You don't have any desire, and without the seeds of desire you cannot be reborn.


If Buddha was really enlightened he could not come back. If he were to come back, then he was not enlightened. The unenlightened person goes on coming back. Here he dies, and immediately he enters into another womb.


Krishna has promised that he will come whenever there is a need, whenever religion declines, whenever people are evil and good has lost its value: "Whenever darkness starts winning over light, I will come again and again." But when he himself was alive, he did not help in any way to make the world more religious, more virtuous, better, more human... no. And since then humanity has been going downwards every day. What more does he want? It is time enough.


If he was enlightened he cannot come back. If he was not enlightened, he must have come back again and again. He can just remember. And if he was enlightened -- which is suspicious... Now if it hurts you I cannot help it! An enlightened person will not lead people to war. His whole effort will be peace. His whole effort will be transforming people, rather than creating a situation or helping to make a situation in which people are destroyed. His promise stands there, and it will always stand empty, unfulfilled. Jesus has also promised that he will be coming back. This seems to be some old trick to befool people, to deceive people.


Whatever you can do, do it right now. Why should you talk about the future? You will not be available again, so people cannot inquire, "What happened to the promise?" What did Jesus do while he was here?


It is absolutely surprising that Christians go on talking about his miracles -- that he walked on water, that he healed people just by touching, that he raised a man called Lazarus back to life who had been dead for four days. Just think, if somebody does this kind of thing, he will be mentioned by every newspaper, by every radio station, by every television. But not a single source, except the Bible, even mentions his name. No Jewish scripture -- and he was a Jew! He was not a Christian, remember it. He never knew that he was going to be the founder of a Christian religion. He was born a Jew, he remained a Jew, he died as a Jew.


No Jewish scripture, no Jewish book, no record anywhere -- even of his name. Can you believe that a man who walks on water, a man who feeds thousands of people out of two loaves of bread, a man who turns water into wine, a man who raises dead people to life... will not be remembered by his contemporaries? Do you think his contemporaries will crucify such a man? I think it was enough proof that the man was not talking nonsense; he is really the "only son of God"!


If he had done all these miracles, Jews would have been proud of him. He was a Jew. They would have accepted him as one of their greatest prophets. But they did not accept him at all, they crucified him.


All these miracles are inventions of the Christians. They are not real facts. And nature never changes itself -- nobody walks on water, and nobody can raise a dead man back to life.


But Christians go on insisting on these things for the simple reason that if these things are fictitious then there is nothing in Jesus which is significant. So all these invented, fictitious miracles are the reason Christians go on believing in Jesus Christ. They don't believe in Jesus, they believe in the miracles. And if the miracles are proved wrong, then naturally all their faith will disappear.


When I call Christianity a third-rate religion, this is my reason: it depends on third-rate things. Buddha has never walked on water, Mahavira has never walked on water, Lao Tzu has never raised any dead man back to life... If they are remembered, they are remembered for some essential qualities of life: their compassion, their love, their silence, their attainment, their fulfillment, their enlightenment. They have not performed any miracles. There is no reason to remember Gautam Buddha at all. But all the contemporary sources remember him -- not only Buddhist scriptures, but Hindu scriptures, Jaina scriptures. All contemporary sources -- for or against, but they remember him. The man has left a tremendous impact on the interior being of man. Although he has not done anything on the outside, he has touched millions of hearts so deeply. But Christianity depends on stupid things.
There is a parable....


A man came to Ramakrishna -- and it was just in the past century, not very long ago -- and challenged him: "If you are really a saint, come with me. Let us walk on the water."


Ramakrishna used to live by the side of the Ganges, in Dakshineshwar. He was sitting under a tree. He laughed and he said, "Just sit down first. You must be tired. You have been walking for miles. Later on we can walk on water. First you sit down." And Ramakrishna asked him, "I would like to know how long it took you to learn the art of walking on water?"
The man said, "Thirty-six years."


Ramakrishna said, "My God! When I want to go to the other side it takes only two paisa. You have learned an art worth two paisa in thirty six years! You must be an idiot!"


Ramakrishna could walk on water, but he has made it clear to the man that even if you walk on water, so what? It has nothing spiritual in it. And do you think walking on water is something spiritual? Turning water into wine is something spiritual? That is really criminal! It is against the law; nobody should do it.


But the whole of Christianity is based on such stupid ideas, and ideas which are absolutely absurd. For example, that Jesus is born out of a virgin girl. Now, no virgin girl can give birth, so they had to make the story that part of God -- the Christian God -- is the Holy Ghost. It was the Holy Ghost's adultery...!


I cannot think that God can do such a thing as to make a virgin girl pregnant. Such a God should be in prison. But rather than condemning him, he is being worshipped. And the people who are worshipping have no arguments to save their God, their only begotten son of God. They don't want to even change a single thing, although they know that it is impossible, scientifically impossible -- a virgin girl becoming pregnant... and giving birth to a child...! It has never happened, either before Christ or after Christ.


But Christians are not ready to drop such unnatural ideas. On the contrary, they insist that this makes Jesus a special prophet, gives him a specialty which no other prophet can claim. It can befool mediocre people -- it has nothing to do with spirituality. And then promising... Promising seems to be very political, just like every politician goes on promising people and never delivers any goods.


All your so-called religious leaders have been promising -- after your death, after two hundred or two thousand years they will be coming back. And none of them has shown up. It is enough proof that those people were lying. But you go on waiting for them. You are simply wasting your time, your life. I cannot do that.
I cannot promise you anything.
I trust in the moment, in the present.
For me there is no tomorrow.
For me there is no future.


And I want you to understand that existence is always now and here. If you want to live it authentically, intensely, then be now and here. Use this moment to its totality. Squeeze the whole juice out of it. Don't wait for the next moment, because who knows about the next moment. And you are waiting for centuries, for thousands of years. This is simply wasting the great opportunity that existence has given to you.


Life is a school. You have to learn something. Don't postpone it till tomorrow -- tomorrow may never come. Use this moment to learn. And the only thing life wants you to learn is to know yourself, to be yourself. Then whatever comes, you will be joyful. Whatever happens, you will find ecstasy in it. Don't think in terms of the future; the future is nonexistential. Only the present is.


My whole approach is rooted in the present. Hence I don't have anything to promise you. You have to learn to live now, this very moment, as totally, as intensely as possible.


Burn your life torch from both the ends together. That very intensity will make you afire, aflame. And to be aflame with the intensity of life is to know what godliness is, is to know what religion is, is to know all that spirituality has in it, the whole mystery. There is nothing more to it.
<p class="question">BELOVED MASTER,
SIGMUND FREUD HAS EXPLAINED SELF-DECEPTION BY POSTULATING SEPARATE PARTS OF THE PSYCHE, EACH PART AUTONOMOUS AND CAPABLE OF PURSUING DIFFERENT GOALS, AND EACH PART UNKNOWN TO THE OTHER BECAUSE THEY FUNCTION ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES: ONE ACCORDING TO RATIONALITY, AND ONE NON-VERBAL. I ALSO FEEL THIS INNER SCHISM. IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY UNAWARENESS?</p>


Sigmund Freud is as unaware as you are. And one should ask first if the mind has two separate divisions which know nothing of each other: one functions verbally, linguistically, rationally; one non-verbally, non-linguistically, non-logically.


The first thing to remember to ask Sigmund Freud is, how does he come to know? Who is this third one who knows that there are two divisions? There must be a third one, a witness, because there is no connection between the two. The two are not in communication, they function separately. Then how does Sigmund Freud come to know that there are two separate divisions of the mind?


He does not know anything of awareness -- he never mentions it. He knows nothing of witnessing -- he never mentions it. Unknowingly, he is using awareness. He is not aware that he is aware of a division, because a third principle is absolutely needed to be aware of the two. Otherwise, how can you know about the two?


And if Sigmund Freud can know, it simply proves that in some unconscious way he has become a witness. From a distance he has watched the division of the mind. That's where the Western psychology is missing -- it has come very close to the witness.


This is absolutely right. What he is saying is absolutely right. Mind is divided in two hemispheres, and they know nothing of each other. But to know it, the only way is that there must be a watcher behind and above and beyond who can see both functioning, separately, without any inter-communication. Not knowing, he has experienced a moment of meditation.


Western psychology is still not aware of meditation. I feel sometimes very surprised when I come across such statements, and that nobody asked these people, "How have you come to know?" -- which is a simple question. If they say that one part of the mind has come to know the other part, there is communication. That, they cannot say. They have closed that door themselves.


One is verbal, one is non-verbal. There is no question of any communication. They function separately. Once they have recognized that there is a third principle of awareness, which is not mind but which is your consciousness, to accept the third principle is to know the infinite, is to know the absolute.


This division of the mind has been known in the East for thousands of years. In fact, you will be surprised that the Eastern understanding is not of two divisions but of four divisions. The mind is split into four divisions. It is almost like a cross. The left side and the right side is one division, then the front mind and the back mind is another division. So there are four parts. Western psychology has only come to understand the front two parts. What Sigmund Freud is talking about is the two front parts. One is non-verbal, one is verbal.


But there is another division between the front of the mind and the back of the mind. The front of the mind is active, and the back of the mind is absolutely inactive. There is also a clear-cut division. There is no communication between them; hence, physiologists particularly have become aware of this second division, because the back of the mind does not function at all -- and nature never produces anything which is of no use. The back of the mind must have some
use, otherwise why does nature go on producing it?


All the centers in the back part are inactive. But for centuries the meditators in the East have known that both the divisions are valid. Mind is divided into four parts, and just as the verbal mind uses language, reason, logic, the non-verbal mind is irrational, has no idea of any language. And between them there is no communication. These are both active -- the rational and the non-rational. But the back of the mind, the two parts behind these two front parts, is completely inactive.


The meditators have come to see that the inactive part is also needed, because that is where you rest, otherwise you would go mad. The front of your mind works, acts, dreams, thinks; the back of the mind simply rests, in deep tranquility. That is the basis of your sanity, otherwise the front of the mind will lead you immediately into madness. The back of the mind is absolutely dark and silent. It is deep and very mysterious, but it is where your roots are.


Just like the trees have their roots in the darkness of the earth, the front of the mind has its roots in the back part of the mind. There is no communication, but the back is continuously tranquilizing, helping the active mind to remain sane. It goes on giving you restful moments.


In the night, when you are dreaming, the front of your mind is working. There are moments when you are not dreaming, you feel fresh. In the eight hours of sleep when you are just asleep, then your back part of the mind has taken over. It is inactive. There is not even a dream. Those are the moments of deep sleep which rejuvenate you, and in the morning you feel fresh.


But in eight hours of sleep, you are dreaming for almost six hours. Only for two hours are you not dreaming -- that too, not continuously. Those two hours are spread over the eight hours -- sometimes fifteen minutes at a time -- but those two hours are absolutely necessary. If you lose those two hours you will go mad -- you have lost contact with your inactive mind.


To know about these four parts of the mind one needs something beyond the four -- and that is our consciousness, that is our awareness. It is not a thought, it is only a witness, a sakshin -- just a witness, just a mirror.


When the mirror reflects, it is not an action. The mirror does nothing; it simply reflects. To know this mirror is to know the whole mystery of existence.


Sigmund Freud lived an unconscious life. He was as full of anger as anybody else. He was as full of hate as anybody else. He was as ambitious as anybody else. You should read his life story. That will give you a glimpse of a man who finds a science of pyschoanalysis... a great discoverer, but who in his own life was an ordinary, very average, mediocre person, very possessive, and very much afraid of death. That is a strange thing.


A man of awareness first gets rid of the idea of death. That is the first thing that disappears from his mind, because there is no death. Once you taste awareness, you have tasted eternity. Now you know: the body will go, the mind will go; you will still remain. You have always been here, and you will always be here -- in the body or not in the body, but your being is eternal. Hence, the fear of death is the first thing to disappear. But about Sigmund Freud's life you will be surprised: he was more afraid of death than you are. Even the mention of the word 'death', and he was so much afraid he would have a nervous breakdown -- even the word 'death'!


He would be sitting on a chair, you would start talking about death, and just a moment later he would fall from his chair onto the ground in a coma! It happened three times in his life... and he would start foaming from the mouth. It would take half an hour to bring him back. So it became known to his disciples never to use the word 'death' in front of him.


His closest disciple was Carl Gustav Jung. He was going to be his successor, but he was very interested in death. That is again the same thing from another angle. He was fascinated by death, so although it was prohibited to mention death in front of Freud, he mentioned it three times on different occasions. This was the reason for the split between Freud and Jung, and why Jung was thrown out of the Freudian school. He was going to be his successor. He was the most intelligent of his disciples. And he founded another school -- he was capable, but the reason he was expelled was that he was becoming a danger to the life of Sigmund Freud.


But it was a strange thing that a man of such intelligence -- the founder of a new science, psychoanalysis, so close to the spiritual being of man -- was so mediocre, so afraid that even ordinary people will think that this was strange. But it was not strange. Perhaps it was because of his understanding of the mind that he became aware of death. He was going to die -- it was absolutely certain, there was no question about it. And not knowing anything beyond the mind, he became so nervous, so alert in the mind that it made him very nervous about death -- because he was going to die, don't mention it! If anybody died -- "don't mention it to Freud." He would never pass by a graveyard, because the graves may have reminded him of death.


If the mystics who had meditated had heard about Sigmund Freud becoming the founder of psychoanalysis, they would have laughed. But my feeling is that he came very close... just a little push. If he had come in contact with a master, just a little push and he would have become aware of awareness, conscious of consciousness. And that is the miracle, the only miracle that has any great significance, meaning, that has something of truth in it. From there the real journey begins, and then you can be on your own, there is no need for the master. Just at the opening of the door, perhaps you need a push.


You may have seen birds sometimes when they give birth.... The young one comes out of the egg, and the mother bird tries to teach the bird to fly. He flutters his wings, but does not leave the shelter... he is afraid. He can see the mother flying around the nest trying to persuade him not to be afraid: "You are my child, and just as I have wings, you have wings." Seeing the mother's wings, he also flutters his wings. This is synchronicity.


And sometimes it is needed that if the child does not get it by himself and take a jump into the air, the mother has to push him. It is out of compassion and love. Once he is pushed -- of course first he feels very much shocked at what his own mother is doing. He has never used his wings; it is natural to be afraid that he will fall and die. But just as he is thrown out of the nest, he hesitates for a moment. His use of the wings is a little haphazard, but soon he starts balancing.


He goes to the other tree, and he is immensely happy. He calls the mother to come! And he wants now to go farther, longer, higher. And now he flies with the mother: once he has known the wings, soon he will not need the mother.


One day he will fly and will never come back to the nest. That is the greatest day in the life of the disciple and the master both!
<p class="question">BELOVED MASTER,
MAY I ASK YOU, WHAT IS DARSHAN?</p>


Just look at my finger!!!

Okay?
			

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