---
section: Library
booktitle: "And Now, And Here"
booktype: "Translations"
bookcode: "NOW"
dategiven: "30 October 1969 pm"
place: " in Meditation Camp at Dwarka, Gujarat, India"
chapternum: "Chapter #5"
chaptertitle: "Find Your Own Way"
acode: "6910305"
shorttitle: "NOW05"
audio: "No"
video: "No"
esttime: ""
displaytitle: "And Now, And Here: Chapter #5"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">A FRIEND HAS ASKED: YOU MENTIONED ONCE THAT THERE IS NO OTHER TRUTH GREATER THAN DEATH. YOU HAVE ALSO SAID SOMEWHERE THAT THERE IS NOTHING LIKE DEATH. WHICH OF THE TWO STATEMENTS IS TRUE?</p>


Both are true. When I say there is no other truth greater than death, I am drawing your attention to the fact that the phenomenon of death is an enormous reality in this life -- in what we call 'life' and understand as 'life'; in terms of one's personality, which consists of what I describe as 'I'. This personality will die; what we call 'life' will die too. Death is inevitable. Certainly, you will die and I will die, and this life will also be destroyed, turned into dust, erased.


When I say there is no other greater truth than death, I want to remind you of the fact that we are all going to die. And when I say that death is totally false, I want to remind you that within this 'I', within 'you', there is someone else who will never die. And there is also a life that is different from what you believe to be life, a life without death. Both these things are true; they are simultaneously true. If you take only one of them to be true, you will not be able to comprehend the whole truth.


If someone says that the shadow is a reality, that darkness is a reality, he is right. Darkness exists and so does the shadow. And if someone else says there is no darkness, he is right too. What he is saying is that darkness does not have a positive existence. If I ask you to bring me a couple of bags of darkness, you won't be able to. A room is filled with darkness, and if you are asked to throw the darkness out, you won't be able to. Or, if I say, "If darkness is in there, then please bring it out," you will be unable to. Why? It is because darkness has a negative existence; darkness is merely the absence of light.


Although darkness exists, nevertheless it is only the absence of light. And so if someone were to say there is no darkness, he is right. There is the presence of light and there is the absence of light, but there is nothing like darkness as such. That's why we can do whatsoever we want with light, but with darkness we can do nothing. If you want to remove darkness, you will have to bring in light; if you want to bring in darkness, you will have to put out the light. With darkness, nothing can be done directly.


You are jogging along the road. Your shadow appears behind you; it also runs with you. Everyone can see the shadow; no one can deny it. And yet it can be said that there is no shadow because it has no entity of its own. The shadow exists because your body obstructs the sunlight. When the light is covered by your body, a shadow is formed; when the sun comes above your head, no shadow is formed because the sunrays are not obstructed. If we were to make a human figure of glass, no shadow would ever appear because the rays would pass through the glass.


When light is hindered, a shadow is formed; a shadow is merely an absence of light. So if a person says the shadow exists, he is not wrong. But this is a half-truth. He should further add that the shadow does not exist. Then the truth becomes complete. This means a shadow is something which exists and yet does not exist. But with our way of thinking, we cannot see anything unless it is divided into two independent parts.


Once a man was tried for murder. He had killed a man, and those who had seen the crime being committed had come forward as witnesses. One witness said, "The crime was committed in the open and there were stars shining in the sky. I saw the stars as well as the murder." He was followed by another eyewitness who said, "The crime was committed inside the house, near the door, close to a wall. There are bloodstains on the wall, and since I was standing beside the wall, my clothes were also stained with blood. This murder took place inside the house."


The judge was puzzled. How could both be telling the truth? Obviously, one of them was lying. The murderer began to laugh. The judge asked what was so funny. The man said, "Let me tell you that both of them are right. The house was incomplete; the roof had not yet been laid -- the stars could be seen above. The murder took place under the open sky, but close to the door, close to the wall which bears the bloodstains. The house was almost ready; the walls had been raised, only the roofing was not yet done. So both are right."


Life is so complicated that even the things we find contradictory in it turn out to be right. Life is highly complex. Life is not the way we think it is -- it contains many contradictions; it is very vast.


In one sense, death is the greatest truth -- because the way we are living will come to an end; we will die the way we are, and the framework we have created will also be destroyed. Those we see as constituting our whole world -- wife, husband, son, father, friend -- they will all die. And yet death is a falsehood, because there is someone who dwells inside the son who is not the son and who will never die. There is someone who dwells inside the father who is not the father and who will never die. The father, of course, will die, but there is someone within him besides -- different from the father, separate, more than any relative -- who will never die. The body will die but there is someone within the body who never dies. Both these things are simultaneously true. So both these things need to be kept in mind to understand the nature of death.
<p class="question">ANOTHER FRIEND HAS ASKED: THE THINGS WE WANT TO DESTROY -- SUCH AS THE CHAINS OF BLIND FAITH OR SUPERSTITION -- FIND EVEN MORE CONFIRMATION IN YOUR TALKS. IT SEEMS, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THAT THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH, THAT THERE ARE GODS AND THERE ARE GHOSTS, THAT THERE IS TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL. IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET RID OF SUPERSTITIONS, WON'T THEY BECOME EVEN STRONGER?</p>


Two things need to be understood here. One is: if something is accepted as a superstition without researching and investigating it properly, then that is tantamount to creating an even greater superstition; it shows a highly superstitious mind. One man believes there are ghosts and evil spirits and you call him superstitious; you believe there are none and that makes you feel that you are very knowledgeable. But the question is: what is superstition? If someone believes there are ghosts and evil spirits without any investigation, that is superstition; and if someone else believes there are no such things, without investigation, then that is superstition too. Superstition means believing something without knowing it to be true. Just because someone holds beliefs contrary to yours does not mean he is superstitious.


A believer in God can be as gullible as a nonbeliever. We must understand the definition of superstition. It means to believe in something blindly without verification. The Russians are superstitious atheists; the Indians are superstitious theists -- both suffer from blind faith. The Russians have never cared to discover there is no God and then believed it to be so, nor have the Indians tried to ascertain that God is before believing it to be so. So do not be mistaken in thinking that theists alone are superstitious; atheists have their own superstitions too. And the strange thing is that there is also a scientific superstition. It sounds contradictory: how can there be a scientific superstition?


If you have studied geometry, you must have come across Euclid's definition where he says a line has length but no breadth. Now, what can be more superstitious than this? There has never been a line with no breadth. Children are taught that a point has neither length nor breadth, and even the greatest scientist works on the assumption that a point has no length or breadth. Can a point exist without length and breadth?


We are all used to the digits one through nine. One may well ask: is this any less than superstition? Why nine digits? No scientist can explain why nine digits. Why not seven? What's wrong with seven? Why not three? There are mathematicians -- Liebnitz was one of them -- who got along with three digits. He said: one, two, three is followed by ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen; then twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three. His numbering system was such; he got along very well with it, and he challenged those who disagreed with him to prove him wrong. He questioned the need for nine digits.


Later on, Einstein said that even three digits are also unnecessary, that one can even get along with two; it will be difficult with only one digit, but one can manage with two. That there should be nine digits in mathematics is a scientific superstition. But the mathematician is not ready to give up either. He says, "How can you work with less than nine digits?" So this is just a belief too; it has no more significance than that.


From a scientific point of view we believe thousands of things to be right, but they are actually superstitions. Scientists are also superstitious, and in this age religious superstitions are fading while scientific superstitions are growing. The difference between the two is simply that if you ask a religious person how he came to know about God he will say it is written in the Gita, and if you ask him how he came to know there are nine digits in arithmetic, he will say it is written in such-and-such a mathematician's book.


What is the difference between the two? One kind of answer is found in the Gita, in the Koran; another kind of answer is found in a book of mathematics. What is the difference? This shows we have to understand what is really meant by superstition. Superstition means that which we believe in without having knowledge of it. We accept many things and we reject many things without knowing anything about them -- this is superstitious too.


Suppose a man in a village is possessed by a ghost. Educated people will say it is superstition. Let us assume the uneducated people are superstitious; we have already branded them as superstitious because, being uneducated, these simple people are unable to offer any argument in favor of their belief. So all the educated people of the village maintain that the story of this man being possessed by an evil spirit is fake, but they don't know that at a university like Harvard, in America, there is a department conducting research into ghosts and spirits. The department has even circulated photographs of them. They have no idea that, currently, some highly recognized scientists are deeply involved in research into ghosts and spirits, and have attained so many results that sooner or later they will come to see that it was they, the educated men, who were superstitious, and that those they called superstitious may not have known anything about what they believed in, although what they were saying was right.


If you read Ryon or Oliver Lodge, you will be amazed. Oliver Lodge was a Nobel prizewinning scientist. Throughout his life he was involved in investigating ghosts and spirits. Before his death, he left a document in which he said, "All the truths of science I have discovered are not half as true as ghosts and spirits. But we have no knowledge of them because the superstitious educated do not care to find out about the discoveries happening in the world."


If one man says he can read another's mind, we will call it superstition. In Russia, where there are what we may call 'rigorous' scientists, there is a man by the name of Fiodev. He is a great Russian scientist. Sitting in Moscow, he has communicated his thoughts, without any visible means, to the mind of a person sitting a thousand miles away in Tiflis. This was examined scientifically and found to be correct. Scientists are engaged in this kind of research because sooner or later it will be useful in space travel. In the event of a mechanical failure in a spaceship, which is always possible, through these means scientists can establish contact with the travelers. Otherwise the spaceship may be lost forever. It is out of this concern that Russian scientists are conducting intensive research into telepathy and have achieved some astounding results.


Fiodev carried out his research with the help of a friend. A thousand miles away in Tiflis, his friend hid himself behind a bush in a garden with a wireless set in his hand, and he and Fiodev stayed in touch with each other. After a while he informed Fiodev that a man had arrived and sat on bench number ten. He asked Fiodev to send this man a message to go to sleep within three minutes. The man was wide awake; he was smoking and humming away to himself. Fiodev began sending him suggestions -- the same as I do -- that "You are relaxing, you are relaxing." From a distance of a thousand miles, for three minutes Fiodev suggested intensely, "Go to sleep, go to sleep," and, concentrating on bench number ten, he continued suggesting the same thought, "Go to sleep, go to sleep." In exactly three minutes the man sitting on the bench was asleep, the cigarette fallen from his hands.


But this could have been a coincidence. Perhaps the man sitting on the bench was tired and so he had fallen asleep. And so the friend told Fiodev that the man had indeed fallen asleep, but that it could be a coincidence, so he asked Fiodev to wake him up in exactly seven minutes. Fiodev kept suggesting to that man to wake up, and in seven minutes precisely the man opened his eyes and got up. The man on the bench was a total stranger; he had no idea what was happening, and Fiodev's friend approached him and asked if he'd felt anything unusual.


The man said, "Yes, I certainly did. I was very puzzled. I came here to wait for somebody, and suddenly I felt that my body was about to fall asleep. I lost control and went to sleep. And then I felt strongly as if someone was telling me 'Get up, get up. Get up in seven minutes!' I can't figure any of this out." The man had no idea what had happened.


Communication of thought without any medium has become a scientific truth, but an educated man would call it superstition. It is possible that a sick man in one town can be cured from a faraway town; it's not too difficult. It's also possible that a snakebite can be healed from a distance of thousands of miles; there's not much difficulty to it. But there are many different kinds of superstitions. And remember, the superstition of an educated man is always more dangerous than that of an uneducated man, because the educated man does not consider his superstition to be superstition. For him it is a result arrived at after great deliberation.


Now this friend says we have to break the chains of superstition. First make sure there are any chains, otherwise you may break somebody's arms and legs in the process. Chains can only be broken if there are any. What if there are none? You must also make sure that what you believe is a chain that needs to be broken does not happen to be an ornament you may have to remake. All these things require very careful consideration.


I am absolutely against superstition; all kinds of superstitions must be destroyed -- but this does not mean that I am superstitious about this destruction. It does not mean one should go about destroying them without a clear understanding of them, that without due consideration one should simply be bent upon breaking them. Then such arbitrary destruction will also become superstition.


Every age has its own superstitions. Remember, superstitions have their fashion too. In every age superstitions take on a new form. Man drops old superstitions and takes on new ones, but he never gets rid of them forever; he alters them and he changes them. But we never realize this.


For example, once upon a time there was a superstition that the man who applied tilak, the forehead mark, was considered religious. What has applying tilak to do with being religious? But that's the way it was understood. And someone who didn't apply the tilak was looked down upon as irreligious. This old superstition is no longer in vogue. Now we have new superstitions, equally as foolish. If a man wears a tie he is considered distinguished; otherwise he is considered ordinary. It is the same thing, there is no difference at all. The tie has replaced the tilak, while the man has remained the same. Where is there any difference?


The tie is no better than the tilak. Perhaps it's even worse, because at least there was a meaning to applying the tilak. The tie has absolutely no meaning in this country, although it may have a meaning in some other country. A tie is useful in cold countries where it helps protect the throat against cold. In those countries, a man who cannot afford to cover his throat against the cold must obviously be a poor man. A man of means is able to cover his throat with the help of a necktie; however, when somebody puts a tie around his neck in a hot country such as this, then it seems a little scary -- one wonders whether such a man is affluent or insane!


To be affluent does not mean one has to suffer from heat or wear this noose around his neck. A tie means a noose; a tie means a knot. Using it in a cold country makes sense, but in a hot country it is totally meaningless. And yet, a man who has an idea of dignity -- the magistrate, the attorney, the politician -- is out there with this noose around his neck! And these very people denounce the tilak wearers as superstitious! One can well ask them, "Isn't wearing a necktie a superstition too? Which scientific system are you applying, that you have tied this tie around your neck?" But since the tie is a superstition of this age it is acceptable, and since the tilak is a superstition of the past, it is unacceptable.


As I said earlier, as the tie has some meaning for people in cold countries, applying a tilak can also have meaning, but without first looking into it, it is utterly dangerous and wrong to call it a superstition right away -- you may not have given any thought as to why a tilak is applied. People mostly apply it out of superstition; however, there was some scientific reason when people applied it for the first time. Actually, tilak is applied on the forehead at the spot between the two eyes where the agya chakra, the third-eye chakra, is located. Even with a little meditation this spot gets hot; however, it cools down with the application of sandalwood. The application of sandalwood is a highly scientific technique, but now it is lost; people are not concerned with that science anymore. Now anybody goes on applying sandalwood whether he has any knowledge of the agya chakra or has ever done any meditation or not.


It is strange to find people wearing ties in hot countries. Wearing a tie can have a scientific basis in cold countries, and similarly, a tilak has a scientific meaning for one who meditates on the agya chakra because sandalwood cools that spot. Meditating on the agya chakra, stimulation occurs and heat is created in that area -- and it needs cooling down or else it will harm the brain. But were we determined to remove the tilak altogether, we would of course take it away from those who are wearing it pointlessly, but we would also be removing it from the forehead of the poor guy who may have applied it for his own reason. And if he won't remove it, we will call him superstitious.


What I am saying is that there is no way you can determine what is superstitious and what is not. Actually, the same thing can be a superstition under one condition and scientific under different conditions. Something which might appear to be scientific under a certain condition may appear unscientific under a different set of conditions.


For example, in Tibet there is a practice of taking a bath once a year -- which is quite scientific, because there is no dust in Tibet and, being in a cold climate, people do not sweat. So they don't need to bathe. Taking a bath every day would simply harm their bodies; it would cause them to lose much body heat. And how are they going to replace that heat? It could prove very costly to stay uncovered in Tibet. If man were to keep his body uncovered for a whole day, he would need forty percent more food to replace the calories lost. In a place like India, if a man goes about without clothes he is revered as a renunciate. Mahavira was sensible: he remained naked -- and in a hot country like this, the more the heat leaves the body, the cooler it feels inside. But if a follower of Mahavira were to arrive in Tibet naked, he would deserve to be admitted to a mental asylum. To appear in Tibet like this would be absolutely unscientific, stupid. But that's how it always happens.


When a Tibetan lama comes to India, he never bathes. Once I stayed with Tibetan lamas in Bodh Gaya. They were stinking so badly it was a torture to sit near them. When I asked why they were like that, they replied, "We follow the rule of bathing only once a year." This is where I make the distinction between superstition and science. That which is a science in Tibet is a superstition in India. Here, these lamas are stinking without realizing their bodies are perspiring heavily and that there is much dust all around.


We have no idea, but there are some countries where there is no dust at all. When Khrushchev first came to India he was taken to Agra to see the Taj Mahal, and on the way he saw a whirlwind of dust taking shape. He had the car stopped, got out and stood right in the middle of the whirlwind. He was so happy. He said, "I am so lucky, I have never had such an experience before." We wouldn't feel lucky to be caught in so much dust. But where he comes from there are piles of snow, not dust. It was a fascinating experience for him, as it is for us when we are in snow. How excited we feel when we walk on snow in the Himalayas. So don't get into breaking things simply believing them to be chains, without first taking into consideration the age, the conditions, and their usefulness.


A scientific mind is that which always hesitates. A man with a scientific mind never makes a decision in haste, saying, "This is right and that is wrong." Rather he always says, "Perhaps this may be right, but let me search more and more." Even at the end of his search he never comes to a decision and says with finality, "Okay, this is wrong, so destroy it." Life is so mysterious that nothing can be said in such definite terms. All we can say is, "So far, we have known this much, and based upon this knowledge such-and-such a thing appears to be wrong" -- that's all. A man with a scientific attitude will say, "Based on the information available so far, such-and-such a thing does not seem to be right today; however, with added information it may appear right tomorrow. Something which is right today may prove to be wrong tomorrow." Such a man never makes a hasty decision about what is right and what is wrong. He always keeps on searching with an inquiring and humble mind.


There is fun in holding on to a superstition, and there is also fun in breaking it. The fun in holding on to a superstition is that it spares us the trouble of thinking -- we believe what everyone else believes. We don't even want to ask the reason behind it, or why it's so. Who wants to bother? One simply follows the crowd. It's convenient to have superstitions.


And then there are people who are out to crack superstitions -- that too is very convenient. The man who cracks them appears to be rational, without actually being rational. It's not easy to be rational; to see things rationally is to strain every nerve. This man looks into things so closely it becomes difficult for him to make any categorical statement. And so his statements are always conditional. He will say, "Under such conditions it is valid not to bathe in Tibet, while under other conditions it is utterly superstitious not to bathe in India." The man who thinks rationally will speak this kind of language.


On the other hand, a social reformer shows no concern for what he is saying: he is concerned with destroying things; he wants to destroy certain things. I say: go ahead and destroy -- there are many things which have to be destroyed -- but the first thing that has to be destroyed, however, is thoughtlessness. The tendency to act without first giving something rational thought is the primary thing that needs to be destroyed. So what it means is: if you destroy something without first giving it proper thought, then such destruction has no value. The tendency to think rationally has to be created, and the tendency to believe thoughtlessly has to be destroyed. This will lead us to see different contexts, deeper meanings. Then we will make an intensive search; we will think and reason. Then we will consider all the possibilities.


Psychoanalysis is very popular in the West, and the interesting thing is that psychoanalysis is doing exactly the same kind of work as the good old witch doctor did in the villages. Nowadays, in France, there is an active sect created by Cuvier. Cuvier works on the same principles as the witch doctor did, except that Cuvier is a scientist and he uses scientific terminology -- other than that everything is the same; there is no difference.


You will be amazed to know that when a sadhu, a mendicant, an ordinary man of the village, with no knowledge of medicine, gives a pinch of ash to a sick man in the name of God, we call it superstition. And yet, it works as effectively, and people are cured in the same proportion as with allopathic treatment. It is very interesting -- the same ratio. Many experiments are being carried out in this area.


A unique experiment was conducted in a London hospital. A hundred patients with the same illness were divided into two groups. Fifty were given the regular injection, while the other fifty were injected with water. And the amazing thing is that the ratio of cured patients in both cases was the same. So the question was raised: what's going on?


In view of this experiment, it became necessary to examine the issue more closely. And what became clear was that the idea, the feeling that medicine is being given, works more than the medicine itself. Also, even the medicine, the dispensing of the medicine itself, does not work so much as does the idea of how expensive the medicine is and how well known the doctor is. A lesser known doctor fails in his treatment not because he does not know his profession, but only because he is not very well known. A well recognized doctor impresses a patient at once. With his impressive attire, the overbearing set up, his fees, his big car, the long wait for an appointment, the crowd, the standing in line -- you are already so impressed that whether he knows what he is giving you or not has very little effect.


The truth is that to be a good doctor you don't need a first class knowledge of medicine, what you need is an excellent knowledge of advertising. The question is how well you can publicize yourself. Publicity pays more, not the medicine.


Recently, a medical survey revealed that in France there are about eighty thousand physicians and about one hundred and sixty thousand quacks. When the patient gets tired of the practicing physicians, he is cured by those who have no knowledge of medicine. But they know the trick of how to treat a patient. That's why you see so many kinds of 'pathies' prevalent. Can you imagine -- all these different kinds of 'pathies' abounding in this age of science? Even naturopathy works -- a bandaging of mud on the stomach works; an enema with water works; the witch doctor's charms work. Even homeopathy, which consists of nothing but tiny sugar pills, works. These all work, and so does allopathy.


So the question arises: how does a patient get well? If a village quack prescribes a little dust and cures his patients, then we will have to think carefully; we will have to be concerned about whether to break such superstitions or not. The man with a stethoscope around his neck and a big car is also able to cure patients through his scientific means. But a magic is working there too -- the magic of the car, of the stethoscope.


I know one quack. He has no degree from any university, and yet he has cured many patients I sent to him, patients who had otherwise been pronounced incurable by other doctors. The man is smart; he has a remarkable understanding of human nature. Actually, that's how one happens to be a professional physician! So if you go to his clinic for treatment, your diagnosis will be conducted in such a way that half your illness will go away while you are still being diagnosed. He is an extremely clever doctor; all other doctors feel quite intimidated by him.


He has a large, impressive and serious-looking consulting room with a big table on which he makes the patient lie down. Above the patient's chest hangs a thing which looks like a stethoscope. This contraption is connected to two transparent tubes containing colored water. When he applies the stethoscope-like contraption to the patient's chest, the heartbeat causes the water in the tube to jump. The patient looks at the jumping water and is convinced he has come to a great doctor indeed; he has never seen such a doctor before. The thing he uses is a sort of stethoscope, except that he doesn't connect it to his ears, he watches the rising and falling of the water in the tubes, and this assures the patient that he is no ordinary doctor.


Do you know why an allopathic doctor writes prescriptions in such illegible handwriting? The reason is that if you could read it, you would find it is such an ordinary thing that you could even go and buy it in the market -- and so it is deliberately written with such skill that you are unable to read it. The truth is, if you were to take this same prescription back to the doctor, he himself wouldn't be able to figure out what he'd written. Another interesting thing is that the names of all medicines have to be written in Latin and Greek. The reason is simple: if he were to write in English, Hindi or Gujarati, you would never pay him ten or fifteen rupees for an injection; you would know it is nothing but a concoction of caraway seeds.


These are all magical tricks. It is the same as the villager who gives his patients a pinch of ash. But this will not be effective either if he looks like an ordinary man. If he is dressed, however, in an ochre robe, it will have more effect. And if the man is known to be honest, virtuous, kind and truthful, the pinch of ash will be far more effective. If it is known that he does not charge money, that he does not even touch money, the ash will have an electrifying effect. So it is not the ash that works, it is the other factors which are at work. It needs careful consideration whether or not such cures be allowed to continue, because, if you ban this type of cure, others equally as false will have to be found to replace them. It never ends.


Man must be made to think so that he does not fall sick out of ignorance, so that he does not bring pseudo illnesses upon himself. As long as fake illnesses keep happening, fake doctors will keep on appearing as well. If you remove the old, pseudo methods, new ones will crop up -- and if you then remove these, new ones will be born. There are so many types of treatment in the world, but there is no way to decide which one is right; they all claim to be successful in curing illnesses. And their claims are valid -- they do cure illnesses.


The more we probe into the human psyche, the more it becomes clear that the disease exists somewhere in the human mind. As long as the disease exists in the human mind, the pseudo treatments will also continue to exist. Hence, I am not so much concerned with doing away with pseudo methods, I am more concerned with putting an end to the disease in the human mind. If the disease in the human mind disappears, if man's consciousness awakens, if he becomes discriminating, he will not be surrounded by annoying troubles. It is not that you go and collect ash because a man distributes it in a village -- no, it is because you are eager to collect the ash; that's why someone has to distribute it.


No one becomes your leader on his own -- but you cannot live for a second without one; that's why somebody has to become the leader. If you remove one leader, you will find another -- and if he is removed you will find a third. And, in fact, while you are removing one leader you will have first made sure who you want for your next. And so leaders all over the world know very well the need for leading opposition parties. They know, with confidence, that when the people get fed up with one leader they will automatically elect the second, and when they get tired of the second they will replace him with the first. That's why two-party politics goes on all over the world. Everywhere, people are the same.


I was in Raipur during the last elections. A friend of mine, an old resident of Raipur, had been successively elected several times as a member of parliament, but this time he was defeated. Another friend of mine who was totally unknown and had recently settled in Raipur was elected in his place. I asked my friend how this happened. How did he lose and a total newcomer win the election?


He said, "It's very clear. People have become too used to me. This man is a new face; people don't know him yet. Don't worry, let him become a familiar figure and he will be defeated too. I will have to bide my time until then. By then I will be unfamiliar once again, and then I will have the upper hand."


Deep down, it is not a question of whether to remove this leader or that leader, whether to do away with this superstition or that superstition -- that is not the issue. The question is to bring about a fundamental change in man. A scientific mind will not care much about superstition, but superstition will continue to exist as long as man is content with his blindness. If a man is not ready to open his eyes, then blindness is bound to exist.


And let me ask: who among us is really willing to open his eyes? None of us is willing to see with our eyes open, because with our eyes open we may see truths we don't want to see. That's why we close our eyes and see whatsoever we fancy. Have you ever opened your eyes and observed closely what life is like? Have you ever seen yourself with your eyes open? That you never want to do, because then you will see horrifying things.


Everyone considers himself to be absolutely pious, a mahatma. If he were to open his eyes and look closely, he would find, to his horror, the greatest sinner of all hidden within himself. He doesn't want to see that, of course, because then it will be difficult for him to be a mahatma. And so he shuts his eyes to himself. And not only that, in doing so he uses those people who can help him shut his eyes -- around him he gathers all those people who come and tell him what a great mahatma he is. Thus he goes on gathering followers. Around him, he gathers all those people who cooperate in keeping him blind.


And there are many wonderful tricks for collecting people; incredible deceptions are practiced in this respect. One of the tricks for gathering people is to keep on shouting, "Don't come near me! I don't want anyone around me!" People are terribly impressed with this trick. They flock to such a man. The more he drives them away, the greater the mahatma they think he is. An ordinary mahatma would welcome people, but this one swings his staff and sends them away. He shows no concern for anyone.


I have heard about a man who had wandered a beach in California for years. He had become a kind of attraction. The story that went around about him was that he was such a simple man that if you offered him a ten-dollar bill and a dime, he would pick up the dime cheerfully. That's how innocent he was. Out of curiosity, a man visited him five or six times and always found him surrounded by a crowd. People would ask, "Baba, what do you want -- this or that?" and he would pick up the dime at once, saying he liked it, he liked the shine of it. People found him such an innocent man.


The curious man found it hard to believe that even after so many years this fellow could not recognize a ten-dollar bill! That was too much innocence! One evening, after the crowd had disappeared, this curious man approached the fellow and said, "I have been watching you for the last twenty years, and I am astonished to find this game going on for so long. Do you still not recognize a ten-dollar bill?"


The fellow laughed, and said, "I knew it was a ten-dollar bill from the very first day, but if I had shown I recognized it the game would have stopped right then and there. By not recognizing the bill, I have collected dimes from thousands of spectators. If I recognize it once, then that will be the only bill I'll ever have in my hand -- no other bill will come from these people afterwards. So if I really want to make money, then I must spurn riches -- and the bills will start piling up on their own. I have a good understanding of the whole thing; my job is going very well. During the day, I collect up to five hundred dollars from the crowd. The game will continue for sure."


The so-called mahatma also knows the value of money, although if you talk to him about money, he will say he never even touches it. But his disciple, sitting nearby, will pick up the offerings and put them in the safe -- because the mahatma never touches money!


What can anyone do if a man wants to remain blind? Who will be stupid enough to do anything about it? That fellow on the beach is not the cause of mischief. The mischief-mongers are those people who approach him. It is because of their mischief the poor fellow has to put on the act. Let me tell you that if he had not done it, somebody else would have done the same thing. And people are stupid: wherever they can, they will continue to do what they did with this fellow; they want somebody to snatch their money away from them. Hence, such acts will continue. They can only be brought to an end when we begin to destroy the stupidity of man.


So don't worry too much about breaking the chains of superstition, because if the man who is wearing the chain remains the same he will make new ones. He cannot live without chains. The kind of man he is, he will create new chains.


All religions strive to break these chains, and every religion creates a new chain -- so things remain the same. The world has seen so many religions. They were all founded to bring about reforms; they all proclaimed their intent to eradicate all prevailing superstitions, but in the process of destroying superstitions nothing ever really gets destroyed. Of course, those who are fed up with the old superstitions replace them with new ones and are very happy, feeling they have brought about change.


In fact, an intelligent man never holds on to anything -- not even to any belief, let alone to superstition. He lives intelligently; he doesn't hang on to anything. He never creates any chain because he knows there is immense joy in living in freedom. Don't create any chains.


So the real question is to awaken enough consciousness in each individual that will create a desire in him to become free, to become intelligent, to become self-realized, to be filled with awareness. If the tendency to live blindly -- to become a follower, a pursuer, a believer in somebody -- could be reduced, all superstitions would crumble. But in that case it would not be that one kind of superstition would break down and another would survive -- all would collapse; they would leave all at once. Otherwise, they will remain forever.


Actually, what needs to be understood is that nothing happens by merely changing clothes. Let anyone wear whatsoever he pleases. If someone wants to wear ochre-colored clothes, let him do so, why stop him? If someone wants to wear black clothes, let him do so. What one needs to realize is that a change in clothes does not equal a change in one's life. Once this is realized, then there is no need to change clothes, because the man who will make you change your clothes will immediately replace them with clothes of a new kind.


A sannyasin, wearing ochre clothes, went to see Gandhi and told him he was very impressed with his ideas and would also like to serve the country. What Gandhi told him was highly significant. He said, "That's fine, but first you will have to give up your ochre clothes, because they will come in the way of your service. Generally, people serve those who wear ochre clothes rather than being served by them." This was very true. But then Gandhi, having made him drop the ochre clothes, made him wear clothes of khadi, of handspun cotton.


Now those who are wearing khadi are doing things even the people wearing ochre clothes never did before. What difference has it made? Now the khadi people are accepting service. The poor ochre people never accepted as much service as those who are wearing khadi are doing now. So khadi has proven to be very costly for this country. The sannyasin was very happy that his superstition about ochre clothing had dropped -- but now he wears khadi; now he is holding on to the superstition of khadi. What's the difference?


The real question is not of letting people drop one thing and making them take on another. The question is to come to understand that very mentality which holds on to things. Gandhi did not sharpen that man's intelligence; he remained as stupid as ever. He simply made him change his clothes, and the man felt very happy to do so. But what difference did it make? This is how it has always been.


For the last five thousand years the story of humanity has been one of great misfortune. By an effort to break down a superstition we never change the man, we simply do away with the superstition -- but then he creates a new superstition. Whatever we offer, he seizes upon it. "All right," he says, "let it be this. I'll drop the other superstition and hold on to this one!" And we feel very happy because he has accepted our superstition.


A young man used to visit me. Day and night he used to talk about the scriptures. He knew the Upanishads, the Gita, the Vedas, by heart. I told him, "Stop all this nonsense. You will gain nothing from it!" He became very angry with me, but nevertheless he continued to visit me. Someone who gets angry with you never stops visiting you, because anger also brings you into a relationship. He was certainly angry at me, yet he still kept coming. As the days went by and as he heard me more and more, something touched him. One day he came to me and said, "I bundled up the Gita, the Upanishads, the Vedas, and threw them all in a well."
"When did I tell you to throw them away?" I asked.


"I had to empty my shelf in order to make room for your books. Now I fully agree with your books," he said.


I said, "But this has made things more difficult. Nothing has changed. I was merely telling you not to agree with a book. I never asked you to throw that book away and grab on to my book. What difference has your doing so made?"


The so-called gurus feel very happy if their kind of superstition is held by people. This is how, even though superstitions keep changing, man himself continues to remain superstitious.


So I told the young man to throw my books into the same well too. He said, "How can that be possible?" He could never do that, he asserted. So I said, "Then the whole thing has remained as it was. Now my book has become your Gita. What was wrong with poor Krishna's Gita? If you needed to carry something, his Gita was sufficient -- it served your purpose; it was much thicker than my book; it added enough weight to you. How are things different now? When did I ever blame Krishna? When did I ever say that Krishna was at fault?


This is how it has always been -- and still is. What simply happens is that man remains the same, only his toys change. I feel very happy if someone takes my toy; I feel delighted that at last someone has taken my idea. My ego finds satisfaction in seeing that someone has started to believe more in me than in Krishna. But this does not bring about a change in humanity; humanity can never be benefited by this. What we need to be concerned about is how to break, from within, this human mentality that grabs on to things. How can man overcome his blindness?


I suggest to this friend: don't set about breaking down superstitions; instead, change the superstitious mind. Change that mind which breeds superstition, so that a new man can take birth. But it is an arduous task; it will require a great deal of effort. It is not an easy job. To be accomplished, it will require very scientific thought.


Don't be in such a hurry to deny the existence of ghosts and evil spirits. They are far more real than you. There is no falsity about their existence, but you will have to explore. And it so often happens that those who are scared of ghosts also begin to deny their existence. They say so, not because they have become very knowledgeable, the only reason is wish-fulfillment -- they don't want ghosts to exist, because if there are ghosts it will be difficult to walk down a dark alley. So in a loud voice they keep repeating, "There are no ghosts. Absolutely! It is all superstition; we will destroy the superstition!" What they are saying is they are very scared of ghosts. If there really are ghosts it will cause a lot of trouble, so they should not exist in the first place -- that's the wish. Such a mind can never make ghosts nonexistent.


If ghosts are, then they are. Whether you believe it or not, it makes no difference. What is, is, and it's better we investigate it -- because whatever exists is related to us in one way or another; it is bound to be so. Hence it is more appropriate to understand them, to recognize them, and to find ways to establish contact with them, to figure out how to interact with them. It's not an easy matter.


The empty space you see between you and someone else may not necessarily be empty. There may be someone sitting there. You may not be able to see him; that's a different matter. But the idea that somebody might be sitting there can frighten you, so we don't leave an empty space, we stick together. We are always afraid of an empty space; that's why we fill our room with furniture, calendars, pictures of gods and goddesses, anything. Being in an empty space, being in an empty house, we are frightened. We fill them with people, with furnishings, so no empty space is left. Even then, there is plenty of empty space which is not altogether empty. And it has its own science.


If one wants to work in this direction, it can be done. One can systematically work on this -- it is an independent science; it has its own laws and methods. However, before you begin working in this area, never say whether these things exist or do not exist. It is better to suspend your judgment, to keep your conclusions in abeyance for a while -- just say you don't know.


If asked whether there are ghosts or not, it will be characteristic of the scientific mind to answer, "I don't know, because I haven't looked into it yet. Also, I haven't even looked into myself yet. How can I find out whether or not there are ghosts? I am not even able to find myself as yet!" So never be in a hurry to answer yes or no. Someone who gives a quick answer is superstitious. Keep thinking, keep searching. An intelligent man, in fact, will answer with great reluctance.


Once somebody asked Einstein how he differentiated between a scientist and a superstitious man. Einstein replied, "If you ask one hundred questions to a man of superstition, he will be prepared to offer a hundred and one answers. And if you ask one hundred questions to a scientist, he will claim absolute ignorance about ninety-eight of them. About the remaining two he will say, 'I know a little, but that knowledge is not ultimate; it can change tomorrow.'"


Remember, a scientific mind is the only artless mind. A superstitious mind is not. But in appearance, it looks the opposite. It looks as if a superstitious mind is very simple, but it is not; it is very complex and cunning. The greatest cunning of the superstitious mind is that it affirms things it has no knowledge of. A person with such a mind doesn't even know anything about a rock lying at his doorstep, but in his frenzy to prove his God is right and your God is wrong, he will go out and kill people. If, as yet, he cannot even explain what a rock is.... And when he cannot prove that a rock is Mohammedan or Hindu, how will he be able to easily prove that God is Hindu or Mohammedan? But he will go ahead and kill people! And remember, resorting to violence shows that those things such acts are committed for must all be rooted in superstition.


People never come to blows over matters pertaining to knowledge; it is impossible. Wherever there is conflict, rest assured superstition is there -- because a superstitious man wants to prove through conflict that he is right; he has no other means. If a man were to jump on me and put a sword to my throat saying, "Tell me I am right or I'll chop your head off" -- he can chop my head off, of course, but that doesn't prove him right. No one has ever been proven right by chopping off somebody's head.


Even if all the Mohammedans get together and massacre all the Hindus, they will never be proven right -- just as the Hindus will never be proven right if they all join together to slaughter all the Mohammedans. They will merely prove themselves stupid, nothing else. Has the sword ever proven anything right? But that's the only means available to the superstitious man. With what other means can he say that such and such a thing is right? He has no concept, he has never probed; he has no proof, he has no direction. He knows only one thing: might is right.


All over the world everyone is doing this. I am not saying that only religious leaders are involved in such acts of violence, the politicians are no different. Whether Russia or America is right will be settled through the use of hydrogen bombs -- obviously; there is no other means. It is exactly the same sort of foolishness. Is this how it can be resolved as to which of the two is right? How can it be determined whether Marx is right or wrong? Will it be by the use of the sword? Or by dropping the hydrogen bomb? Which will it be? It will have to be determined through the application of thought -- but man is not yet free to think; he is still beset by superstition.


So remember, my emphasis is not on breaking the chains, my emphasis is on doing away with the superstitious mind that creates these chains. If that mind persists, then no matter how many chains you break it will create new ones. And remember, new fetters are far more attractive, more lovable, more worth holding on to. And remember this too: the new chain is always stronger than the old one, because by now our knowledge of how to make chains is also more developed, more advanced. It often occurs to me that those in the business of breaking down superstitions only succeed in providing much tougher superstitions as substitutes for the worn-out ones -- they do nothing more than that.


The superstitious mind has to be discarded, or else it will keep on breeding superstition. Be cogitative, and make others cogitative also. "Be cogitative" means: think, search, be inquisitive. Speak only after you have the right experience, and still admit readily that your experience is not necessarily right. People may have other experiences tomorrow. You may even have to go through different experiences, and it is not certain that what you experienced was not an hallucination.


So until that experience has been verified by scores of experiences more, it is better not to say anything about it. That's why a scientist conducts an experiment, repeats it a thousand times, makes a thousand other people do it, and only then does he arrive at some kind of a conclusion. And even then he never reaches a final conclusion. One who wants to reach a conclusion in a hurry can never think. A man in a hurry to reach a final conclusion inevitably fills himself with superstition. And we are all in a great hurry.


A friend, in his question, has asked everything the whole of humanity is searching for and has not yet been able to find! He asks:
<p class="question">DOES GOD EXIST OR NOT? WHAT IS JEEVATMAN, THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL? WHERE IS MOKSHA? WHO CREATED HEAVEN? IS THERE A HELL? WHY HAS MAN APPEARED ON THE EARTH? WHAT IS THE GOAL OF LIFE?</p>


He is in such a hurry he wants to know about all of this instantly. A man in such a hurry will undoubtedly become superstitious. Search requires great patience, tremendous patience: it doesn't matter if we don't find what we are looking for in one lifetime, but we will continue to search. In fact, for one who is cogitative, attaining is not important -- searching is. For a man of superstition, attaining is important, seeking is totally unimportant.


A superstitious man is anxious to know how he can attain. "Where is God?" he asks. He is not much concerned with first finding out whether there is a God or not. He is not interested in the pursuit of God; that is not his cup of tea. He says, "You seek him and then show me." That's why he is out looking for a guru.


Whosoever is looking for a guru is bound to end up being superstitious -- he can't stop short of that. In fact, looking for a guru implies, "You have found, now please show us. Since you have already found, what is the point in our searching now? We bow down to your feet. Please give us what you have attained." The idea is for someone else to place his hand on your head and have you realize God. So people are wandering around accepting mantras, becoming initiates, paying fees, massaging feet, serving, in the hope that what someone has already attained can become their own. This can never happen. This shows clearly the hold of the superstitious mind.


Someone else's achievement can never become yours. That poor fellow went in search and found, and you want to have it free? And remember, if he has searched, then while searching he must also have realized that one attains through seeking, not by asking. And so he will not even create any disciples. Only those are after disciples who have themselves not yet attained. They are hanging on to some other guru above them. There is a long series of gurus, all hoping to gain from the other.


Many gurus are already dead, and yet people hang on to them in the hope they will give them something. There is a long chain of dead gurus, going back thousands and millions of years, and they are all hanging on to each other hoping someone may give something. This is the mark of a superstitious mind.


The characteristic of a searching mind, the indication of a reflective mind is, "If there is God, then I will search for him. If I succeed in finding him, then it will be because of my merit, my birthright. If I ever find him, then it will be because of my lifelong dedication, my sacrifice, my meditation. It will be the fruit of my effort."


And remember, if God does become available free, a cogitative individual will turn him down. He will say, "It is not right to accept something that has not come out of my own effort. I will attain through my own effort." And bear in mind there are certain things which can only be attained through one's own effort. God is not one of those things sold in the market, a piece of merchandise available anywhere. Truth is not one of those articles sold in a department store where you can go and purchase it. But such stores are open.


There are stores, there are bazaars, where a signboard hangs, saying "Real Truth Available Here." Even truth is of the real and artificial kind! On every shop the sign says, "The real Master lives here. The rest are all fake masters; they live somewhere else. This is the only authentic shop. Buy from us! Give us the chance to serve you!" And once you have entered one of these shops, the owner won't want you to leave that easily. All this mischief is the creation of the superstitious mind.


I would like to say to you: have faith in seeking, not in begging. You will attain to God not by begging but by knowing. Also, never believe what others say. Someone may have attained -- it is possible of course -- so don't disbelieve either, because that is superstition too. Neither believe nor disbelieve. If someone comes along and says he has attained God, say, "Congratulations. God has been very compassionate to you, allowing you to find him. But kindly don't show me. Let me find him also; otherwise I will remain a cripple."


If you are carried to a destination someone has already walked to, you will arrive as a cripple. Feet grow stronger by walking. Reaching a destination is not so important, the really important thing is that the traveler becomes stronger in the pursuit. Attaining something is not as important as the transformation of the one who attained.


God, knowledge, or moksha are not readymade things. They are the fruit of the offering of one's life, of a lifetime of effort and sadhana. It is like the ultimate flower which comes on its own. But if you go to the market you will find plastic flowers. They last longer. You just need to dust them -- they last longer and create deception too. But whom do they deceive? Plastic flowers can deceive others -- those walking on the street can be fooled; they may think the flowers in your window are real -- but you can't be deceived because you bought them yourself.


For real flowers one has to sow the seeds, one has to put in effort, one has to raise the plants. Then, on their own, flowers bloom -- they are not brought in. The experience of God is like the flower, one's sadhana is like the plant. Care for the plant and the flower will come by itself. But we are in a hurry. We say, "Forget the plant; just give us the flower!"


Sometimes when children go to school for an examination, they don't solve the arithmetic problem, they look up the answer in the back of the arithmetic book and write it down. Even though the answer given is absolutely right, it is totally wrong. How can the answer of one who has not followed the method be right? His answer is absolutely right -- he has written 'five' -- and those who followed the method have also written 'five'. But do you see the difference in the answer given by those who followed the method and those who stole it from the back of the book? And what difference does it make whether they have stolen it from the back of the Gita or the Koran?


Even though the answer given by both is the same, it is not the same; there is a fundamental difference. The real question is not finding the answer, the real question is not arriving at 'five', the real question is learning how to arrive at the sum. And the one who looked in the back of the book didn't learn that. He didn't learn the arithmetic, he only got the answer.


And so, if you have learned something from somewhere, if you have received something from somebody, if you have heard something from someone and grabbed on to it -- then such a God is stolen from the back of the book. Then such a God is lifeless, dead, useless, good for nothing, not alive. An alive religion comes into being by living it, not by stealing answers from the back of some book.


But we are all thieves. We scold little children and warn them not to steal. The teacher also makes it clear that his students must not look for answers in the back of the book, that they should not steal their answers from somewhere -- but if he were to ask himself whether all his answers were stolen or not, it would seem all his answers were stolen as well.


The guru is a thief, the disciple is a thief, the teacher is a thief. All life's answers are stolen. From stolen answers one can never find peace or joy. Joy is attained by going through the same process by which flowers of answers bloom on their own. They are not borrowed.
			

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