The quantum theory stands for a kind of anti-intellectualism or mysticism. Some historians of science, noting the cultural environment of the pioneers of quantum physics, claim that these physicists had a strong philosophical preference for indeterminism. German physicists and mathematicians were under social and intellectual pressure from the particular anti-intellectual spirit of the Weimar culture, which made them anxious to adopt or at least to emphasize those parts of science that could play up to the cravings of the public. This spirit, as exemplified by Spengler´s book "The Decline of the West", accomodated anti-determinism, acausality, existentialism, vitalism, Husserl´s phenomenology, holism, Gestalt psychology, mathematical intuitionism and also an interest in Pythagorean numerology, alchemy and kabbalism. A non-scientific factor - a philosophical attitude, a social or intellectual environment - precedes science itself and "causes" the form it takes. Science now finds itself in a strange predicament and is faced with great difficulty. Then there is the other type of knowledge which does not come within the understanding of a person unless he is fully learned and transformed. And Lao Tzu's knowledge is not for the simple man. The man must be transformed, that is to say, a certain alchemy has to be passed through. Then only can Lao Tzu be understood. Otherwise, he cannot be understood. The experience of the discoverers of the biggest scientific discoveries have been that they were unable to discover what they were out to discover as long as they searched consciously. Even the scientists who have received the Nobel Prize say, "Whatever we have known has never been known through our effort." In a moment of complete inaction, when there was no striving within, something rose from within and the answer came.
Kennst du Osho? Ich habe schon Wunderbares von ihm gehört und gelesen. Der Kerl war richtig gut. Er formuliert klar und deutlich und verständlich 95 % meiner Ansichten und erklärt mir darüber hinaus, was mir noch nicht ganz klar oder bewusst war. Seine 3500 Rolls Royces sind wurscht (ihm schon damals sicher auch, er fand sie halt geil), seine wohlwollende Betrachtung wildester Gruppensexorgien auch: Wenn seine Schäfchen das brauchen, dann sollen sie halt bumsen, bis die Bude kracht. Es war aber doch noch nicht alles im Leben, nicht wahr, meine Damen und Herren?! Gottlob stellt er diese Frage! Und beantwortet sie supergut. Oder steht dein Weltbild unerschütterlich und fernab aller weiteren Fragen? Ich hoffe: nicht doch!
Connie Mitchell, were you really abducted by aliens?
Yes. I don't want to sound like I'm crazy, though. Let's say they came for a visit and I lost some time.
Can you remember what happened on the spaceship?
Yeah, I can but I don't want to talk about it. I don't want people saying: 'What's wrong with this girl?'
Have you ever had a supernatural experience?
Yes. Oh no, I'm going to sound like one of those weirdos who sits in cafés in Amsterdam reading self-help books. I saw a ghost's face at the end of my bed. Everyone says: 'Oh man, I'd love to see a ghost,' but hardly anyone does because we're not focused on the right plane of existence. I was focusing so hard to see it but then it just went. I think it was the same ghost who'd been sitting on my chest in the night-time. I don't think they're trying to be scary, they just want to get your attention.
Where we see tension in between things, Lao Tzu sees an attraction; where we see clearly that someone is trying to destroy us, Lao Tzu says, it is impossible for us to exist without them. He illustrates his points with many examples. He says, "If there are not two, there is no place for one." This is an arithmetical example. Mathematicians admit that if we want to preserve the number 1, we will have to preserve all the following numbers. If we wipe out all numbers from 2 onwards, there will be no meaning left to 1. Whatever is in 1, is all due to 2. Think for a moment: If we had only the figure of 1, what will it means? Nothing. It will be meaningless. Its meaning construes from its expansions into 2, 3, 4.....9. If we remove all figures after 1, 1 becomes meaningless. Lao Tzu says: "One is not apart from Two. It is a part of Two." He says, if we remove the heights, what will become of the depths? If we remove the mountains, will the valleys remain? How? And yet the valleys look just the opposite of the mountain-tops. The peaks of the mountains seem to touch the skies whereas the valleys plunge deep into the netherlands. But Lao Tzu says, "The valleys are formed near and only because of the mountains." In fact, the valley is the other part of the peak of the mountains -- its other dimension. Destroy the one and you destroy the other. If we destroy the peaks, the valleys are destroyed. But we always see them as opposites of each other. Lao Tzu says, "The valleys are the support of the peaks. The peaks are creators of the valleys. Both these are connected -- one -- and there is no way of separating them."
A rabbi had the misfortune to run his car into the side of Father Murphy's car. He jumped out and went to the other's door, loud with apologies. "My dear Father Murphy, so sorry I am. Oi vay! that I should be so silly as to do this to you of all people, a fellow man of God! Are you all right?" "Oh yes, no injuries, Rabbi," said Father Murphy. "But I am a bit shaken up." "Of course you are," said the Rabbi, solicitously. "Here, have a sip of this -- it is good whiskey." And he handed a hip flask to the priest who drank heartily. "Go on, Father, have another. It is all my fault. Drink deeply, don't worry about the cost." The priest needed no second bidding, and took another deep swig. "Won't you have one, Rabbi?" he asked. "With the police already arriving!" exclaimed the Rabbi.
The mind is very cunning. Everybody's mind is the mind of the Jew. 'Jew' is not a race; it is the innermost core of all minds. And when you are playing cunning games with others, by and by you learn the trick of playing with yourself. This is the greatest problem that every human being has to face. You have been cunning with others; that pays in the world. By and by, you have learned the trick so deeply that you forget that now you are playing the cunningness with yourself. The mind is very worldly, very Jewish. It knows no other business than business. The mind is always thinking in terms of business. Even when it is love, it is business. Even when it is prayer, it is business. Even when it is God, it is business. And once you have become too accustomed to the business world, you start playing games with yourself. Be alert.
It is true as far as ordinary understanding goes: everything
seems to be changing, nothing seems to be permanent. Nothing seems to be the same even for two moments, two consecutive moments. Nothing seems to be the same, everything goes on like a river. To think of anything permanent is almost impossible. To think of anything that has remained the same forever and ever is incomprehensible to the mind. The mind knows only the world of change. The mind knows only the dream, the illusion. A life lived through the mind is a life of dreams. That is the meaning of the concept of MAYA. It does not say anything about the reality, remember: it does not say that the reality is not real, it does not say that the existence is dream. It simply says that the way you look at it is so unconscious, the way you look at it is so wavering, unstable, that your inner wavering gives you a world of flux, dreams. Attain to inner integrity, attain to inner crystallization, and suddenly all flux-like phenomena disappear -- and suddenly you are face to face with the real, the substantial, the permanent; call it God. The world and God are not two things but the same reality looked at in two ways. One is through the mind, the other is through no-mind -- because if mind is there, there is going to remain, more or less, the flickering.
The mind cannot be constant. Have you watched? Even for a few seconds the mind cannot be constant. Just look at your watch someday, and just remember that you are looking at the watch, and you will not be able to retain this remembrance that you are looking at the watch even for a few seconds.
Samadhi is the same to whomsoever it happens, but our minds are different -- and it is the mind that will record the experience. A Jaina mind knows that there is no God, the ultimate experience is that of soul, there is no experience beyond it; or, this experience itself is God, there is no other God than this experience itself. Now such a mind will immediately record the samadhi experience as: "The ultimate experience of soul is happening." A Hindu has heard about the experience of God and has the information that what the experience is when the soul dissolves within is the experience of God. His mind will record: "This is seeing God." The happening is the same, but in this case it is God being experienced. The mind of a Buddhist who believes in neither the soul nor in God will record neither of the two. His mind will say: "Nirvana has happened, you have become a void, a nothingness." This is the reason scriptures differ, because scriptures are records of different minds, not of the actual experiences. This is why there will be differences between the Hindu scriptures, the Jaina scriptures and the Buddhist scriptures. Sometimes the differences will even look contradictory, because the mind is limited by the words available and they are a learned thing. Mind is knowledge, a learned thing, a manufactured thing. Let us understand it this way, putting religion aside. Let us say you have learned Sanskrit, or Greek, or Arabic, so your mind has known one language. Now there is not even a question of any language during the happening of samadhi, but the mind will record the experience in the language it knows. The one who knows Arabic can never say that it was the happening of samadhi -- the very word samadhi is not known to that mind. So a Sufi will say fana -- he has remained no more. But the meaning is the same.
We see only the new, the novel. We see only the changing; the constant is forgotten. You come in your room and everything is in its place -- you will not see anything. But if something is not in its place, you will immediately see it. The table has been removed, the clock is not there, the picture on the wall is missing. You have not looked at that picture for ten years -- it has been there and there and there; you knew it was there. There are people who have not seen their wife's face for years. If they will look they will be surprised at how much the woman has changed, because they have the idea of the woman that they used to know ten years ago when they had fallen in love. Then they were looking at her face; they were thrilled by her face. They are still carrying that old picture and they still think she is that woman. She is not! Much water has flown down the river; ten years is a long time -- she is getting old. If they look at their own wife's face they will be surprised -- who is this woman? They don't seem to recognise her.
The thinker only thinks about it; he goes about an about. The word 'about' means around. He moves around and around in the same circle . He spins many words. He can make many systems out of those words but those systems are like houses made with playing cards, they are of no use. Yes, once in a while you can become intrigued, utterly interested in it, but that is going to be only a momentary phenomenon.
Lao Tzu says, "Tao is the watercourse way. The water simply flows downwards wherever the earth allows it."
Tao is the way of the soft, the feminine way, the watercourse way. Gurdjieff s way is the way of the rock. If it happens that a Taoist and a follower of Gurdjieff meet, in the beginning you will say that the follower of Gurdjieff is winning, but finally, eventually. you will find that he has disappeared and the Taoist has won over. That has always been so. You cannot defeat the soft. Maybe, for the time being, you can have a certain victory, but you cannot really defeat the soft.
Tao is called the watercourse way. Just as the water goes on and on flowing with no guidebooks, with no maps, with no rules, no discipline... but strangely enough in a very humble way, because it is always seeking the lower position everywhere. It never goes uphill. It always goes downhill, but it reaches to the ocean, to its very source.
Water, in Taoism, represents the ultimate source of things. It represents the Tao itself. Lao Tzu has called his path 'The Watercourse Way' for many reasons. First, the water is soft, humble, seeks the lowest place. Just as Jesus says, "Those who are the last in this world will be the first in my kingdom of God, and those who are the first will be the last," water seeks the lowest place, the lowest level. It may rain on Everest but it doesn't remain there; it starts running towards the valley. And in the valley too, it will reach to the deepest part. It remains the last, it is non-ambition. It has no ambitions to be the first.
Lao Tzu says: The way of the Tao is a watercourse way . It moves like water. What is the movement of water? or of a river? The movement has a few beautiful things about it. One, it always moves towards the depth, it always searches for the lowest ground. It is non-ambitious; it never hankers to be the first, it wants to be the last.
Remember, Jesus says: Those who are the last here will be the first in my kingdom of God. He is talking about the watercourse way of Tao -- not mentioning it, but talking about it. Be the last, be non-ambitious. Ambition means go uphill. Water goes down t searches for the lowest ground, it wants to be a nonentity. It does not want to declare itself unique, exceptional, extraordinary. It has no ego idea.
See grass bending with the wind -- feel the same way. Let that be your meditation. See strong trees fighting the wind and know that this is not your way. And read lao tzu, tao! because this is his whole teaching -- to be just like grass. He teaches the watercourse way. Water is very soft, rocks are very hard -- resistant, fighting -- but eventually rocks are turned into sand and the water goes on flowing the same way.
If it is hard to leave, it will become very easy to leave. You can always fight with something which is hard. The difficulty arises when you have to fight something very soft. It is easy to fight with a rock -- it is very difficult to fight with water. The water wins finally... the watercourse way. Taoism is the way of tao.
A strong woman does not mean the same as a strong man; with a man the meaning changes. The strong man means rock-like. A strong woman means fluid, liquid, flowing, waterlike; the watercourse way, the strength of tao -- not fighting but yielding.
A man of tao is absolutely unreal, because he doesn't exist as an ego. A man of tao not solid at all. If you go through him, you can pass through him without coming across anybody. A man of tao is empty. Because of this emptiness, he can function as a screen for any sort of projection. You can project anything on him. There are people who think a man of tao is a saint, and there are people who think he is a rascal. There are people who think he is the greatest sinner there is, and there are people who think he is the greatest Master there is. And both are right and both are wrong, because he is neither. You project. It is difficult for you not to project. But you have to destroy all your projections. Once your projections are destroyed, you will be freed. Father Christmas is far more real. If you look into him, you will find a real person there. If you look into a man of tao, there is no person. In the East they call God the imperson. There is no personality. A man of tao is just a window; you can look through him. There is not even a glass; there is nothing. But you can project. So it is very easy for you to project because, whatsoever you project, there is nobody to deny it. There is nobody to say, "No, your projection is wrong." You are playing the game alone. You will know the reality only when you have stopped all projections, when you have become empty, when you have attained to meditative energy. The meditative energy is a nonprojective energy. It does not project anything; it simply looks at things as they are. If a meditator comes across a flower, he will not even say it is a rose flower, because the word "rose" becomes a projection. With the word "rose" all the roses that you have known before come between you and this rose. With the word "rose" all that you have heard about roses, all the poetry that you have read about roses -- all that arises between you and the reality. A real meditator will simply look at the rose without even saying the word "rose" inside his being; there will be no language. There will be no idea what it is. He will simply see that which is, the nameless. And that is the only way to see the real rose. If you want to see reality, you will have to come without any ideas. And that's how, if you come closer and closer, more and more projections will fall. You will be disillusioned, and this time disillusioned forever. That's the hope. If you cooperate, you will be disillusioned forever. Then you will never project again. And that's all a Master can do: to help you not to project again.
Two Martians were walking along Piccadilly. One of them nudged the other and pointing to a traffic light said, "How would you like her for a girlfriend?"...
A traffic light! But you can think about Martians -- they can project...."Wow!" said his friend. "What a beauty! I think I will go over and chat her up."
After about ten minutes he rejoined his companion, who asked, "Well, how did you get on?"
"Not bad," replied the second Martian. "She did not actually say anything, but she keeps winking at me."
A traffic light, but you can project.
A Chinese story about an archer who was the greatest archer in the whole land. He went to the emperor saying that the whole country should be made aware that if anybody wants to contest with him, he's available. "If nobody turns up, then you have to declare me the champion of archery." The emperor knew the man, and he knew his art, his archery, and he knew there was nobody else who could even come close to him. His art was perfect; he never missed a target. So the emperor was willing to declare him the champion of archery in the whole land of China. Just at that moment, his old prime minister prevented him saying, "Wait a minute, because I know a man who lives far away in the mountains. Unless this archer goes to that old man, and that old man certifies that he should be declared the champion, you should wait. You should not be in a hurry, because that old man is not only the champion of this land, he is the champion of the whole world, although he's a non-competitive man, non-ambitious, and people don't know about him. Send this archer first to get a certificate from that old man." And he gave the directions where the old man would be found. The archer could not believe that anyone could be better; he was one hundred percent successful in hitting the bulls eye exactly in the middle, he never missed the target. It was inconceivable for him that anybody could be a better archer! But there was no way.... The emperor told him to go to the mountains, and bring a certificate. It was a difficult journey. The old man lived on a very high peak of the mountain, alone. He was really very old, almost ancient, and he had no bow, no arrows. He was just sitting under a tree. The archer asked, "Are you the man who is the greatest archer in the world?" The old man said, "Perhaps, because on this mountain nobody else lives. But I can't be certain because I have never been competitive. As far as archery is concerned, for twenty years I have not touched the bow, have not seen the arrows. In fact, I have lost track where they are. But what is the problem? Why have you traveled so far?" The young man said, "I knew it before that this would be an unnecessary journey! A man who has not touched the bow for twenty years, and who has even forgotten where his bow and his arrows are...." Still, because of the emperor's requirement, he said to the old man, "I want to be declared the champion of the art in the whole country, and the emperor has sent me to get your certificate." The old man said, "That is not difficult. But seeing a bow with you, and the arrows, makes me suspicious that you are an amateur because the old saying is: `When the musician becomes perfect, he throws away his musical instruments; when the archer becomes really an archer, perfect in his art, he breaks down his bow, and throws the arrows.' They are good to begin with, but one has to transcend technique at a certain moment. You will have to pass two tests: one is, do you see that protruding rock over the valley?" There was a long rock, very low, protruding over a very deep valley, thousands of feet deep. The old man said, "Go to that rock, to the very end. The test is to stand at the very end, with half your feet hanging over the rock, with just the front part, your toes, on the rock. If you can stand there without any trembling, you have passed the first test." The man said, "My God! But what kind of archery is this? This is sure death!" But the old man said, "I will go first to show you the way it has to be done." He could not believe his eyes. The old man went to the very end of the protruding rock; and he stood there with half the feet on the rock, over the valley thousands of feet deep. And there was not even a small wavering or trembling. He called the young man, "Now, come on, and stand by my side." The young man tried just one step on the rock. As he looked downward, such fear overwhelmed him... he fell on the ground, trembling, perspiring. He could not reach the end -- he was only at the beginning of the rock. The old man said, "What is the matter? Come on, have courage. If you are so fearful and trembling inside, your archery cannot be of great value, because it is your hands which will take the bow and it is your hands which will take the arrows; it is your heart which has to be used in it. This fear... try, make an effort." He started crawling on all fours. Standing and moving on that rock, he found impossible. Those thousands of feet were so dangerous; just a single wrong step and you will never be found. You will be broken into bits and pieces and thrown over the whole valley. But he could reach by crawling only to the middle. He said, "More than that, I cannot do." The old man laughed. He came back, supported the man to stand up, and took him back to the tree. He said, "I had said you are just an amateur; otherwise there is no need of this bow and these arrows. Now, look at me: when the archer becomes perfect his eyes become arrows, his very being becomes the bow." He looked at a flying flock of twelve cranes, and they all fell down on the earth. He said, "If you can make even a single bird fall down on the earth, just with your eyes, I will certify you." The young man said, "That is impossible. How can one do it?" The old man said, "I have just done it, and not one, twelve cranes are just dead, lying before you." The young man said, "You are right; I am simply an amateur. I would like to be accepted as a disciple; I would like to learn archery." The old man said, "That sounds right. Be here." After ten years, the old man said, "Now you can go back, but don't go to the emperor; go home. The day you suddenly realize, seeing your bow hanging on the wall, that you cannot recognize it, that is the day you can go to the emperor." The emperor was becoming very old, and he enquired again and again from his prime minister, "What happened to that young man?" The prime minister said, "He has reached the old man; I have been watching. He's learning, he has reached his home, and now he's waiting for the sign to come." The emperor said, "I am becoming very old." One day, a few years after coming home, the man looked at the bow hanging on the wall, and enquired of his son, "What is that object?" The son said, "Have you gone mad? It is your bow, those are your arrows." He said, "Bow? Arrows? Am I an archer?" The son said, "Are you laughing at me, or kidding me? or just going senile?" He said, "No, the time has come. I have to go to the emperor." The son asked, "For what?" He said, "To be declared the champion of archery in the land." He went to the emperor. The prime minister said, "Have you brought the certificate?" He said, "I am the certificate." They were sitting in the garden. He looked at a bird flying faraway in the sky, almost invisible. But as he looked at the bird, the bird came falling to the feet of the emperor.
The emperor said, "Is this archery or some kind of magic?" The man said, "I don't know, but this is what that old man has taught me: that if you are a perfect archer, you don't need the bow, you don't need the arrows; your eyes are enough. If you are a perfect musician, you don't need instruments; your silence is music enough." It is a beautiful story, very ancient, almost three thousand years old. Lao Tzu used to tell the story to his disciples, and that was twenty-five centuries ago. The story must have been far older.
The person who is afraid of death is the person who knows nothing of life. The more you know about life, the more deeply you live it, the more intensely you get absorbed in it, overwhelmed by it, the more you become aware that there is something in you which is deathless. No nuclear weapons can destroy it.
Man has his own qualities; they are different from woman's. Of course, women cannot be soldiers, and they should not be. They cannot be great scientists, and there is no need. But they can be good painters, poets; they can create great literature. And greatest of all, they can create an atmosphere of love, hospitality. This has to be proved existentially; otherwise the woman will remain always a slave. For centuries she has been a slave, and now there are a few idiotic women who call themselves the women's liberation movement. And whatever they are doing is not liberation, but simply reaction. They are teaching women to be lesbians, against men. They are spreading hatred. But a woman who cannot love a man loses something. The liberation movement is not really in favour of woman's future, it is against it. It is a reactionary movement. They are asking for equality with men. Why equality? Woman is woman, man is man; they are unique beings. They are not equal, they are not unequal either; they are simply different. They are opposite polarities. Asking for equality, they are doing all kinds of idiotic things. Because man smokes, liberation women are smoking. Do you think this is intelligence? Man is doing something foolish, but to be equal, you have to do that foolish thing. Soon the women's liberation will tell women to piss standing! Equality? This is sheer nonsense. Women should behave like women, according to their nature. A woman smoking looks as if something has gone wrong. At least don't start pissing standing. Equality does not mean that you have to do everything that man is doing. Psychologically there is no equality; there is only uniqueness. The woman has to assert her uniqueness, and she has a different way of expressing herself. It is not only when you make a painting that you are a creator; when you make delicious food, you are an even greater creator, because nobody can eat the painting. It does not help in any way. You just have to make certain that whatever you are doing is done as a worship, as love, as creativity. Your creativity as woman is far more nourishing than man's creativity. What does he do? He paints, he makes sculpture, he writes poetry, novels. This is good, but it is only entertainment; it is not life. Woman has to contribute more to life. Why not make life more poetic? And just a small touch and life becomes poetic. Why not make life a little more musical? Why not make life more colourful?
A husband was suspicious of his wife, so he hired a private detective to find out whether she had a lover or not. The detective, a Chinese immigrant, came back to report after only two days. His arm and nose were broken and his head was tied up in bandages.
"What happened?" the husband inquired eagerly. "Any proof yet?"
"Well," the detective answered, "I hid outside your house when you left in the morning. After half an hour a man came and let himself in with a key. I climbed a tree to see into the bedroom, and there was he holding her and her kissing him. So he plays with she and she play with he; I play with me and I fall down from the tree."
That's what pornography is.
Beware of all sorts of perversions. To love is good; to dream about it is ugly. Why? When the real is available, why go for the unreal? Even the real never satisfies! So how can the unreal satisfy? Even the real, in the final analysis, proves to be illusory, so what to say about the illusory?
Let me repeat: Even the real, one day, proves to be just unreal, so what to say about the unreal?
Go into the real love, and you will become so aware one day that even the real love, the so-called real love, will disappear. And when a man is completely beyond sexuality.... When a man has gone deeper into sex, into love, and has known and has found that there is nothing, that very finding takes him above. He starts floating above the earth, he grows wings. That transcendence is brahmacharya, that transcendence is celibacy. It has nothing to do with your effort; it has nothing to do with repression.
A repressed person can never attain brahmacharya; he will become pornographic. And there are a thousand and one ways of being pornographic. In the old Indian scriptures there are descriptions of great rishis sitting in meditation and beautiful women trying to seduce them, dancing around them, naked. And the stories say they are sent by the God of heaven to corrupt them because the God in heaven is afraid if they attain to their Samadhi they will become competitors. The God of heaven is afraid of their competition, so when they are attaining closer and closer, coming closer to Samadhi, he sends beautiful women to seduce them. Now, there is no God, and no beautiful women come from heaven; this is mind pornography. These rishis, these so-called seers, have repressed sex so much that at the last moment, when they are really getting closer to their innermost centre, that repressed sex bursts forth, explodes.
The word "phoney" is a contribution of America. Strangely, it exactly means what personality means. In Greek drama the actors used masks and they spoke through the mask. Sona means sound, and sound coming from a mask is called persona in Greek -- it is not the real man, but the mask. You don't know who is behind it; all that you hear is the sound, and you see a mask. The mask is a mask, it cannot speak. And the one who can speak you don't see; he is hiding. From persona comes the English word "personality". And phoney is exactly the same. Since telephones came into existence, you can hear people's voices through the telephone, and you don't see the person. And of course the voice also is not exactly the same; coming through wires or by wireless much is changed. It is phoney; "phoney" comes from "phone". Strangely, "persona" and "phoney" mean exactly the same. You don't see who is speaking, you only hear the voice. That too has gone through a change, through the mechanism; it is not exactly the same voice. Dale Carnegie's philosophy creates phonies, but the real purpose is to influence people. Why? To win friends, but why? What is the need? Two things have to be understood. First, influencing people is only a means to win friends. The word win has to be underlined. It has the whole of politics in it. The more people are under your influence, the more powerful you are. Your power depends on how many people are supportive of you, how many people you have influenced so much that they will be ready to do anything for you. Hence, the politician speaks in a language which is always vague -- you can interpret it the way you like -- so that many people can be influenced. If he is very clear and what he says is absolutely scientific -- without any vagueness, certain; if it has only one meaning, then perhaps he will succeed in annoying people. Taoism doesn't want to influence anybody. The very idea is ugly, and against humanity. To influence means to interfere, to trespass, to drag you on a path which is not yours, to make you do things which you have never thought of before. To influence a person is the most violent act in the world. Jesus says to his people, "On the judgment day I will sort out my sheep and tell God that these are my people -- they have to be saved. For others I am not concerned." And when you influence somebody, certainly you become the shepherd and that person becomes just a sheep. You are reducing human beings to sheep; you are taking their humanity away. In the name of saving them you are destroying them. Don't be influenced by anybody. Don't be impressed by anybody. Look, see, be aware -- and choose. But remember, the responsibility is yours. You cannot say, "Lord, I followed you -- now save me." Never follow anybody, because that's how you go astray from yourself.
THE FOOL IS HIS OWN ENEMY.
SEEKING WEALTH, HE DESTROYS HIMSELF.
SEEK RATHER THE OTHER SHORE.
WEEDS CHOKE THE FIELD.
PASSION POISONS THE NATURE OF MAN,
AND HATRED, ILLUSION AND DESIRE.
HONOR THE MAN WHO IS WITHOUT PASSION,
HATRED, ILLUSION AND DESIRE.
WHAT YOU GIVE TO HIM
WILL BE GIVEN BACK TO YOU,
Man is born intelligent, but the society does not allow intelligence to flower; it destroys it. In a thousand and one ways it makes every effort to make every intelligent being unintelligent. The unintelligent person seems to be more obedient -- obedient to the state, to the church, to the society. He is less rebellious -- he cannot rebel. Rebellion needs intelligence. The greater the intelligence, the greater the rebellion. The unintelligent person seeks security and safety with the crowd. He cannot be an individual. He is always hankering to become part of a crowd -- Christian, Hindu, and Mohammedan. These are all crowds. They depend on those people who have become victims of the social strategy of destroying intelligence. An intelligent person will not go to the church in search of God, or to the temple. An intelligent person will go within. He will not go to Kaaba or to Kashi, because if God is not here he cannot be anywhere else -- and if he is anywhere else, why not here? If God is not in me, he cannot be anywhere else; and if he is anywhere else, he is bound to be in me too. The intelligent person is an individual; he is not part of a crowd, mob psychology. He is not a sheep, he is a man. And all the vested interests are against the individual -- against the man. They want machines. They don't like people who are intelligent, who decide on their own. They want people who depend on others, on authoritative figures -- on the leaders, on the priests, on the saints, but always on others, never on themselves. The society has lived up to now in a very destructive way. It destroys the very possibility of your ever being a Buddha or a Christ. It has always been against the wise; it respects the fool. The fool fits with the society perfectly.
There are no answers, because there are no questions either. Life is not a problem. Had it been a problem there would have been no need for religion -- philosophy would have solved it, science would have found all the answers. Because life is not a problem it cannot be reduced to a question or to many questions. No question is really relevant to life.
Life is a quest not a question, a mystery not a problem, and the difference is vast. The problem has to be solved, can be solved, must be solved, but the mystery is insoluble; it has to be lived, experienced. The question has to be solved so that it disappears; encountering a mystery, you have to dissolve in it. The mystery remains, you disappear. It is a totally different phenomenon. In philosophy the problem disappears, but YOU remain; in religion the mystery remains, you disappear, you evaporate.
The ego is very much interested in questions and very much afraid of the mystery. The questions arise out of the ego. It plays with the questions, tries to find out answers -- and each answer in its own turn brings more questions. It is an unending process; that's why philosophy has not come to any conclusion. Five thousand years of philosophizing, and not even a single conclusion! It is proof enough that philosophy is an exercise in sheer futility; its claims are very bombastic.
In India they have a proverb that you dig the whole mountain and in the end you find only one rat -- but philosophy has not even been able to find the rat. It has been trying, and with great effort, to find some way out of the questions, but it gets more and more lost in the jungle. Now there are more philosophical problems than there were before, and they will go on increasing because the moment you assert a single answer it immediately explodes into many questions. It solves nothing; it simply gives you more work to do.
Religion takes life from a totally different vision. Its intrinsic quality is to be mysterious, and a mystery is that which cannot be reduced into the game of questions and answers. You have to be utterly silent to experience it; you have to be a no-mind to experience it. It can be experienced, but the experience cannot be put into words; it remains inexpressible.
Hence Buddha has no answer. Not that he never answered questions -- he answered questions for forty-two years just to be polite to you. But if you look deeply into his answers you will find that rather than answering he is simply seducing you towards silence. The answers are not answers but strategies to bring you to a point of deep understanding that nothing can be solved. The moment you understand that nothing can be solved, your mind simply dies.
This existence is neither impure nor pure. There is nobody who is a sinner and nobody who is a saint. Buddha's insight is utterly revolutionary: he says nothing can be impure and nothing can be pure; things are just as they are. It is all mind games that we play around, and we create the idea of purity -- and then comes impurity. We create the idea of the saint -- and then in comes the sinner. You want sinners to disappear? They can disappear only when your saints have disappeared, not before that. They exist together. You want immorality to disappear? -- then morality has to go. It is morality that creates immorality. It is the moral ideals that create condemnation for a few people who cannot follow them, who cannot go with them. And you can make anything immoral -- just create an idea: This is moral. You can make a holy cow out of anything, and then it becomes a problem. Buddha says nothing is ever defiled and nothing is ever immaculate. Purity, impurity, are mind attitudes. Can you tell about a tree whether it is moral or immoral? Can you say about an animal that he's a sinner or a saint? Try to see this ultimate vision: there is no sinner, no saint, nothing moral, and nothing immoral. In this acceptance, where is the possibility of worrying? There is nothing to improve either! And there is no goal, because there is no value. This journey is a journey without any goal. It is a pure journey; it is a play, a leela. And there is nobody behind it, doing it. All is happening, and there is nobody doing it. If the doer is there then the problem arises -- then pray to the doer, then persuade the doer, then become friends with the doer. Then you will be benefited, and those who are not friends with the doer will be deprived -- they will suffer in hell. That's what Christians, Hindus, Mohammedans think. Mohammedans think those who are Mohammedans are going to heaven and those who are not, poor fellows, they are going to hell. And the same is the case with Christians and Hindus: the Hindus think those who are not Hindus have no chance; the Christians think those who don't come through the church, those who don't pass through the church, are going to suffer eternal hell -- not limited, unlimitedly, forever. Buddha says: There is no sinner, no saint; nothing is pure, nothing is impure, things are as they are. Just try to persuade a tree, ask the tree, "Why are you green? Why are you not red?" And if the tree listens to you, she will go neurotic -- "Why am I not red? Why? Really, the question is relevant. Why am I green?" Condemn the green and praise the red, and sooner or later you will find the tree on some psychiatrist's couch being analyzed, helped. First you create the problem, and then comes the saviour. It is a beautiful business. Buddha cuts the very root. He says: You are the way you are. There is nothing to improve, nowhere to go.
Man is vicious because only man can be Machiavellian. Other animals are simple, very simple, and when you think that they are doing something viciously, you are wrong. You think that mosquitoes are disturbing your meditation? They don't know. They don't know you at all, you are just food for them, and they are seeking their food, a simple thing. When you go to a tree, to an apple tree or to any other fruit tree and you take the fruit from the tree have you ever thought that you are vicious to the tree? No, the idea never comes. The same is being done by the mosquito to you and mosquitoes are very impartial, even to a Buddha they will do the same. They did. Sarnath is the place where Buddha gave his first sermon. Buddha moved around only a small part of India, the Bihar, so in forty years of wandering he passed through every village many times, but to Sarnath he never came again. He visited it only once, the first time, and he never came again. Why did Buddha never come again? Maybe mosquitoes. Sarnath has the biggest mosquitoes in India. Mosquitoes are impartial. They don't bother whether you are a Buddha or not; whether you are meditating or murdering someone they are in search of their food. And as you are in search of your food and you never feel that you are vicious, why should they be thought as vicious? Nobody is vicious. Even the germs that can kill you, they too are not vicious; they are in search of their food. Even the germs that create a cancer in your body that will certainly kill you, that no medicine can help, even they are not vicious, they are not Machiavellian, they are not politicians. They are simple people, just in search of food and they are very happy that they have found a home within you. They are not doing any harm to you knowingly because they cannot do anything knowingly. They are enjoying life as you are enjoying life. That doesn't mean that you just sit naked and become food for them, that is not the meaning. You protect yourself, but don't think them vicious. You protect yourself. If the tree could have protected itself it would have protected itself against you. You protect yourself. Even the mosquito protects itself, even the mosquitoes become immune to DDT. Everybody has to protect himself. If you think that you should become a victim and, thinking that mosquitoes are not vicious, you should sit naked and allow them on you because they are in search of food, then you are moving to the other extreme, to another foolishness. You protect yourself, everybody protects. Even the mosquito will protect himself, but don't think that they are vicious, because the idea that life around you is vicious is very dangerous. That idea will harm you more than all the animals, because that idea will give you a feeling of separateness from life, that idea will give you an enmity towards life, that idea will never allow you to surrender to the whole.
One of Osho’s sannyasins in Bombay... he took sannyas, and after two, three days he came back and said, "I am in a real trouble. Will you give sannyas to my wife too? I have brought her." Osho said, "Why?" He said, "The problem is, wherever I go with her people say, 'What kind of sannyasin is this? Sannyasins are not supposed to move around with women.' And I cannot say that she is my wife, because if I say that, they will kill me. A sannyasin having a wife? So it is very awkward; what to do? It is better you give sannyas to her." Osho said, "I will give sannyas to her but this won't solve the problem. Try it." Osho gave sannyas to his wife. After two days he was back. He said, "You were right. Yesterday in the train... It was a local train; he comes to work in the office and goes back. It was a holiday so he had come with his wife and child. A crowd gathered, and they said, "Whose child is this?" -- because in Bombay children are being stolen. In all the big cities of India children are being stolen. Then they are crippled, blinded, and they are made beggars. And there are gangs: a certain man who feeds them and takes all their earnings in the evening. He feeds them, he gives them clothes, and he gives them shelter. But unless they are blinded, crippled, their legs cut off or their hands cut off, who is going to give them money? The more crippled and the more miserable they look, the better are their chances for begging, and the more money they bring in. So in every big place children are being stolen. And they end up in some gang where there are hundreds of children. The police know; the police take their own part of the money. The police do not prevent the children from begging on the streets; rather, they protect them. In fact they help the owner of these children so that these children cannot escape anywhere. In fact these children cannot escape because they have been blinded, crippled -- where can they escape to? Who will look after them? They don't know where their father is, their mother is, from where they have been brought -- because if they were caught in Calcutta, they would be used in Bombay. If they were caught in Bombay, they would be used in Madras. So they don't know where they come from or where they are right now. They cannot escape, but the police still keep an eye out so that nobody tries to escape. Everybody has his share, except that child. And if he comes one day without any money, then he gets beaten. So he has to come with it. He cannot try to hide some money from the owner, because he knows how much a child earns. The owner goes on walking around and looking to see how much this child will have earned by the end of the evening. So tentatively he knows that this boy is bound to come with ten rupees, fifteen rupees. And if he comes with two rupees then he gets beaten. And where can he hide the money? That money is found immediately. So a crowd gathered and they asked, "You are both sannyasins; this woman is a sannyasin, you are a sannyasin. In the first place, why are a woman and a man sannyasin together? That is not allowed. In the second place, this child -- from where did you get this child?" They said, "This is our child." They had to say it. And people started getting ready to beat them: "This is your child? You are a sannyasin and you have a child" Somehow the sannyasins tried to explain to them, showed the mala, and said, "We are not old, traditional sannyasins." Somebody in the crowd knew about Osho. He said, "Leave them. They are not your sannyasins. They belong to a different kind: neo-sannyas." From the station they came directly to Osho. They said, "Give sannyas to our child also, because without sannyas we will be caught again. We are poor people and anybody can start beating us and can create trouble for us." Osho had to give sannyas to the child too! It was not a discipline; it was simply a revolt. Osho wanted to show to the sannyasins of India, who are in millions, that just by changing the clothes or having a rosary it does not mean that you have become a saint. He can create millions of saints like them without any trouble. And Osho has created them.
It happened once that a friend of Mark Twain's, a great religious preacher, invited him to come to his talk. He had been inviting him many times down the years and Mark Twain would not go, but that day he said, 'Okay, I am coming.' The priest prepared his talk, as beautiful a talk as he had ever delivered -- and he was a great preacher. Thousands of people listened to him in deep rapture. Mark Twain was just sitting in front of him, and that was his climax. The audience was spell-bound, as if there was nobody... there was such dense silence -- and the speaker was again and again looking from the corner of his eyes at Mark Twain, at what was happening to him -- and he was sitting there, bored! When they were going back in the car, for a few minutes the preacher could not gather courage to ask. Then eventually when Mark Twain was getting out of the car at his house, he asked, 'Can I ask you how it was? Did you like it?' Mark Twain said, 'All nonsense and all borrowed. By chance I have been reading a book these days and all that you said is in that book.' The preacher could not believe, because he had not copied from anywhere. Maybe a few sentences could be found here and there, but the whole speech? And Mark Twain said, 'Word by word, you have simply repeated. It is a robbery.' The preacher said, 'I would like to see the book.' The next day Mark Twain sent him the book. It was a dictionary. Of course, in a dictionary every word is there.
Every poem can be reduced to the alphabet, but poetry is not just alphabet. All Buddha's sayings can be reduced to the alphabet, but those sayings are not just alphabet. That's what Freud has done -- he has reduced all love into sex. Sex is only the alphabet of love, bricks out of which you can make a Taj Mahal. But Taj Mahal is not just bricks. You can pile up bricks; it will not become a Taj Mahal. Taj Mahal is a composition of infinite love, of infinite creativity. Bricks are only the visible part of it. Taj Mahal is something invisible. Bricks have made that invisible visible in a certain way and you can feel it. Bricks help the invisible to be felt, but the bricks are not the invisible. Sex is just like bricks. And if you go on piling sex, one is bound to feel in tears. People look at each other, but they don't look at each other at all. They are just looking for the sex object. A woman passes. Have you ever seen a woman as a being? Sometimes you become interested in a woman, but not as a being. You feel a certain attraction, but not as a being, but as a sex object. Or sometimes you are repelled, that too is sexual. Or sometimes you are not interested -- bored, neither repelled nor attracted, just indifferent -- but that too is sexual.
There are books written against Jesus in which people have tried to prove that he was mad. And of course when Mahavir was walking on the streets, naked, ecstatic, people must have thought him mad. He was driven out of towns, cities; shelter was not given to him. Down the centuries the man of God has always been thought of as mad. The reason is simple: if he is sane then you are all insane, then the majority is insane. The majority cannot accept the fact. It is easier, more comfortable to call him insane.
But remember something George Bernard Shaw once said. Somebody was saying, "Millions of people believe this. How can they be wrong?" And George Bernard Shaw said, "If millions of people believe it, how can they be right?" Millions of people and being in the right? -- impossible. The greater the crowd, the less is the possibility of truth.
Truth has been available to only a few individuals. Why? Because only a few dare to enter into that madness. Only a few dare to put their reasoning, cunningness, argument aside. Life is not logic; it goes beyond it.
And not only the mystics say so; now even the physicists -- who are not mystics at all -- what they are saying is incredible. Let me quote a few things. The physicists are now saying the same old nonsense as the mystics used to in the ancient days. The so-called rationalists have always called those mystics mad. Certainly whatsoever they say does not follow ordinary reason; it is something beyond. Now listen to what physicists are saying; they speak of a universe which is finite but unconfined. They say the universe is expanding, but expanding into nothing. They also tell us that electrons are capable of passing through space without make use of the term "quark" to describe a particle of which taking any time to do it. They are now even proposing to the essential property is that when three of them combine, their collective weight is less than that of any of them by itself, although nothing has been lost by their conjunction.
It is absurd. It cannot be so according to ordinary logic. But if you ask the physicist he says, "What can we do? We are helpless. It is so. We cannot change the reality. Just to adjust to your logic, we cannot change the reality. And the reality does not believe in your Aristotles. It does not suffer from Aristotle-itis. It does not bother about what your logic says; it goes on its own way." So the physicists say, "What can we do? Change your logic. If it looks mad, maybe the universe is mad."