Saturday, August 14, 2010

Satya Sai Baba Vs Sai Baba of Shridhi


Osho Story on Shirdi Sai Baba
 
Osho - If you come to meet God, you must meet him without any words. If you have some words, he may not fit and suit your idea. Because if a Hindu thinks he has one thousand hands, and if God comes only with two hands, a Hindu, he will reject: "You are not a God at all. Only with two hands? God has a thousand hands. Show me your other hands. Only then I can believe you."
It happened: One of the most beautiful persons of this past century was Sai Baba of Shirdi. He had a friend and a follower. Sai Baba was a Mohammedan. Or no one knows whether he was a Mohammedan or a Hindu, but he lived in a mosque, so it was believed he was a Mohammedan. And a Hindu follower was there, who loved, respected, has much faith in Sai Baba. Every day he will come for his darshan, and without seeing him he will not go. Sometimes it will happen that for the whole day he will have to wait, but without seeing he will not go, and he will not take food unless he has seen Sai Baba.
Once it happened the whole day passed, there was much gathering and much crowd -- he couldn't enter. When everybody has gone, just in the night he touched the feet.
Sai Baba said to him, "Why you unnecessarily wait? There is no need to see me here, I can come there. And drop this from tomorrow. Now I will do. Before you take your food you will see me every day."
The disciple was very happy. So next day he was waiting and waiting; nothing happened. Many things happened really, but nothing happened according to his conception. By the evening he was very angry. He has not taken the food, and Sai Baba has not appeared so he went again. He said, "You promise and you don't fulfill?"
Sai Baba said, "But I appeared thrice, not even once. First time I came, I was a beggar and you said to me, 'Move away! Don't come here!' Second time I came I was an old woman, and you just won't look at me; you closed your eyes-because the disciple had the habit of not seeing women; he was practicing not seeing women, so he closed the eyes.
Sai Baba said, "I had come, but what do you expect? Should I enter your eyes, closed eyes? I was standing there, but you closed the eyes. The moment you saw me, you closed the eyes. Then third time I reached as a dog, and you won't allow me in. With a stick you were standing in the door."
And these three things had happened. And these things have been happening to whole humanity. The divine comes in many forms, but you have a prejudice; you have a pre-formulated conception; you cannot see. He must appear according to you, and he never appears according to you. And he will never appear according to you. You cannot be the rule for him and you cannot put any conditions.
When all imagination falls, only then truth appears. Otherwise, imagination goes on making conditions and truth cannot appear. Only in a naked mind, in a nude, empty mind, truth appears, because you cannot distort it.
Source - Osho Book "Yoga, Vol1"

Osho on Sathya Sai Baba

  1. It happens that when for the first time a meditator attains to some psychic energy, some psychic power, the tendency, a natural tendency, is to exhibit it. And if he exhibits, sooner or later he will lose the power. Then a great problem arises: he cannot do it now, but now he has respectability. He is worshipped and people expect him to do miracles. Now what is he going to do? He will have to turn to magic, he will have to start learning tricks, to maintain his prestige.

    That's what happened to Satya Sai Baba and people like that. The first things that they had done were real, the first few experiments that they had done were not phony. But then the energy disappears. And by that time you have become famous, and people start gathering, foolish people, stupid people, and they expect you, and your whole ego depends on your exhibition. Now the only possible alternative is to learn magic tricks so that you can go on maintaining your prestige. If you brag, sooner or later you will become a victim of magical tricks. You will have to learn, and deceive people.
  2. Satya Sai Baba is neither a mystic nor a philosopher, just an ordinary magician.
  3. One hypocrite in India is Satya Sai Baba. I call him a hypocrite because he knows nothing of yoga. There is nothing wrong if you don't know anything of yoga -- I don't. I can afford to be sick, nobody can object; it is my birthright to be sick. I don't know yoga. But Satya Sai Baba declares himself a great yogi; then the problem arises. Then for his appendix operation he has to go to Goa secretly. And he has to pay ten times more to the doctor so the secret should not be known, because a great yogi going for an operation? What control has he over his physiology? But it is difficult to hide because his whole ashram became curious: where has Baba disappeared? His own people became curious about where he had gone. And after the operation he had to rest for two or three days in Goa. They found out, and the media and the press -- everybody was there, and the doctor had to confess that he had done the operation.
  4. You may go and seek Satya Sai Baba, because that will be a deep fulfillment of your greed. You will see: here is the man. If he can produce things out of air, he can do anything. Now your greed is provoked. Now a deep affinity happens immediately. That's why you will see thousands of people around Satya Sai Baba. If a Buddha exists, you will not see multitudes there, because there is no affinity. Satya Sai Baba has an appeal deep inside you: your greed is provoked. Now you know this is the right man. But you are wrong. How can you decide who is the right man? You create your deceivers, you give them the opportunity. You follow magicians, not masters.
    If you really want to seek a master, drop greed and drop your beliefs. Go to a master completely nude in the mind, with no beliefs; as if you are a tree in the fall with no leaves, naked, standing against the sky. You go and seek a master with a naked mind, with no leaves, with no beliefs. Only then, only then, I say, will you be able to see without projection; only then will something penetrate into your life from the above. Then nobody can deceive you.
     
  5. Don't ask for miracles. A man of meditation is himself a miracle. Whatever he does is a miracle. It is a beauty, it is magic, but it is all spontaneous. It is not practiced, it is not rehearsed. But most people are interested in supernatural powers, healing people with supernatural powers, or creating things out of nothing, just as Satya Sai Baba is doing. All kinds of frauds... but people become interested in them, thinking that here is a man of miracles. And what is the miracle if you can produce a Swiss watch which was hiding in your sleeve...?

    One old Parsi woman came to me in Bombay. Satya Sai Baba used to stay at her place, and she told me, "One day when he had gone into the bathroom, just out of curiosity I looked into his suitcases. They were all full of watches! I could not believe that this man was deceiving." She said, "I kicked him out. I told him, `Never again come in my house!' I cannot be a partner to any kind of fraud." She told me, "I am an old woman. Nobody listens to me, they think I have gone senile. I have come to you... perhaps you can do something about it."
    I said, "I have been challenging Satya Sai Baba, saying that this is stupid. When the country is dying of starvation, produce more food out of your miracles. He should bring rain to Hyderabad" ... where the Shankaracharya of Puri is going to force a woman to be burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre, and only then rain will come. And Satya Sai Baba is not far away from Hyderabad. Bring rain to Hyderabad -- do some real work! All that he produces is ash, and he gives you the ash and you think it is great. It is so simple that any street magician can do it. In fact the more experienced street magicians can do it in a far better way, and can do many more things than he is doing.
    I have no objection to him as a magician, but he should not pretend to be a spiritual man. It is not only a question of a single person pretending to be spiritual when he is not. The question is that he attracts thousands of people, mediocre people, who believe that this man of miracles may impart something to them, may lead them to the ultimate truth.
  6. People ask me why Indians are not here. They cannot be here because we are REALLY interested in meditation. They go to Satya Sai Baba because meditation is not the question there -- miracles are happening. They can hope. They are ill: maybe Satya Sai Baba, by his miracle, can take their illness away. Maybe they are unemployed: by his blessing they will be employed. They are poor: by his blessing they will become rich. They go to Satya Sai Baba -- he deals in things which they need. And they are really surprised when Swiss-made watches appear out of nowhere. That is their real object -- they want Swiss-made watches. Stupid people, and stupid are their saints. Now a saint playing games, magic games, ordinary magic games! We have sannyasins -- Avinash can do it, Sarvesh can do it -- just small games, of no value at all, of no religious value at all. Maybe entertaining.
  7. The curtain of attachments is so dense and thick that even if you go towards religion you look for miracles. If you find Buddha standing before you, you will not recognize him. If Buddha and Satya Sai Baba are both present you will definitely move towards Satya Sai Baba, and not towards Buddha, because Buddha is not so stupid as to conjures things out of the air! You are in search of magicians. You are impressed by miracles, because your deepest desire is for the world and not for God.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

What is Meditation?

OshoMeditation is Non-doing
When people come to me and they ask, "How to meditate?" I tell them, "There is no need to ask how to meditate, just ask how to remain unoccupied. Meditation happens spontaneously.  Just ask how to remain unoccupied, that's all. That's the whole trick of meditation - how to remain unoccupied. Then you cannot do anything. The meditation will flower.
When you are not doing anything the energy moves towards the centre, it settles down towards the centre. When you are doing something the energy moves out. Doing is a way of moving out. Non-doing is a way of moving in. Occupation is an escape. You can read the Bible, you can make it an occupation. There is no difference between religious occupation and secular occupation: all occupations are occupations, and they help you to cling outside your being. They are excuses to remain outside.
Man is ignorant and blind, and he wants to remain ignorant and blind, because to come inwards looks like entering a chaos. And it is so; inside you have created a chaos. You have to encounter it and go through it. Courage is needed - courage to be oneself, and courage to move inwards. I have not come across a greater courage than that - the courage to be meditative.
But people who are engaged outside - with worldly things or nonworldly things, but occupied all the same, they think ....and they have created a rumor around it, they have their own philosophers. They say that if you are introvert you are somehow morbid, something is wrong with you. And they are in the majority. If you meditate, if you sit silently, they will joke about you: "What are you doing? - Gazing at your navel? What are you doing? - Opening the third eye? Where are you going? Are you morbid? Because what is there to do inside? There is nothing inside."
Inside doesn't exist for the majority of people, only the outside exists. And just the opposite is the case - only inside is real; outside is nothing but a dream. But they call introverts morbid, they call meditators morbid. In the West they think that the East is little morbid. What is the point of sitting alone and looking inwards? What are you going to get there? There is nothing.
David Hume, one of the great British philosophers, tried once... because he was studying the Upanishads and they go on saying: Go in, go in, go in - that is their only message. So he tried it.  He closed his eyes one day - a totally secular man, very logical, empirical, but not meditative at all - he closed his eyes and he said, "It is so boring! It is a boredom to look in. Thoughts move, sometimes a few emotions, and they go on racing in the mind, and you go on looking at them - what is the point of it? It is useless. It has no utility."
And this is the understanding of many people. Hume's standpoint is that of the majority: What are going to get inside? There is darkness, thoughts floating here and there. What will you do? What will come out of it? If Hume had waited a little longer - and that is difficult for such people - if he had been a little more patient, by and by thought disappear, emotions subside. But if it had happened to him he would have said, "That is even worse, because emptiness comes. At least first there were thoughts, something to be occupied with, to look at, to think about. Now even thoughts have disappeared; only emptiness....What to do with emptiness? It is absolutely useless."
But if he had waited a little more, then darkness also disappears. It is just like when you come from the hot sun and you enter your house: everything looks dark because your eyes need a little attunement. They are fixed on the hot sun outside; comparatively, your house looks dark. You cannot see, you feel as if it is night. But you wait, you sit, you rest in a chair, and after few seconds the eyes get attuned. Now it is not dark, a little more light........
You rest for an hour, and everything is light, there is no darkness at all.
If Hume had waited a little longer, then darkness also disappears. Because you have lived in the hot sun outside for many lives your eyes have become fixed, they have lost flexibility. They need tuning. When one comes inside the house it takes a little while, a little time, a patience. Don't be in a hurry.
In haste nobody can come to know himself. It is a very very deep awaiting. Infinite patience is needed. By and by darkness disappears. There comes a light with no source there is no flame in it, no lamp is burning, no sun is there. A light, just like it is morning: the night has disappeared, and the sun has not risen.... Or in the evening - the twilight, when the sun has set and night has not yet descended. That's why Hindus call their prayer time sandhya. Sandhya means twilight, light without any source.
When you move inwards you will come to the light without any source. In that light, for the first time you start understanding yourself, who you are, because you are that light. You are that twilight, that sandhya, that pure clarity, that perception, where the observer and the observed disappear, and only the light remains.
Osho - from the book What is Meditation?
Book not to miss, Meditation: The First and Last Freedom, by Osho

MORALITY CREATES SCHIZOPHRENIA, SPLIT PERSONALITIES, DIVISIONS.

RELIGION IS SYNCHRONICITY, MORALITY IS CAUSAL. Morality comes from the outside, religion arises in you. When religion disappears there is only morality, and morality is very dangerous.
 
FIRST, YOU DON'T KNOW YOURSELF WHAT IS RIGHT, but you start pretending: the hypocrite is created. You start pretending, you start showing that whatsoever you are doing is right. You don't know what right is, and naturally, because you don't know you can only pretend.
 
From the back door you will continue doing the same: that YOU know that it is right. FROM THE BACK DOOR YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER LIFE; FROM THE FRONT DOOR, ANOTHER. From the front door you may be smiling, and from the back door you may be crying and weeping. From the front door you will pretend to be a saint, and from the back door you will be as much of a sinner as anybody else. Your life will become split. THIS IS WHAT IS CREATING SCHIZOPHRENIA IN THE WHOLE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. You become two, or many.
 
NATURALLY WHEN YOU ARE TWO, THERE IS CONSTANT CONFLICT. Naturally when you are many, there is a crowd and much noise. And you can never settle in silence, you can never rest in silence. Silence is possible only when you are one, when there is nobody else within you, when you are one piece -- not fragmented.
 
MORALITY CREATES SCHIZOPHRENIA, SPLIT PERSONALITIES, DIVISIONS. A moral person is not an individual because he is divided, only a religious person is an individual. The moral person has a personality but no individuality. Personality means persona, mask. And he has many personalities, not only one -- because he has to have many personalities around him. In different situations, different personalities are needed. WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE, DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES ARE NEEDED. To one he shows one face, to another he shows another face. One goes on changing faces.
 
YOU WATCH, AND YOU WILL SEE HOW YOU GO ON CHANGING FACES EVERY MOMENT. Alone you have one face. In your bathroom you have one face, in the office you have another. Have you observed the fact that in your bathroom you become more childish?
 
Sometimes you can show your tongue to yourself in the mirror, or you can make faces, or you can hum a tune, sing a song, or you can even have a little dance in the bathroom. But while you are dancing or showing your tongue in the mirror, if you become aware that your child is looking through the keyhole, you change -- immediate change! The old face comes back... the father personality. 'This cannot be done in front of the child', otherwise what he will  think? -- that you are also like him? So what about that seriousness that you show to him always? You immediately pull down another face, you become serious. The song disappears, the dance disappears, the tongue disappears. You are back into your so-called front-door personality.
 
MORALITY CREATES CONFLICT IN YOU BECAUSE IT CREATES MANY FACES. And the problem is that when you have many faces, you tend to forget which is your original one. With so many faces how can you remember which is your original one?
 
OSHO
I Say Unto You
Vol 2, Ch #1: Neither do I condemn thee
am in Buddha Hall

Monday, August 9, 2010

Dealing With the Strong Emotions

Dealing with Strong Emotions -
By OSHO

When a mood against some­one or for some­one arises, do not place it on the per­son in ques­tions, but remain centered.
If hate arises for some­one or against some­one, or love arises for some­one, what do we do? We project it on the per­son. If you feel hate toward me, you for­get your­self com­pletely in your hate; only I become your object. If you feel love toward me, you for­get your­self com­pletely; only I become the object. You project your love or hate or what­so­ever upon me. You for­get com­pletely the inner cen­ter of your being; the other becomes the center.
This sutra says when hate arises or love arises, or any mood for or against any­one, do not project it on the per­son in ques­tion. Remem­ber, you are the source of it.
I love you — the ordi­nary feel­ing is that you are the source of my love. That is not really so. I am the source, you are just a screen on which I project my love.
You are just a screen; I project my love on you and I say that you are the source of my love. This is not fact, this is fic­tion. I draw my love energy and project it onto you. In that love energy pro­jected onto you, you become love­able. You may ot be love­able to some­one else, you may be absolutely repul­sive to some­one else.
Why?
If you are the source of love then every­one will feel lov­ing toward you, but you are not the source.
I project love, then you become love­able; some­one projects hate, then you become repul­sive. And some­one else doesn’t project any­thing, he is indif­fer­ent; he may not even have looked at you.
What is hap­pen­ing? We are pro­ject­ing our own moods upon oth­ers. That is why, if you are on your hon­ey­moon, the moon looks beau­ti­ful, mirac­u­lous, won­der­ful. it seems that the whole world is dif­fer­ent. And on the same night, just for your neigh­bor, this mirac­u­lous night may not be in exis­tence at all. His child has died — then the same moon is just sad, intol­er­a­ble. But for you it is enchant­ing, fas­ci­nat­ing; it cre­ates pas­sion. Why? Is the moon the source or is the moon just a screen and you are pro­ject­ing yourself?
This sutra says, when a mood against some­one or for some­one arises, do not place it on the per­son in ques­tion — or on the object in ques­tion. Remain centered.
Remem­ber that you are the source, so do not move to the other, move to the source. When you feel hate, do not go to the object. Go to the point from where the hate is com­ing. Go not to the per­son to whom it is going, but to the cen­ter from where it is coming.
Move to the cen­ter, go within. Use your hate or love or anger or any­thing as a jour­ney toward your inner cen­ter, to the source. Move to the source and remain cen­tered there. Try it! This is a very, very sci­en­tific, psy­cho­log­i­cal technique.
Some­one has insulted you — anger sud­denly erupts, you are fever­ish. Anger is flow­ing toward the per­son who has insulted you. Now you will project this whole anger onto him. He has not done any­thing. If he has insulted you, what has he done? He has just pricked you, he has helped your anger to arise — but the anger is yours. If he goes to Bud­dha and insults him, he will not be able to cre­ate any anger in him. Or if he goes to Jesus, Jesus will give him the other cheek. Or if he goes to Bod­hid­harma, he will roar with laugh­ter. So it depends.
The other is not the source, the source is always within you. The other is hit­ting the source, but if there is no anger within you it can­not come out. If you hit a bud­dha, only com­pas­sion will come out because only com­pas­sion is there. Anger will not come out because anger is not there.
If you throw a bucket into a dry well, noth­ing comes out. In a water-filled well, you throw a bucket and water comes out, but the water is from the well. The bucket only helps to bring it out. So one who is insult­ing you is just throw­ing a bucket in you, and then the bucket will come out filled with the anger, hate, or fire that was within you.
You are the source, remember.
For this tech­nique, remem­ber that you are the source of every­thing that you go on pro­ject­ing onto oth­ers. And when­ever there is a mood against or for, imme­di­ately move within and go to the source from where this hate is coming.
Remain cen­tered there; do not move to the object. Some­one has given you a chance to be aware of your own anger — thank him imme­di­ately and for­get him. Close your eyes, move within, and now look at the source from where this love or anger is com­ing. From where?
Go within, move within. You will find the source there because the anger is com­ing from your source. Hate or love or any­thing is com­ing from your source.
And it is easy to go to the source at the moment you are angry or in love or in hate, because then you are hot. It is easy to move in then. The wire is hot and you can take it in, you can move inward with that hot­ness. And when you reach a cool point within, you will sud­denly real­ize a dif­fer­ent dimen­sion, a dif­fer­ent world open­ing before you.
Use anger, use hate, use love to go within. We use it always to move to the other, and we feel very much frus­trated if no one is there to project upon. Then we go on pro­ject­ing even on inan­i­mate objects. I have seen per­sons being angry at their shoes, throw­ing them in anger. What are they doing? I have seen angry per­sons
push­ing a door in anger, throw­ing their anger on the door, abus­ing the door, using dirty lan­guage against the door. What are they doing?
I will end with one Zen insight about this. One of the great­est of Zen mas­ters, Lin Chi, used to say, “While I was young I was very fas­ci­nated by boat­ing. I had one small boat, and I would go on the lake alone. For hours together I would remain there.” Once it hap­pened that with closed eyes I was in my boat med­i­tat­ing on the beau­ti­ful night. One empty boat came float­ing down­stream and struck my boat. My eyes were closed, so I thought, ‘Some­one is here with his boat, and he has struck my boat.’ Anger arose. I opened my eyes and I was just going to say some­thing to that man in anger, then I real­ized that the boat was empty. Then there was no way to move. To whom could I express the anger? The boat was empty. It was just float­ing down­stream, and it had come and struck my boat. So there was noth­ing to do. There was no pos­si­bil­ity to project the anger on
an empty boat.”
So Lin Chi said, “I closed my eyes. The anger was there, but find­ing no way out, I closed my eyes and just floated back­ward with the anger. And that empty boat became my real­iza­tion. I came to a point within myself in that silent night. That empty boat was my mas­ter. And now if some­one comes and insults me, I laugh and I say, ‘This boat is also empty.’ I close my eyes and I go within.”
Use this tech­nique. It may work mir­a­cles for you.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Ramakrishna Teachings on How to Deal with Wicked

How to deal with the wicked?

A Devotee: "Sir, if a wicked man is about to do harm, or actually does so, should we keep quiet then?"
Sri Ramakrishna: "A man living in society should make a show of tamas to protect himself from evil-minded people. But he should not harm anybody in anticipation of harm likely to be done him.
Parable of the snake
"Listen to a story. Some cowherd boys used to tend their cows in a meadow where a terrible poisonous snake lived. Everyone was on the alert for fear of it. One day a brahmachari was going along the meadow.  The boys ran to him and said: 'Revered sir, please don't go that way. A venomous snake lives over there.'  'What of it, my good children?' said the brahmachari. 'I am not afraid of the snake. I know some mantras.' So saying, he continued on his way along the meadow. But the cowherd boys, being afraid, did not accompany him. In the mean time the snake moved swiftly toward him with upraised hood. As soon as it came near, he recited a mantra, and the snake lay at his feet like an earthworm.

The brahmachari said: 'Look here. Why do you go about doing harm? Come, I will give you a holy word. By repeating it you will learn to love God. Ultimately you will realize Him and so get rid of your violent nature.' Saying this, he taught the snake a holy word and initiated him into spiritual life.  The snake bowed before the teacher and said, 'Revered sir, how shall I practise spiritual discipline?' 'Repeat that sacred word', said the teacher, 'and do no harm to anybody'. As he was about to depart, the brahmachari said, 'I shall see you again.'

"Some days passed and the cowherd boys noticed that the snake would not bite. They threw stones at it. Still it showed no anger; it behaved as if it were an earthworm. One day one of the boys came close to it, caught it by the tail, and, whirling it round and round, dashed it again and again on the ground and threw it away. The snake vomited blood and became unconscious. It was stunned. It could not move. So, thinking it dead, the boys went their way.

"Late at night the snake regained consciousness. Slowly and with great difficulty it dragged itself into its hole; its bones were broken and it could scarcely move. Many days passed. The snake became a mere skeleton covered with a skin. Now and then, at night, it would come out in search of food. For fear of the boys it would not leave its hole during the day-time. Since receiving the sacred word from the teacher, it had given up doing harm to others. It maintained its life on dirt, leaves, or the fruit that dropped from the trees.

"About a year later the brahmachari came that way again and asked after the snake. The cowherd boys told him that it was dead. But he couldn't believe them. He knew that the snake would not die before attaining the fruit of the holy word with which it had been initiated. He found his way to the place and, searching here and there, called it by the name he had given it. Hearing the teacher's voice, it came out of its hole and bowed before him with great reverence.

 'How are you?' asked the brahmachari. 'I am well, sir', replied the snake. 'But', the teacher asked, 'why are you so thin?'

The snake replied: 'Revered sir, you ordered me not to harm any body. So I have been living only on leaves and fruit. Perhaps that has made me thinner.'

"The snake had developed the quality of sattva; it could not be angry with anyone. It had totally forgotten that the cowherd boys had almost killed it.

"The brahmachari said: 'It can't be mere want of food that has reduced you to this state. There must be some other reason. Think a little.'

Then the snake remembered that the boys had dashed it against the ground. It said: 'Yes, revered sir, now I remember. The boys one day dashed me violently against the ground. They are ignorant, after all. They didn't realize what a great change had come over my mind. How could they know I wouldn't bite or harm anyone?'
The brahmachari exclaimed: 'What a shame! You are such a fool! You don't know how to protect yourself. I asked you not to bite, but I didn't forbid you to hiss. Why didn't you scare them by hissing?'

"So you must hiss at wicked people. You must frighten them lest they should do you harm. But never inject your venom into them. One must not injure others. "In this creation of God there is a variety of things: men, animals, trees, plants. Among the animals some are good, some bad. There are ferocious animals like the tiger. Some trees bear fruit sweet as nectar, and others bear fruit that is poisonous. Likewise, among human beings, there are the good and the wicked, the holy and the unholy. There are some who are devoted to God, and others who are attached to the world.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Osho on Habit of Chain Smoking

Question: Osho, I cannot drop the habit of chain-smoking. I have tried hard but I have failed always. Is it a sin to smoke?
Osho: Gurucharan, DON'T MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL! Religious people are very skillful in doing that. Now, what are you really doing when you are smoking? Just taking some smoke inside your lungs and letting it out. It is a kind of Pranayama -- filthy, dirty, but still a Pranayama! You are doing yoga, in a stupid way. It is not sin. It may be foolish but it is not a sin, certainly.

There is only one sin and that is unawareness, and only one virtue and that is awareness.Do whatsoever you are doing, but remain a witness to it, and immediately the quality of your doing is transformed. I will not tell you not to smoke; that you have tried. You must have been told by many so-called saints not to smoke: "Because if you smoke you will fall into hell." God is not so stupid as your saints are. Throwing somebody into hell just because he was smoking cigarettes will be absolutely unnecessary.

 

Osho on Smoking


One morning, Weintraub went to a restaurant and ordered bacon with his eggs. He was an orthodox Jew and his wife kept a strictly kosher home, but Weintraub felt the need just this once. As Weintraub was about to leave the restaurant, he stopped in the door frozen with terror. The sky was filled with black clouds, there was lightning, and the ground shook with the rumble of thunder.
"Can you imagine!" he exclaimed. "All that fuss over a little piece of bacon!"

But that's what your so-called saints have been telling you down the ages, for centuries. Smoking is unhealthy, unhygienic, but not a sin. It becomes a sin only if you are doing it unconsciously -- it is not smoking that makes it a sin but unconsciousness.

Let me emphasize the fact. You can do your prayer every day unconsciously; then your prayer is a sin. You can become addicted to your prayer. If you miss the prayer one day, the whole day you will feel something is wrong, something is missing, some gap. It is the same with smoking or with drinking; there is no difference in it. Your prayer has become a mechanical habit; it has become a master over you. It bosses you; you are just a servant, a slave to it. If you don't do it, it forces you to do it.

So it is not a question of smoking. You may be doing your Transcendental Meditation every day regularly, and it may be just the same. If the quality of unconsciousness is there, if mechanicalness is there, if it has become a fixed routine, if it has become a habit and you are a victim of the habit and you cannot put it aside, you are no more a master of yourself, then it is a sin. But its being a sin comes out of your unconsciousness, not out of the act itself. No act is virtuous, no act is a sin. What consciousness is behind the act -- everything depends on that.

You say: I cannot drop the habit of chain-smoking. I am less interested in your chain-smoking; I am more interested in your habit. Any habit that becomes a force, a dominating force over you, is a sin. One should live more in freedom. One should be able to do things not according to habits but according to the situations. Life is continuously changing -- it is a flux -- and habits are stagnant. The more you are surrounded by habits, the more you are closed to life. You are not open, you don't have windows.

You don't have any communication with life; you go on repeating your habits. They don't fit; they are not the right response to the situation, to the moment. They are always lagging behind, they are always falling short. That's the failure of your life. So remember: I am against all kinds of habits. Good or bad is not the point; there is no good habit as such, there is no bad habit as such. Habits are all bad because habit means something unconscious has become a dominating factor in your life, has become decisive. You are no more the deciding factor.  The response is not coming out of awareness but out of a pattern, structure, that you have learned in the past.

Two members of the Shalom Retirement Home, Blustein and Levin, were strolling past the home of Nelson Rockefeller. "If I only had that man's millions," sighed Blustein, "I would be richer than he is."
"Don't be a dummy," said Levin. "If you had his millions you would be as rich as he is, not any richer." "You are wrong," said Blustein, "don't forget -- I could give Hebrew lessons on the side!"

That's what he has been doing. Even if he becomes Nelson Rockefeller he will go on giving Hebrew lessons on the side. That's how people are living, just according to habits. I have seen many rich people living very poor lives. Before they became rich their habits became settled -- and their habits became settled when they were poor. That's why you find so much miserliness in rich people; it comes from the habits that became ingrained in them when they were poor.

One of the richest men in the world -- not ONE of the richest but THE richest man in the world it is thought -- was the Nizam of Hyderabad. His collection of diamonds was the greatest in the world because he owned the diamond mines of Golconda which have provided the greatest diamonds to the world. The Kohinoor comes from Golconda. It was once in the Nizam's possession. He had so many diamonds that it is said that no one has ever been able to calculate exactly the price of his collection.

Thousands and thousands of diamonds -- they were not counted, they were weighed! But he was one of the most miserly men in the world. He used a single cap for thirty years. It was stinking but he wouldn't change it. He continued to wear the same coat for almost his whole life and he would not give it to be washed because they might destroy it. He was so miserly -- you cannot imagine -- that he would collect half-smoked cigarettes from the guests' ashtrays and then smoke them. The richest man in the world smoking cigarette butts smoked by others!

The first thing he would do whenever a guest left was to search in the ashtrays and collect the ends of the cigarettes. When he died, his greatest diamond was found in his dirty shoes. He was hiding it in his shoe! Maybe he had some idea behind it -- that maybe he would be able to take it with him to the other world. Maybe he was afraid: "When I am dead, people may steal it." It was the greatest diamond; he used that diamond as a paper-weight on his table. Before he died he must have put it inside his shoe. Even when one is dying one is moving in old habits, following old patterns.

I have heard: The old Mulla Nasruddin had become a very rich man. When he felt death approaching he decided to make some arrangements for his funeral, so he ordered a beautiful coffin made of ebony wood with satin pillows inside. He also had a beautiful silk caftan made for his dead body to be dressed in. The day the tailor delivered the caftan, Mulla Nasruddin tried it on to see how it would look, but suddenly he exclaimed, "What is this! Where are the pockets?"

Gurucharan, smoking or no smoking, that is not important. Maybe if you continue to smoke you will die a little earlier. So what? The world is so overpopulated, you will do some good by dying a little earlier. Maybe you will have tuberculosis. So what? Tuberculosis is now almost like the common cold. In fact, there is no cure for the common cold but there is a cure for tuberculosis I know it because I suffer from a common cold. To have tuberculosis is to be very fortunate.

A man was suffering from a common cold for many years. All the doctors were tired of the man because nobody was able to cure him. Then a new doctor came to the town. All the other doctors told the new doctor, "Beware of this man! He is going to haunt you! He is a nuisance -- his cold cannot be cured."

In fact, there is no cure for the common cold. They say that if you take medicine it goes within seven days; if you don't take the medicine it goes in one week.

So the new doctor was ready and the man appeared, as predicted by the others. The new doctor said, "I can cure it. You do one thing" -- it must have been winter-time, just like this morning -- he told him, "You do one thing: tomorrow, early in the morning, before sunrise, go to the lake; swim in the lake naked, then stand on the bank in the cold wind."

The man said, "Are you mad or something? How is that going to cure my common cold?"
The doctor said, "Who told you that it is going to cure your common cold? It will give you influenza, and I can cure that!"

So it is possible, Gurucharan, that you may die two years earlier, you may get tuberculosis -- but it is not a sin. Don't be worried about THAT. If you really want to do something about your life, dropping smoking is not going to help -- because I know people who drop smoking; then they start chewing gum. The same old stupidity! Or if they are Indians they start chewing pan; it is the same. You will do something or other. Your unconsciousness will demand some activity, some occupation. It is an occupation.

And it is only a symptom; it is not really the problem. It is not the root of the problem. Have you not observed? Whenever you feel emotionally disturbed you immediately start smoking. It gives you a kind of relief; you become occupied. Your mind is distracted from the emotional problem. Whenever people feel tense they start smoking. The problem is tension, the problem is emotional disturbance -- the problem is somewhere else; smoking is just an occupation.

So you become engaged in taking the smoke in and out and you forget for the time being...because mind cannot think of two things together, remember it. One of the fundamentals of mind is: it can think only of one thing at one time; it is one-dimensional. So if you are smoking and thinking of smoking, then from all other anxieties you are distracted. That's the whole secret of the so-called spiritual mantras: they are nothing but distractions, like smoking.

You repeat "Om, Om, Om," or "Ram, Ram, Ram," or "Allah, Allah, Allah" -- that is just giving mind an occupation. And all these people who teach mantras say, "Repeat it as quickly as possible, so that between two repetitions there is not even a small gap. Let them overlap -- so 'Ram Ram Ram' -- don't leave a gap between two Rams, otherwise some thought may enter. Repeat like crazy!"

Yes, it will give you a certain relief -- the same relief that comes from smoking, because your mind will be distracted from the anxieties and the world. You will forget about the world; you have created a trick. All mantras are tricks, but they are spiritual. Chain-smoking is also a mantra. It is a worldly mantra; non-religious you can call it, secular. The real problem is the habit.


You say: I HAVE TRIED HARD TO DROP IT....
You have not tried to be conscious of it; without trying to be conscious you have tried to drop it. It is not possible. It will come back, because your mind is the same; its needs are the same, its problems are the same, its anxieties, tensions are the same, its anguish is the same. And when those anxieties arise, what will you do? Immediately, mechanically, you will start searching for the cigarettes. You may have decided again and again, and again and again you have failed -- not because smoking is such a great phenomenon that you cannot get out of it, but because you are trying from the wrong end.

Rather than becoming aware of the whole situation -- why you smoke in the first place -- rather than becoming aware of the process of smoking, you are simply trying to drop it. It is like pruning the leaves of a tree without cutting the roots. And my whole concern here is to cut the roots, not to prune the tree. By pruning the leaves and the branches the tree will become thicker, the foliage will become thicker. You will not destroy the tree; you will be helping it, in fact.

If you really want to get out of it you will have to look deeper, not into the symptoms but the roots. Where are the roots? You must be a deeply anxiety-ridden person, otherwise chain-smoking is not possible; chain-smoking is a by-product. You must be so concerned about a thousand and one disturbances inside, you must be carrying such a big load of worries on your heart, on your chest, that you don't even know how to forget them. You don't know how to drop them -- smoking at least helps you to forget about them.

You say: I HAVE TRIED HARD...
Now one thing has to be understood. The hypnotists have discovered a fundamental law; they call it the Law of Reverse Effect. If you try hard to do something without understanding the fundamentals, just the opposite will be the result. It is like when you are learning how to ride on a bicycle. You are on a silent road, no traffic, early in the morning, and you see a red milestone just standing there by the side of the road like Hanuman.

A sixty-foot-wide road and just a small milestone, and you become afraid: you may get to the milestone, you may hit against the milestone. Now you forget about the sixty-foot-wide road. In fact, even if you go blindfolded there is not much chance of your encountering the milestone, crashing into the milestone, but with open eyes now the whole road is forgotten; you have become focused. In the first place, that redness is very focusing. And you are so much afraid! -- you want to avoid it.

You have forgotten that you are on a bicycle; you have forgotten everything. Now the only problem for you is how to avoid this stone; otherwise you may harm yourself, you may crash into it. Now the crash is absolutely inevitable; you are bound to crash with the stone. And then you will be surprised: '.'1 tried hard." In fact it is BECAUSE you tried hard that you reached the stone. And the closer you come, the harder you try to avoid it; but the harder you try to avoid it, the more focused you become on it. It becomes a hypnotic force, it hypnotizes you. It becomes like a magnet.

It is a very fundamental law in life. Many people try avoiding many things and they fall into the same things. Try to avoid anything with great effort and you are bound to fall into the same pit. You cannot avoid it; that is not the way to avoid it. Be relaxed. Don't try hard, because it is through relaxation that you can become aware, not by trying hard. Be calm, quiet, silent.

I will suggest: smoke as much as you want to smoke. It is not a sin in the first place. I give you the guarantee -- I will be responsible. I take the sin on myself, so if you meet God on Judgment Day you can just tell him that this fellow is responsible. And I will stand there as a witness for you that you are not responsible. So don't be worried about its being a sin. Relax and don't try to drop it with effort. No, that is not going to help. Zen believes in effortless understanding.

So this is my suggestion: Smoke as much as you want to smoke -- just smoke meditatively. If Zen people can drink tea meditatively, why can't you smoke meditatively? In fact, tea contains the same stimulant as the cigarettes contain; it is the same stimulant, there is not much difference. Smoke meditatively, very religiously. Make it a ceremony. Try it my way. Make a small corner in your house just for smoking: a small temple devoted, dedicated to the god of smoking. First bow down to your cigarette packet. Have a little chit-chat, talk to the cigarettes.

Inquire, "How are you?" And then very slowly take a cigarette out -- very slowly, as slowly as you can, because only if you take it very slowly will you be aware. Don't do it in a mechanical way, as you always do. Then tap the cigarette on the packet very slowly and for as long as you want. There is no hurry either. Then take the lighter, bow down to the lighter. These are great gods, deities! Light is God, so why not the lighter?

Then start smoking very slowly, just like VIPASSANA. Don't do it like a PRANAYAMA -- quick and fast and deep -- but very slowly. Buddha says: Breathe naturally. So you smoke naturally: very slow, no hurry. If it is a sin you are in a hurry. If it is a sin you want to finish it as soon as possible. If it is a sin you don't want to look at it. You go on reading the newspaper and you go on smoking. Who wants to look at a sin? But it is not a sin, so watch it -- watch each of your acts. Divide your acts into small fragments so you can move very slowly.

And you will be surprised: by watching your smoking, slowly slowly smoking will become less and less. And one day suddenly...it is gone. You have not made any effort to drop it; it has dropped of its own accord, because by becoming aware of a dead pattern, a routine, a mechanical habit, you have created, you have released, a new energy of consciousness in you. Only that energy can help you; nothing else will ever help. And it is not only so with smoking, Gurucharan, it is so with everything else in life: don't try too hard to change yourself.

That leaves scars. Even if you change, your change will remain superficial. And you will find a substitute somewhere; you will HAVE to find a substitute, otherwise you will feel empty. And when something withers away of its own accord because you have become so silently aware of the stupidity of it that no effort is needed, when it simply falls, just like a dead leaf falling from a tree, it leaves no scar behind and it leaves no ego behind. If you drop something by effort, it creates great ego.

You start thinking, "Now I am a very virtuous man because I don't smoke." If you think that smoking is a sin, naturally, obviously, if you drop it you will think you are a very virtuous man. That's how your virtuous men are. Somebody does not smoke, somebody does not drink, somebody eats only once a day, somebody does not eat in the night, somebody has even stopped drinking water in the night...and they are all great saints! These are saintly qualities, great virtues!

We have made religion so silly. It has lost all glory. It has become as stupid as people are. But the whole thing depends on your attitude: if you think something is a sin, then your virtue will be just the opposite of it. I emphasize: not-smoking is not virtue, smoking is not sin; awareness is virtue, unawareness is sin. And then the same law is applicable to your whole life.


Source: from book “Ah This!” by Osho
 
Related Links
  1. Osho on How to Quit Smoking
  2. Osho on LSD as an help in Meditation
  3. Osho Meditation for Quitting Smoking
  4. Osho on Drug Addiction and the way to Prevent it
  5. Osho on Drugs Deaddiction with Meditation and Hypnosis
  6. Osho on How to Deal with Drug Addiction with Meditation
  7. Osho on How to Drop an Obsession with the help of Meditation

Monday, August 2, 2010

Osho Quotes on Addiction


  1. To me transcendence comes out of your experience. You see the futility of something and the addiction drops. Then once in a while, just for a change, if you want to smoke I don't see any harm; if you want to make love I don't see any harm. The harm is in the addiction -- the harm is not in the act. And transcendence is not concerned with the act; transcendence is concerned with the addiction.
     
  2. To be addicted is bad. It gives you a kind of dependence. And all addictions are bad. There are no good addictions -- addiction as such is bad.
     
  3. I am not against anything -- but nothing should become an addiction. Otherwise you are in a very very confused state.
     
  4. These therapists came from the West to me because in the West therapy was going out of fashion. People were tired, because what is the point? -- for a few days you feel great and then come the dumps. You feel worse than before. Then to go again to the therapist becomes a kind of addiction.
    And there is no end to it. People go on moving from one therapy to another therapy their whole life, always feeling, "This is going to work." And it seems to work for a while, but it does not change anything basic, just superficial touches, so you are again back to zero.
     
  5. People don't believe in what you say, people believe in the way you say it. And once you have learned the art of telling lies it becomes an addiction, because people start believing in you, you start becoming powerful. And then, if you can manage a few more things, your power will be immense.
     
  6. Work is good but it should not become an addiction. Many people have made their work like a drug so they can forget themselves in their work -- just like a drunkard forgetting himself in alcohol.
     
  7. The chewing gum keeps them engaged, and that's how cigarettes keep them engaged. That's how people go on gossiping with each other. That keeps them engaged. Nobody bothers whether it is true or false, that is not the point. The question is: How to keep engaged and away from yourself? So the workaholics are against meditation. Every addiction is going to prevent you from becoming a meditator. All addictions have to be dropped. But to be total in your work is a totally different thing. To be total in your work is not addiction, it is a kind of meditation. When you are totally in your work, your work has a possibility of perfection, you will have a joy arising out of a perfect work.
     
  8. A very strange thing about addiction is that if you have the drug, it is nothing; if you don't have it, you are missing. You never think what you are missing because when you have it, it is nothing. Each time you have it you feel that it is just a futile effort, nothing comes out of it. You don't move a single inch in evolution. You just jump for a moment in the air and with a thump you fall back on the ground.
     
  9. Addiction has to be dropped only when it makes you unconscious. Alcoholics are told to drop the addiction, but here my teaching is of consciousness -- be addicted to it more and more.
     
  10. But what is anger? It is far more intoxicating than any alcohol can be. What is jealousy? What is hatred? They are far more addictive. You can be easily taken out of your drug addiction; any institution like Alcoholics Anonymous can help you. But to make you unaddicted to your jealousy, to your ambition, to your competitiveness, to your anger, rage, your potentiality for violence, no Alcoholics Anonymous can be of any help. But a few, a very few people, enlightened people, have simply pushed you upwards. They have distributed themselves. They are not hoarders -- they cannot be.
     
  11. This is what addiction means: if you do it, nothing is gained; if you don't do it, you feel that something is missing. This is what a smoker feels. If he smokes, he knows nothing is gained. He is doing something silly, just a stupid thing -- taking smoke in and throwing it out.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Zorba the Buddha - the Ultimate Synthesis

Osho,
Many contemporaries and enlightened ones -- Raman Maharshi, Meher Baba, George Gurdjieff and J. Krishnamurti -- have worked with people, but people get more offended by you than by anybody else. Osho, where does your technique differ from that of other enlightened ones?

The question is very fundamental. It arises in many people's minds, and it needs a very deep insight into the workings of different masters.
We will take each of the masters named in the question separately.
RAMAN MAHARSHI is a mystic of the highest quality, but a master of the lowest quality. And you have to understand that to be a mystic is one thing; to be a master is totally different.
Out of a thousand mystics, perhaps one is a master. Nine hundred and ninety-nine decide to remain silent -- seeing the difficulty, that whatever they have realized is impossible to convey in any possible way to others; seeing that not only is it difficult to convey, it is bound to be misunderstood too.
Naturally, one who has arrived to the ultimate peak of consciousness will most probably decide not to bother with the world anymore. He has suffered for hundreds of lives living with these miserable people, living with all kinds of misunderstandings, groping in the dark and finding nothing. And these blind people who have never seen the light all believe they know what light is.
From ancient days, a philosopher has been defined as a man who is blind, in a house that is completely dark, searching for a black cat which is not there.
And the search goes on....
After a long, long, tedious journey, someone has come to the sunlit peak of relaxation, for the first time is at ease with existence, and decides not to get involved with all kinds of blind people, prejudiced people, deaf people who are going to misunderstand you, who are going to misinterpret you, who are going to crucify you, who are going to poison you, who are going to do every nonsense that is possible against you. Why bother?
You cannot blame those nine hundred and ninety-nine mystics who decide to remain silent. It is not their responsibility, it is not their commitment. They owe nothing to the world; why should they get unnecessarily into the mess, into the madhouse the world is?
Raman Maharshi remained in his cave in the mountains of Arunachal his whole life, unconcerned with the world. He simply tired of it. Naturally, nobody is against him.
He never says anything against any superstition, against any belief that is based on lies. He never criticizes any religion, any politics. He is not a revolutionary. He is not interested in transforming human beings, creating a better society.
He is not even a little bit interested to share his experience. He is just like a well -- if you are thirsty, you will have to find the way, you will have to find a bucket, you will have to find a rope, you will have to reach the water. The water is not interested in you or in your thirst.
Naturally there is nobody who will criticize Raman Maharshi. He lived silently, peacefully -- not against any vested interest, not in any way proposing a new man, a new humanity. He is fulfilled and contented; he is finished with the world.
MEHER BABA is not finished with the world in the same sense as Raman Maharshi. But he is interested only in your spiritual growth -- as if spiritual growth is something separate from the whole structure of society, religion, education, past, all the traditions, conventions.
So he remains interested in your spiritual growth, but spiritual growth is a complex phenomenon -- it is connected with many other things. Unless your conditionings are changed, unless your belief systems are changed, unless your mind is unburdened of the past -- there are so many things to be cleaned -- only then can the still small voice of your being be heard.
Meher Baba takes spiritual growth out of context. Naturally nobody is against it. In fact, all the vested interests are tremendously respectful of such people, because they are continuously giving -- without any intention on their part -- opium to the people. They are giving the idea -- which is false -- that your spiritual growth is possible without going through a deep psychological revolution.
Secondly, Meher Baba remained silent his whole life; he never spoke. All that is written in the name of Meher Baba is written by his secretary. Now, there is no way to know whether the secretary is writing from his own mind.
He had come to see me, and I looked directly into his eyes when I asked, "Are you certain that whatever you have written is not from your mind? Can you give me any evidence that these messages have been telepathically given to you by Meher Baba?"
He felt a little embarrassed and he said, "I cannot say it with absolute certainty, but this is how I felt -- that these were messages given by Meher Baba."
"But your feeling.... Have you ever tried in some way to get the consent of Meher Baba, his signature? He was not speaking, that is true, but he used to give his autograph. You could have taken your book.... He was not speaking, but he could hear. You could have asked him: `I have written this book in your name, and my feeling is that this is your message. Just give it your signature so that I can tell world that Meher Baba agrees with me.' This would have been a simple method."
Meher Baba used to have a small board with the whole alphabet on it just for small messages and things. You would ask for his blessings, and he would put his finger on the letters, "b-l-e-s-s-i-n-g" -- blessings are given.
If he could give blessings on the board, he could have said yes or no on the same board, but he was never asked. In fact, the secretary may have been afraid he might say no.
Now, who will be against this man? -- who has not spoken, who is not against anything, anybody. His whole business is to help you spiritually -- and that too only in silence; you can sit with him in silence.
Now, there are very few people in the world who can understand silence. A master first needs to teach you how to be silent, and unless he is satisfied that now you are capable of listening in silence, listening to that which is not being said vocally, verbally, but only telepathically....
Meher Baba had never prepared anybody for telepathic transference of ideas. And to me it seems to be absurd. What is the need? -- because even in telepathy you will have to use the same language. If I want to say something to you -- whether I say it aloud so that you can hear or I say it silently so that you can hear only telepathically, it makes no difference. Unless I am trying to give messages which are secret, unless there is a certain conspiracy....
But around Meher Baba, nothing has happened. The man himself was of great importance, but he remained silent for the same reason as Raman Maharshi.
But he could not stay in one place. He did not abandon the world completely. He was still thinking that some way could be found to approach seekers. He moved around the world in search of seekers, but I don't think he found any. He found only worshippers who sang devotional songs to him, because they had their desires.
And in the East it is believed that if the person who is enlightened blesses you, any desire is bound to be fulfilled. Existence can never say no to the enlightened consciousness. For the enlightened man, existence is always `yes'; there is a deep synchronicity.
So the people who gathered around Meher Baba were not seekers, they were people who wanted position, power, money, prestige -- all the wrong kinds of people. And because he was engaging people in wishful dreaming and not saying anything, he was not against the vested interests. Why should any government be against him? Why should any religion be against him?
There was no question -- these people were harmless people.
THE THIRD MAN ON YOUR LIST IS GEORGE GURDJIEFF. He is the most unique master the world has ever seen, but his uniqueness created a distance between him and the normal humanity. All his methods were valid methods, but the journey was long and he made it even longer by the way he propounded it.
In fact, that was one of his devices to find the real seekers. Are you ready to go to the very end of the world, or are you just a curiosity monger? -- you will go a little way to know what this man is all about, waste his time, and then you will be back in the world. He would choose only those who are ready even to die if that is the only way to find the truth.
Naturally he was surrounded by only a very small group of people.
And he was also not interested in any social revolution. His whole interest was to crystallize a few individuals who were courageous enough, to give them their original face, to help them to know the ultimate ecstasy that existence makes available. But it is only for the chosen few. Not that somebody chooses them -- but because only very few people are courageous enough to risk everything to find themselves, they become the chosen few by their own courage and their own daring.
And Gurdjieff was not interested at all in the fast asleep humanity. Raman Maharshi was not interested. Gurdjieff was not only not interested, he had all the condemnation possible for those who have been sleeping for lives together. He is the only man in the whole of history who said, "These sleeping people don't have souls, and unless a man becomes enlightened he cannot have a soul. A soul is a reward: you don't come with a soul at birth, you achieve it by your effort."
Naturally, no government was offended, no church was offended. If a man has collected two dozen people, the pope is not worried, the shankaracharya is not worried -- he is not a competitor. And he worked personally with each individual -- naturally he could not work with millions of people.
So these people were just in the margin; their names can appear only in the footnotes. They don't belong to the vast humanity -- just on the fringes. Having small groups, they were not a danger to anybody.
AND THE FOURTH MAN, J. KRISHNAMURTI, could have been a danger, could have been crucified -- he had a far higher intelligence than any Jesus Christ, and far more intellectual genius than any Socrates -- but because of a certain obsession, he became very much against organization. He was against all organizations.
Naturally you would think that if he was against all organizations then all organizations would have been annoyed by him. But this was not the case, because he never created any organization of his own.
A single individual for ninety years continuously went around the world. Who cares? Seven hundred million Catholics are going to bother about a single individual who is talking against organizations? And who is listening to him?
In India he used to speak in New Delhi, Bombay and Adyar Madras. This is not India. Nine hundred million people don't live in these three cities. And how many people in Bombay were listening to him? -- never more than three thousand. And these three thousand were almost always the same people who had been listening to him for forty years, fifty years. He was saying the same thing all through his life, and the same people were listening.
In fact, nobody was listening.
He became a sort of entertainment, and that's what he said to one of my friends who went to see him just before his death: "The thing that hurts me most is that I became just an entertainment for a few people and nothing more. A few people enjoyed my logic, and that was all."
And now that he is dead, ninety years' effort has simply disappeared into the air.
Governments are against me because I am against them. Religions are against me because I am against religions. Political leaders are annoyed with me because I say they are mediocre, because I say only psychologically sick people become interested in power politics. People who suffer from an inferiority complex are the people who seek power, prime ministership, presidency.
These people need to be in psychiatric hospitals, and they are running the world.
I am against all religions because I am for religiousness, and religions are barriers to creating a humanity with a quality of religiousness.
A Christian is not needed, nor a Hindu, nor a Mohammedan. These are the barriers to religious progress. What is needed is truthfulness, sincerity, silence, lovingness... a life of joy, playfulness... a life of deep search, inquiry into one's consciousness. And these qualities have nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism or Jainism or Buddhism.
Meditation is needed, but meditation is nobody's monopoly.
Naturally, all religions are against me, annoyed. Because I am the first man in the whole of history who is saying that religions are the barriers preventing humanity from becoming religious. They are not the vehicles of God, they are the enemies of God. Popes and Ayatollah Khomeinis and shankaracharyas -- these are not the representatives of God; they may be representatives of the devil. Because these are the people who have divided humanity, and who for centuries have been continuously creating conflicts, bloodshed, wars, crusades, jihad, holy war, and all kinds of nonsense.
In the name of religion, these people are oppressing humanity.
I am against nations because I don't see any need for there to be nations. Why can't the whole planet earth be one single humanity? -- which would be saner, more scientific, more easily controllable. Right now things are such that you can only say we are living in an insane world. Every three months the common market in Europe is dumping so much food in the ocean... mountains of butter! Last time they had to destroy so much food that the destruction cost was two hundred million dollars -- it is not the cost of the food, it is the cost of destroying it. And just nearby in Ethiopia, one thousand people were dying every day.
What kind of humanity are we living in? Half of humanity is dying in poverty. Every six months, America goes on throwing billions of dollars worth of food into the ocean, but they will not give that food to Ethiopia or to India or to any other country where people are starving and dying. Nobody cares about human beings; everybody cares about money.
These money-minded people cannot be called sane: that food has to be destroyed; otherwise the market prices will fall, and they don't want their prices to fall. They want their prices to remain stable, so the food has to be destroyed.
If the whole world is one, things can be very simple.
At one time Russia was burning wheat in its trains instead of coal because coal in Russia is costlier, and they had an overproduction of wheat. In India, people were dying because wheat was not available. Coal we have enough of, but you cannot eat coal. If the world were one, then the coal from India could go to Russia and the wheat from Russia could move towards India.
There is no need to destroy mountains, exactly mountains of butter. And why did they have to destroy it? Before, they had been selling it to Libya. In Libya, butter was available at half the price of butter in Europe. The butter was coming from Europe, but they were selling it at a throw-away price, just to get rid of it. Otherwise they would have to arrange dumping it and that takes money. Just to save that money, they were giving it to Libya.
But President Ronald Reagan started going insane against Libya for no reason at all, bombed the poor country, bombed Kadaffi's three houses, killed one of his daughters -- for no reason at all -- and pressured Europe so that all the supplies that they were giving to Libya would be stopped. Mountains of butter collected in Europe. Now you need space, cold storage... so the old butter had to be thrown into the ocean for the new butter to come in.
There is no need of nations.These are the hangups of the past.
And if there are no nations, there is no need for armies. Right now, seventy percent of the budget of every country goes to the military; seventy percent to the military which does nothing except left, right, left, right, polishing their guns, their shoes, their buttons -- that's all they do. And all over the world, seventy percent of the budget goes to the military and whole countries have to live on thirty percent of their budget.
If the nations disappear, one hundred percent of the budget is available for the whole country -- because the armies are useless. Right now there is no problem of there being any war with any planet. With whom are you going to fight? So what is the need to polish your guns every day? to polish your boots, and morning and evening, left and right? All these idiots who are doing this can be put into creative work.
I don't want any nations in the world. The world is one single humanity.
I don't want religions in the world.
Religiousness is enough, more than enough. As religions disappear, millions of monks and nuns who are just parasites.... They do nothing. That is another army that is sitting on the chest of humanity. They should disappear. They have renounced the world, but for their food, for their clothes, for their housing, the world has to work. It is a very strange thing: they will earn the virtue of having renounced the world; they will enter paradise. You will go to hell, because you provided food, clothes, shelter to these saints. And they have been simply condemning you! Strange logic.
These people should go to hell -- who have not been doing anything except condemning, calling everybody a sinner, creating guilt in everybody, destroying everybody's integrity and self-respect. But these people will go to paradise.
With religions disappearing, all these people can be put into creative work. There is no need of monasteries, there is no need of churches, temples, mosques. All these houses of God -- and there are millions of men who don't have any houses, who live their whole life on the street. The houses of God are empty -- there is no God. All these houses of God can be made available to the homeless. All these monks can be put into creative work, all the armies can be put into creative work.
And when there are no more nations, all dirty politics will have to disappear.
Different arrangements can be made for managing the whole world -- a world government based on merit, not dependent on votes. In the whole world there are thousands of universities. The world government can be left in the hands of the universities, and all the universities should choose their best people for the world government. An education minister should be a man who really understands education and who can bring new forms of education into the world.
Many departments of government will have to disappear, there will be no need. For example, the defense ministry -- defense against whom?
The universities could choose the most meritorious people -- the Nobel prize winners, the great vice-chancellors, the great artists, the painters, the poets. There could be a different kind of government which is not dependent on the vote of a sleepy humanity, of those who don't know what they are doing.
And we can make this world really a Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve will not have to go back to the Garden of Eden. And one day you will hear a knock on the door -- God wants to come in! Because you have managed to create a far better garden than his old one. But we can keep that garden too, as a museum piece.
Naturally, Raman Maharshi, Meher Baba, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti belong to a different category.
I belong to my own category. There is no category to which I can belong; I have to create my category.
Naturally they are all against me because I am going to take away all their powers, all their conspiracies against humanity. Naturally, they are together against me.
And they are a little puzzled: what to do with a single man? It looks awkward to them also. All the governments of the world, all the religions of the world have to decide against a single individual. Certainly that single individual must have something significant; otherwise there would be no need of so much fear, paranoia.
I am for man's spiritual growth, but I understand spiritual growth in its whole context. It is not something separate, one dimensional; it is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It needs a revolution in society. It needs a revolution in society's economic, political structures; it needs a tremendous and radical change in everything that has been dominating us up to now.
We have to create a discontinuity with the past.
Only then a new man -- a really spiritual man, a man of cosmic dimensions -- can be born.
I am certainly blessed because I am the first who is opposed by all. This situation has never happened before, and will never happen again. And you are also blessed because you are fellow travelers with a man who is not just an old dead saint, a goody-goody.
I want you to be the very salt of the earth.
Too many goody-goody saints have created so much diabetes. We need a different kind of saintliness.
I have called that different kind of saint Zorba the Buddha.