Personality: the false disease

From:
Osho
Date:
Fri, 30 December 1987 00:00:00 GMT
Book Title:
Om Mani Padme Hum
Chapter #:
18
Location:
am in Gautam the Buddha Auditorium
Archive Code:
N.A.
Short Title:
N.A.
Audio Available:
N.A.
Video Available:
N.A.
Length:
N.A.

Question 1:

BELOVED MASTER,

AS YOU GLIDE INTO BUDDHA HALL, SLOWLY TURNING TOWARDS WHERE I SIT WAITING
FOR YOUR GAZE TO TOUCH ME, A STRANGE OVERWHELMING FEAR GRIPS ME. I SAY
TO MYSELF, "DARSHAN, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF BEING WITH HIM, WHY THIS
FEAR?" THEN AS YOUR EYES CARESS ME, THE FEAR MELTS IMMEDIATELY, I MELT AND
SOMETHING LOVELY STARTS DANCING WITHIN ME.

BELOVED MASTER, PLEASE SPEAK A LITTLE ABOUT THIS CRAZY PARTNERSHIP OF FEAR
AND LOVE THAT TAKES ME SO COMPLETELY BY SURPRISE AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Deva Darshan, your question is much more comprehensive and complex than you may have realized. Man is an organic unity. And the moment I say an organic unity, I mean you are love, you are fear, you are anger ... the whole panorama, all the colors of the rainbow.

But it is very rarely realized, because our minds try to dissect things, divide things, arrange things.

They are very clever and intelligent in a way, as far as parts are concerned. The moment the whole arises in your view, the mind freaks out. It cannot understand that even in fear, all the rainbows of your being are involved.

To explain a simple fact, in the schools they use a device. They make a fan with seven wings of all seven different colors. When the fan is not moving you can see what is red and what is blue and what is green. Just two colors you will not find in those seven colors: the black and the white, because they are not really colors. It is just from long usage that we have grown accustomed to calling the white and black also colors.

Then they plug the fan into the electricity, and the wings start moving as fast as possible. A strange phenomenon - you can see that all those different colors disappear. There remains only white.

When you see the white color, it means all the rays that create colors are being reflected back, so you cannot find any color. White is an absence of all colors. Black is just the opposite of white; the black absorbs all the rays of color, not allowing a single ray to go back. Hence you cannot see the color because your eyes can only see reflected rays.

The black became - strangely enough, even before it was discovered by science - the symbol of greed, the symbol of the devil, the symbol of all that has to be avoided. And the white became a symbol, around the world, representing renunciation - because it rejects all the rays. It has also become the symbol of compassion, because it is no longer greed but only sharing. It does not take anything in, but only gives you back everything. White also became the symbol of innocence.

Perhaps poets became aware of it centuries ahead of the scientific research. It has been happening all the time, although nobody gives the credit to the poets because by their own contemporaries they were thought crazy. They could not produce any scientific argument for what they were saying.

But centuries afterwards, science was amazed: without using any instruments, without any scientific facilities, how did these people come to certain conclusions? It is very mystifying....

I have told you about Van Gogh that he always painted his stars as spirals. No other painter in the world has made stars as spirals; naturally even the painters, his own colleagues, told him, "You are not aware of the fact that stars are not spirals."

But Van Gogh said, "What can I do? My innermost intuition is that they are, and I believe more in my intuition than in my physical eyes." A hundred years after Van Gogh, just recently, it has been found by science that he was right and everybody else was wrong. Stars only appear not to be spirals because of the distance. And the distance is vast. But now with more accurate instruments, they can see that the stars are spirals.

A strange question arises: How did Van Gogh, a man who was not only thought to be crazy but was forced to live in a madhouse...? And his best paintings are those which he painted in the insane asylum. Seeing that he was a harmless fellow... it doesn't matter if he paints things which are not according to the common-sense view of things. It harms nobody. You need not agree with him, but to force him to live in a madhouse is going a little too far. He was released from the madhouse - he was only thirty-three - and he committed suicide.

His suicide stands as an indictment of the common humanity and their stubborn insistence that every individual should agree with their conceptions. He wrote a small letter to his brother before committing suicide, saying, "I am not committing suicide out of any depression, I am simply committing suicide because perhaps the society in which I can live as a sane man is yet to come."

Your question makes it clear that in your mind you go on dividing things into categories: this is love, this is fear, this is anger....

Just for a change, don't divide.

Whatever arises in you is part of your total individuality.

The division has come into existence because parts of you have been condemned and parts of you have been praised. Naturally, the condemned parts should be repressed - at least should not be allowed to surface - and only the appreciated, the valued, the respectable parts of your being should become your personality. This has created such a split in you that with this split you can neither love nor can you sing nor can you dance. For all that celebration, your whole being is needed.

Let me tell you the truth, with absolute frankness - because it has not been told to you even by courageous people like Gautam Buddha or Jesus Christ, or even Socrates, Pythagoras, Chuang Tzu. They all went a little beyond the crowd, but not far away. They always remained on the boundary line - any moment they could slip back into the crowd.

The most difficult problem is not that your fear is against your love - your fear is simply an indication that love is going to absorb you and your ego starts trembling. What you are calling fear is not the authentic fear but just a phony American fear. The ego is afraid that again you will fall into an unknown space. Naturally, the mind asks, "Are you aware that you are moving into the unknown? Is it possible for you to find the way back to your own identity?"

Love dissolves identity.

In love, I am not and you are not; only love is.

Love does not happen between two persons. Between two persons what happens is only fight, in different names. It may be in the name of love, it may be in the name of something beautiful, but as long as two persons cling to their identities, to their personalities which they have cultivated their whole lives... Naturally, there is great investment.

Love comes like a wild breeze and takes away all your cultivated identity. You are left just a pure silence, a serenity. You cannot even say that "I am." Even that will be a disturbance.

There is tremendous isness, but there is no identity left.

I will read your question:

"As you glide into Buddha Hall, slowly turning towards where I sit, waiting for your gaze to touch me, a strange overwhelming fear grips me..." On the one hand, your innermost core is waiting for the taste of not being, for the immense joy of merging, melting, dissolving into the whole. But your personality is there, which immediately creates a fear, an unknown fear.

You have to understand that this fear is natural, because you have not been left innocent and natural by your society and culture. They have substituted a personality around you. Your whole religion, your whole education, your whole upbringing is involved in a single effort: to create a personality around you. That personality starts trembling and becoming afraid.

It is this personality which is destroying people's love. Everybody says he loves - husbands say they love their wives, wives say the same thing. Parents say they love their children and force their children also to say that they love their parents. The teachers say they love their students. In every nook and corner of your world... If this were true, that everybody is loved in so many ways by so many people, this world would have been a totally different world. It would not have been a world always preparing for war, it would not have been a world divided into nations....

To divide the earth into nations is to take away freedom of movement. We ordinarily think we are free, but this idea of being free is created because the jail is so big. Your whole nation is your imprisonment. Just try to get out of the boundaries and suddenly you will realize the freedom was fake. You have been deceived. Even birds are more free, because they don't have to carry their passports; more free because they can go thousands of miles, the whole sky is theirs. But unfortunately the whole world is not ours. The structure, the way a personality is created, needs all these discriminations.

The American has his own pride, the Indian has his own pride. The Indian does not think that anybody else in the world is spiritual; only they have the monopoly on being spiritual. And as far as I know, I have rarely come across an Indian who can be said to be spiritual. They are the most materialistic people in the world. But the personality not only deceives others, it finally deceives you too.

The Americans think they are the richest people in the world. But I created a simple joke with ninety- three Rolls Royces and all their pride was gone. Even the president became jealous, the governors became jealous, the bishops became jealous. The bishop of Wasco County, every Sunday, may have forgotten Jesus Christ completely but he could not forget ninety-three Rolls Royces. He would bring up some way to condemn them. And you will be surprised that when I was bailed out of jail, he wrote a letter to me. He asked, "Now you will be going back to your own land - what about donating at least one Rolls Royce to my church? It will be a great act of charity."

Now you can see the mind.... I was teaching meditation to thousands of people; America was not interested in it. Thousands of people were coming to the commune; America was not interested in it. Each festival, there were twenty thousand people coming from all over the world; America was not interested in it. The whole of the news media were continuously talking about ninety-three Rolls Royces.

I used to think, perhaps in a poor country this could be expected... but I destroyed the pride of America! I don't need ninety-three Rolls Royces. It was a practical joke, and not even a single so-called intellectual of America could realize the fact that I cannot use ninety-three Rolls Royces simultaneously. And all were of the same model, the latest model; there was no difference between one car and another. Even the president of the Rolls Royce company came to visit, because this was the first time that in a single individual's garage, there were ninety-three Rolls Royces. But I never went to that garage.

The director of the garage, Avesh, is here. I was telling him, "Soon I will be coming." He wanted me to see - he had made such a beautiful garage, and even the president of Rolls Royce appreciated it and said, "Your cars look in far better condition than our newest cars in our garages." Naturally, Avesh wanted me to come some day. And the garage was not far away, it was in the campus of my own house. I used to pass by the garage every day, but I never went in.

People have been cultivating all kinds of discriminations: the white man thinks he has something more special than the black man, that he carries the burden of the whole earth. But the black man does not agree about it. He has his own ideas.

Marco Polo went to China in his world travels and in his diary he noted that, "I have always suspected that there is some truth in the theory that man is born out of the monkeys. Seeing the Chinese, I am convinced." But you should also remember, when the Chinese emperor gave an audience to Marco Polo, he could not believe that he was a human being. In his biography, it is stated that he thought that there must be subspecies of human beings around the world - of course the Chinese is the highest expression. The same kind of stupidity....

Religions give you the idea that you have the truest religion in the world. But the basic mechanism you are not aware of: all these things are created to nourish your ego and re-place you from your center, which is your authenticity, to a false center which is just an artifact created by all kinds of methods.

Love is a danger to the personality. The personality starts trembling. But the difficulty is, your innermost being is waiting for it. It is imprisoned and it is waiting for a fresh breeze from the outside, fragrant. Perhaps it may bring a few songs of the birds, a few rays of the sun. So you are in a duality:

the personality is afraid but your reality is absolutely inviting, waiting, watching for the moment when it happens.

You have to be very decisive to renounce your personality completely. It is your falseness. Being a Hindu, being a Mohammedan, being a Christian - drop all that nonsense.

Just be a pure consciousness. That is your nature. And then there will not be any conflict.

You are saying, "I say to myself, Darshan, after all these years of being with him, why this fear?" You can be with me for lives - that is not going to change the fear. But a single instant of understanding, just like a flash of lightning, that you are carrying a load of false ideas about yourself, and the transformation will come.

It is a complex thing. Sometimes it happens to people who are very new. And sometimes it becomes more difficult the more you are with me, because the more you start taking me for granted, it becomes an everyday experience. You know: the fear will come, the love will come, and it has become a routine. You will have to get out of this trap.

And when I say you have to get out of this trap, I don't mean you have to make any effort. Because what has to be dropped is false; it has no roots in you. You can do it in a single moment of awareness.

I am giving you these moments of silence for a single purpose. I don't have a teaching, I have only strategies for transformation. I speak to you not to convey anything in particular, I speak to you so that I can give you a few gaps of silence.

Listening to me, there are two possible ways: the way of the scholar - he will listen to my words - and the way of the seeker, who will listen to my silences.

My silences are my communion with you.

My words are only to divide small pieces of silences for you. One word is being used only so that before I utter another word, you can feel a silence sweeping over you. Nobody has used language in this way. Language is just creating possibilities for silence. Alone, your chattering mind does not allow you to be silent. But with me, I am chattering and you are freed at least for a few moments because in those moments you are waiting for what I am going to say. Naturally, a waiting gives you an experience of silence.

As you become more and more aware of the false in you and the real in you, there is no need to make any effort to drop the false. Just being aware that "this is false," the false disappears. But there are stupidities which go on and on....

Just the other day, Anando brought me a news clipping. Perhaps England is the most ghost-haunted country in the world. It is easy to conceive that in a primitive society, a house is haunted by ghosts.

But in England, a ship was found to be haunted, and the ghost was creating continuous trouble.

Something was going wrong again and again in the ship, and the people who worked on the ship finally became afraid, because it was not natural. They abandoned the ship; they said their lives were in danger.

The vicar was called to investigate whether the ship was haunted. And do you think it is the twentieth century? The vicar came and he found that it was haunted, but the ghost was not of a man but of a fish. And there was no need to be worried - he did some ritual with the crucifix and baptized that ship into Christianity.

And the most amazing part is that since then, nothing wrong has been happening. The ship is going perfectly well. Naturally, anybody will conclude logically that whatever the vicar did has helped: the ghost has left the ship. But the reality is that the idea of the ghost was disturbing people. Because they are all believers in Christianity and Jesus Christ, immediately, when they saw that the vicar had done the whole ritual and now their ship was protected with Christianity, by Jesus Christ himself, there was no fear.

Because of false things, religion has existed in the world.

Religion is almost like homeopathy. If you are a hypochondriac - finding this sickness, that sickness - then allopathy cannot help you. On the contrary, it may disturb you because if the disease itself is false, you don't need a real medicine for it. The real medicine will create its own effects in your body which are going to be disturbing. If there were a real disease it would have destroyed the disease.

It is because of false sicknesses that things like naturopathy, homeopathy, continue to exist.

And in a recent survey it was found that seventy percent of sicknesses are just mind fictions. So all these homeopathic sugar pills, if you believe in them... the question is belief. Homeopathy cannot help me, but homeopathy can help you if you believe in it. Then that false pill, which has no effect, will cure you.

Your personality is a false disease.

It does not need actual methods to destroy it; all that it needs is the awareness that it is false. It is enough - to know the false is to finish the false. And the moment the false is gone, the real asserts itself without any effort on your part.

So when I say to you, "You are enlightened," I simply mean that you are believing you are not enlightened and that is creating the trouble. That is giving you a false idea of an unenlightened sinner, an ordinary person. And all the religions have been exploiting you on that point.

If you drop the idea of unenlightenment and you simply accept your natural being....

Relish it, sing it, dance it. You will be surprised that this is what you have been seeking all your life.

And it was prevented because of your seeking.

Jesus says, "Seek and the doors shall be opened for you." I say to you, "The doors are always open.

There is no need to seek, simply enter." Jesus says, "Ask and the answer will be given to you." And I say to you, "You are the answer. Don't ask; otherwise you will get thousands of answers and you will forget the answer that you are."

Jesus says, "Seek and ye shall find it." And I say to you, "Seek and you will never find it. Why start with seeking? Why not start with finding? Find it and there is no need to seek!"

But all the religions, all the priests... and the greatest exploitation and slavery of man has existed with the small idea that you have to seek, that you have to go somewhere else, that you have to be somebody else. They have distracted every human being from his natural self.

Insist, because unless you insist, the crowd is going to push you here and there. Insist that you are what you are, and you are absolutely happy to enjoy yourself. You are not going to waste time in seeking, searching, and reaching your grave. I want to make your this very moment the explosion.

Darshan, you are saying, "Then as your eyes caress me, the fear melts immediately. I melt and something lovely starts dancing within me." If you have been experiencing it, then why not drop that fear? Because you know already that it melts and you enjoy that melting. Then why go on nourishing the fear again and again? Then it becomes a vicious circle.

Jump out of the circle.

Tomorrow when I come in, you start enjoying even before I have entered the hall. Why should you wait for me? And why create unnecessary diseases, fear - fear of what? What have you got to lose?

There is a Sufi story about Mulla Nasruddin. He is traveling in a train and the ticket checker comes, and he looks into all his pockets - except the pocket on his coat on the left side. He opens all his luggage, looks into every suitcase, perspiring that the ticket is lost. And it is an obvious fact - all the other passengers are waiting - the ticket checker says, "You have looked everywhere. Why are you not looking in your left coat pocket? Because I see that is the only place you have not looked."

Mulla said, "Don't mention it."

The ticket checker said, "What do you mean?" He said, "That is my only hope, that perhaps the ticket may be there. I cannot look into it."

You are searching, you are seeking, you are opening all kinds of luggage. Why don't you look into yourself? That is the only hope. You don't want to destroy even that hope. And I say to you, it is not just a hope, it is a reality.

The ticket is there.

Now a few moments for prayer....

An Englishman, an American and a Polack go on safari to Africa together. On the first day, they decide to hunt alone and go off in different directions. That night they meet again back at the camp and exchange hunting stories.

"I had a great day," says the Englishman. "I shot a lion, two elephants and a hippo."

"That's nothing," says the American. "I shot two lions, three rhinos and a giraffe."

"I did better than both of you," says the Polack. "I shot seventy-five no-nos."

The two other men look at each other and then ask the Polack what a no-no looks like.

"Well," says the Polack, "they walk on two legs, have black skin and curly hair and when you point a gun at them, they shout No-no! No-no!"

Hamish and Maggie MacTavish are queuing for a movie called "The Miracle." The girl selling the tickets tells Hamish that there are no cheap seats left anymore, only a few of the ones costing six dollars each. Hamish hesitates and consults with Maggie and at length produces two five dollar bills and a handful of loose change. Hymie Goldberg steps out from the queue and says to Becky, "We can go home now, I have just seen the miracle!"

One night, after their owner is asleep, the parts of the body are arguing about which has the toughest job. "I've really got it rough," moan the feet. "He puts me in these smelly sneakers, makes me jog until I have blisters... it's awful!"

"You've got no reason to complain," says the stomach. "Just last night, I got nothing but beer, spaghetti and aspirin. It's a miracle I kept it together."

"Ah, quit bitching, you two," moans the prick. "Every night, he sticks me up a dark tunnel and makes me do push-ups until I throw up!"

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Beloved Master.

Generated by PreciseInfo ™
The following is taken from "THE HISTORY OF THE
JEWISH KHAZARS," by D.M. Dunlop, pp. 4-15.

"... Our first question here is, When did the Khazars and
the Khazar name appear? There has been considerable discussion
as to the relation of the Khazars to the Huns on the one hand
and to the West Turks on the other. The prevalent opinion has
for some time been that the Khazars emerged from the West
Turkish empire. Early references to the Khazars appear about the
time when the West Turks cease to be mentioned. Thus they are
reported to have joined forces with the Greek Emperor Heraclius
against the Persians in A.D. 627 and to have materially assisted
him in the siege of Tiflis. it is a question whether the
Khazars were at this time under West Turk supremacy. The
chronicler Theophanes {died circa A.D. 818} who tells the story
introduces them as "the Turks from the east whom they call
Khazars." (Ed. Bonn, 485) On the other hand, the West Turks
appear in the Greek writers simply as Turks, without special
qualification.

The Syriac historians mention the Khazars earlier than A.d.
627. Both Michael Syrus (Ed. Cabot, 381, col. 1, line 9) and
Bar Hebraeus (Ed. Budge, 32b, col. 1, line 13) tell how,
apparently in the reign of the Greek Emperor Maurcie (582-602),
three brothers from "inner Scythia" marched west with 30,000
men, and when they reached the frontier of the Greeks, one of
them, Bulgarios (Bar Hebraeus, Bulgaris), crossed the Don and
settled within the Empire. The others occupied "the country of
the Alans which is called Barsalia, " they and the former
inhabitants adopting the name of Khazars from Kazarig, the
eldest of the brothers. if as seems possible the story goes
back to John of Ephesus (So Barthold, E.I., art. Bulghar) {died
circa A.D. 586}, it is contemporary with the alleged event. It
states pretty explicitly that the Khazars arrived at the
Caucasus from central Asia towards the end of the 6th century.

In the Greek writer Theophylact Simocatta {circa 620} we
have an almost contemporary account of events among the West
Turks which can hardly be unrelated to the Syriac story just
mentioned. (Ed. Bonn, 282ff, Chavannes, Documents, 246ff)
Speaking of a Turkish embassy to Maurice in 598, this author
describes how in past years the Turks had overthrown the White
Huns (Hephthalites), the Avars, and the Uigurs who lived on "the
Til, which the Turks call theBlack River." (Unidentified. Til is
apparently the same as atil, itil, "river." Cf. Atil, Itil=the
Volga. Zeuss (Die Deutschen, 713n.) denied that the Volga was
meant. Marquart, followed by Chavannes (Documents, 251),
suggested the Tola, a tributary of the Orkhon, which is probably
too far east). These Uigurs, says Theophylact, were descended
from two chiefs called Var and Hunni. They are mentioned
elsewhere as the "Varchonites." (Menander Protector, ed. Bonn,
400) Some of the Uigurs escaped from the Turks, and, appearing
in the West, were regarded by those whom they met as Avars, by
which name they were generally known. The last part of this is
confirmed by another Greek author, according to whom Justinian
received representatives of thepseudo-Avars, properly Uigurs,
in A.D. 558, (Menander, ibid., 282) after which they turned to
plundering and laying waste the lands of eastern and central
Europe. If the derivation from Uigur is right, the word "ogre"
in folklore may date from this early period.

Theophylact also tells us that about the time of the
Turkish embassy in 598 there was another emigration of
fugitives from Asia into Europe, involving the tribes of the
Tarniakh, Kotzagers, and Zabender. These were, like the
previous arrivals, descendants of Var and Hunni, and they
proved their kinship by joining the so-called Avars, really
Uigurs, under the Khaqan of the latter. It is difficult not to
see in this another version of the story given by Michael Syrus
and Bar Hebraeus. The Kotzagers are undoubtedly a Bulgar group,
(Cf. Marquart, Streifziige, 488) while Zabender should be the
same name as Samandar, an important Khazar town, and hence
correspond to Kazarig in the Syriac. Originally, it seems,
Samandar derived its name from the occupying tribe. (Menander,
ibid., 282) We appear to have confirmation that the Khazars had
arrived in eastern Europe by the region of Maurice, having
previously been in contact with the West Turks and destined to
be so again.

On the other hand, the older view implied that the Khazars
were already on the outskirts of Europe before the rise of the
Turks {circa A.D. 550}. According to this view, the affinities
of the Khazars were with the Huns. When Priscus, the envoy to
Attila in 448, spoke of a people subject to the Huns and living
in "Scythia towards the Pontus" called Akatzir, (Priscus, ed.
Bonn, 197) these were simply Aq-Khazars, i.e., White Khazars,
Jordanes, writing circa 552, mentions the Akatzirs as a warlike
nation, who do not practice agriculture but live by pasturing
flocks and hunting. (Ed. Mommsen, 63) In view of the distinction
among some Turkish and the remainder as "black," when we read
in the Arab geographer Istakhri that the Khazars are of two
kinds, one called Qara-Khazars (Black Khazars), the other a
white kind, unnamed, (Istakhri's account of the Khazars is
translated in Chapter V) it is a natural assumption that the
latter are the Aq-Khazars (White Khazars). The identification
of the Akatzirs with "Aq-Khazars" was rejected by Zeuss (Die
Deutschen, 714-15) and Marquart (Streifziige, 41, n. 2) as
impossible linguistically. Marquart further said that
historically the Akatzirs as a subject race correspond rather
to the Black Khazars. The alternative identification proposed is
Akatzirs=Agacheri. But this may not be very different from the
other, if Zeki Validi is right in thinking that the relation
between the Agacheri and the Khazars was close. (Ibn-Fadlan,
xxxi)

There are one or two facts in favor of the older view which
have not been explained away effectively. If the Khazars had
nothing to do with the Akatzirs and appeared first as an
off-shoot of the West Turks at the end of the 6th century, how
do they come to be mentioned in the Syriac compilation of circa
569, (Rubens Duval, cited Chavannes, Documents, 250, n. 4) going
under the name of Zacharias Rhetor? The form Kasar/Kasir, which
here comes in a list of peoples belonging to the general
neighborhood of the Caucasus, refers evidently to the Khazars.
Thiswould fit in well with their existence in the same region a
century earlier. We have also the testimony of the so-called
Geographer of Ravenna (? 7th century) that the Agaziri
(Acatziri) of Jordanes are the Khazars. (Ed. Pinder and Parthy,
168)

The Khazars, however, are nowhere represented simply as
Huns. The question arises, If they were subjugated by the
latter shortly before A.D. 448, as Pricus tells, how long had
they existed previously? Here we must consider the views of
Zeki Validi, which are put forward exclusively on the basis of
Oriental sources and are quite independent of the considerations
which have just been raised. He believes that he has found
traces of one and the same Urgeschichte of the Turks, not only
in Muslim but also in Chinese sources, the latter going as far
back as the Wei dynasty (366-558). (The Later Wei is meant
(Zeki Validi's dates)). In the story the Khazars play a leading
part and even claim to be autochthonous in their country.
(Ibn-Fadlan, 294. Yet on the basis of the same tradition, the
original home of the Khazars is represented as the lower Oxus,
cf. ibid., 244, 266) Zeki Validi cites a story in Gardizi,
according to which the eponymous ancestor of the Kirgiz, having
killed a Roman officer, fled to the court of the Khazar Khaqan,
and later went eastward till he found a permanent settlement on
the Yenissei.

But as the Kirgiz in early times are believed to have lived
in eastern Europe and to have been south of the urals before
the beginning of the Christian era, Zeki Validi would assign a
corresponding date to this episode and is unwilling to allow
that the mention of Khazars this early is an anachronism.
(Ibn-Fadlan, 328) These are remarkable claims to make for the
antiquity of the Khazars.

The principal Muslim sources which Zeki Validi relies on are
relatively late, Gardizi, circa A.D. 1050, and an anonymous
history, the Mujmal al-Tawarikh w-al-Qisas, (Ibn-Fadlan, 311)
somewhat later (though these doubtless go back to ibn-al-Muqaffa'
in the 8th century, and through him to pre-Islamic Persian
sources), nor does his Chinese source mention the Khazars
explicitly. But the view that the Khazars existed anterior to
the Huns gains some confirmation from another quarter.

The Armenian History going under the name of Moses of
Chorene (5th century) has a story which mentions the Khazars in
the twenty years between A.D. 197 and 217. (The chronology of
the text is confused, suggesting both these dates and an
intermediate one. Ency. Brit. (14th ed.), s.v. Khazars, has the
date 198. Carmoly (Khozars, 10, in Itineraries de la Terre
Sainte, Brussels 1847) must refer to the same incident when he
speaks of the Khazar Juluf, who ruled seventeen nations on the
Volga, and, pursuing some rebel tribes, burst in to Armenia
between A.D. 178 and 198. The source of Carmoly's information
is quite unknown to me). According to this, the peoples of the
north, the Khazirs and Basilians, made an agreement to break
through the pass of Chor at the east end of the Caucasus "under
the general and king Venasep Surhap." (In the Whistons' 18th
century translation, ii, 62 (65) "sub duce ac rege eorum
Venasepo Surhaco." Kutschera thought that the two kings of the
Khazars were intended (Die Chasaren, Vienna 1910, 38) Having
crossed the river Kur, they were met by the Armenian Valarsh
with a great army and driven back northward in confusion. Some
time later, on their own side of the Caucasus, the northern
nations again suffered a heavy defeat. Valarsh was killed in
this second battle. His son succeeded him, and under the new
king the Armenians again passed the Caucasus in strength,
defeating and completely subjugating the Khazirs and Basilians.
One in every hundred was taken as a hostage, and a monument in
Greek letters was set up to show that these nations were under
the jurisdiction of Rome.

This seems to be a very factual account, and by Khazirs
certainly the Khazars are to be understood. it is, however,
generally held that the Armenian History is wrongly ascribed to
Moses of Chorene in the 5th century and should be assigned to
the 9th, or at any rate the 8th, century. (For a summary of the
views about Moses of Chorene, see an article by A.O.
Sarkissian, J.A.O.S., Vol. 60 (1940), 73-81) This would clearly
put quite a different complexion on the story of the Khazar
raid. Instead of being unexceptionable evidence for the
existence of the Khazars at all events in the time of Moses of
Chorene, it would fall into line with other Armenian (and also
Georgian (A favorable example of the Georgian accounts in
Brosset, Inscriptions Georgiennes etc., M.R.A. 1840, 329)
accounts which though they refer to the Khazars more or less
explicitly in the first centuries of the Christian era, and even
much earlier, we do not cite here. Thigh interesting in
themselves, these accounts, in view of their imprecision and
lack of confirmation, cannot be regarded as reliable.

The Muslim writers provide us with a considerable amount of
material which may be expected to throw light on the date of
the emergence of the Khazars. As already indicated, some of
this demonstrably derives from Pehlevi sources, composed before
the Arab conquest of Persia. What the Arabic and Persian
writers have to say about the Khazars deserves careful scrutiny,
as liable to contain authentic information from an earlier
time. It is not surprising that these accounts, written when
the Khazar state north of the Caucasus was flourishing,
distinguish them from the Turks encountered by the first
generations of Muslims in central Asia. But a passage like the
following, where the Khazars are set side by side with the
leading types of contemporary humanity, is somewhat remarkable.
In a discussion between the celebrated ibn-al-Muqaffa' and his
friends the question was raised as to what nation was the most
intelligent. It is significant for the low state of their
culture at the time, or at least for the view held by the Arabs
on the subject (ibn-al-Muqaffa' died 142/759), that the Turks
and Khazars were suggested only after the claims of the
Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, and Negroes had been
canvassed. Evidently in this respect the Turks and the Khazars
shared a bad eminence. But they are given quite different
characteristics: "The Turks are lean dogs, the Khazars pasturing
cattle." (Ibn-'Abd-Rabbihi, al- Iqd al-Farid, ed. of A.H. 1331,
Ii, 210. The anecdote is commented on by Fr. Rosenthal,
Technique and Approach of Muslim Scholarship, Analecta
Orientalia, 24 (1947), 72) Though the judgment is unfavorable,
we get the impression of the Khazars as a distinct, even
important, racial group. How far this corresponds with the fact
is not certain. Suggestions have been made connecting the
Khazars with the Circassian type, taken to be pale-complexioned,
dark-haired, and blue-eyed, and through the Basilians or
Barsilians already mentioned, with the so-called "Royal Scyths"
of Herodotus. (iv, 59) All this is evidently very speculative.
Apart from the passage where the Black Khazars are mentioned,
described as being dusky like the Indians, and their
counterparts fair and handsome, (See Istakhri's account of the
Khazars in Chapter V, infra) the only available description of
the race in Arabic sources is the following, apparently from
ibn- Sa'id al-Maghribi: "As to the Khazars, they are to be left
[north] of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having
over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is
cold and wet. Hence their complexions are white, their eyes
blue, their hair flowing and predominantly reddish, their
bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is
wild." (Bodieian MS., i, 873, fol. 71, kindly communicated by
Professor Kahle) This reads like a conventional description of
a northern nation, and in any case affords no kind of support
for Khazar affinity with the "Circassian" type. If we are to
trust the etymology of Khalil ibn-Ahmad (Yaqut, Mu'jam al-
Buldan, s.v. Khazar) the Khazars may have been slant-eyed, like
the Mongols, etc. Evidently nothing can be said positively in
the matter. Some of the Khazars may have been fair-skinned,
with dark hair and blue eyes, but there is no evidence that this
type prevailed from antiquity or was widely represented in
Khazaria in historical times. A similar discussion on the
merits of the different races is reported from the days before
Muhammad, in which the speakers are the Arab Nu'man
ibn-al-Mudhir of al-Hirah and Khusraw Anushirwan. The Persian
gives his opinion that the Greeks, Indians, and Chinese are
superior to the Arabs and so also, in spite of their low
material standards of life, the Turks and the Khazars, who at
least possess an organization under their kings. Here again the
Khazars are juxtaposed with the great nations of the east.
(Ibn-'Abd- Rabbilu, op. cit. i, 166) It is consonant with this
that tales were told of how ambassadors from the Chinese, the
Turks, and the Khazars were constantly at Khusraw's gate,
(Tabari, i, 899. According to ibn-Khurdadhbih, persons wishing
access to the Persian court from the country of the Khazars and
the Alans were detained at Bab al-Abwab (B.G.A. vi, 135)) and
even that he kept three thrones of gold in his palace, which
were never removed and on which none sat, reserved for the
kings of Byzantium, China and the Khazars. (Ibn-al-Balkhi, Fdrs
Namah (G.M.S.), 97)

In general, the material in the Arabic and Persian writers
with regard to the Khazars in early times falls roughly into
three groups, centering respectively round the names of (a) one
or other of the Hebrew patriarchs, (b) Alexander the Great, and
(c) certain of the Sassanid kings, especially, Anushirwan and
his immediate successors.

A typical story of the first group is given by Ya'qubi in
his History. (Ed. Houtsma, i, 17) After the confusion of
tongues at Babel (Gen. 10:18; 11:19), the descendants of Noah
came to Peleg (Gen. 10:25; 11:16-19; 1 Chr. 1:19; 1:25), son of
Eber (Gen. 10:21; 10:24-25; 11:14-17; Num. 24:24; 1 Chr.
1:18-19; 1:25; 8:12; Neh. 12:20), and asked him to divide (Gen.
10:5; 10:25; 10:32; Exo. 14:21; Deut. 4:19; 32:8; 1 Chr. 1:19)
the earth among them. He apportioned to the descendants of
Japheth (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18; 9:23; 9:27; 10:1-2;
10:21; 1 Chr. 1:4-5) - China, Hind, Sind, the country of the
Turks and that of the Khazars, as well as Tibet, the country of
the (Volga) Bulgars, Daylam, and the country neighboring on
Khurasan. In another passage Ya'qubi gives a kind of sequel to
this. Peleg (Gen. 10:25; 11:16- 19; 1 Chr. 1:19; 1:25) having
divided the earth in this fashion (Deut. 32:8), the descendants
of 'Amur ibn-Tubal (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chr. 1:5; Isa. 66:19; Eze.
27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1), a son of Japheth, went out to the
northeast. One group, the descendants of Togarmah (Gen. 10:3; 1
Chr. 1:6; Eze. 27:14; 38:6), proceeding farther north, were
scattered in different countries and became a number of
kingdoms, among them the Burjan (Bulgars), Alans, Khazars
(Ashkenaz Gen. 10:3), and Armenians. (Ed. Houtsma, i, 203, cf.
Marquart, Str. 491)

Similarly, according to Tabari, (i, 217-18) there were born
to Japheth Jim-r (the Biblical Gomer (Gen. 10:2-3; 1 Chr.
1:5-6; Eze. 38:6; Hos. 1:3), Maw'-' (read Mawgh-gh, Magog (Gen.
10:2; 1 Chr. 1:5; Eze. 38:2; 39:6; Rev. 20:8)), Mawday (Madai
(Gen. 10:2; 1 Chr. 1:5), Yawan (Javan) (Gen. 10:2; 10:4; 1 Chr.
1:5; 1:7; Isa. 66:19; Eze. 27:13; 27:19)), Thubal (Tubal),
Mash-j (read Mash-kh, Meshech (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chr. 1:15; 1:17;
Eze. 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1)) and Tir-sh (Tiras (Gen. 10:2;
1 Chr. 1:5)). Of the descendants of the last were the Turks and
the Khazars (Ashkenaz). There is possibly an association here
with the Turgesh, survivors of the West Turks, who were
defeated by the Arabs in 119/737, (H.A.R. Gibb, Arab Conquests
in Central Asia, London 1923, 83ff. Cf. Chapter IV, n. 96) and
disappeared as aruling group in the same century. Tabari says
curiously that of the descendants of Mawgh-gh (Magog) were
Yajuj and Majuj, adding that these are to the east of the Turks
and Khazars. This information would invalidate Zeki Validi's
attempt to identify Gog and Magog in the Arabic writers with
the Norwegians. (Ibn-Fadlan, 196ff) The name Mash-kh (Meshech)
is regarded by him as probably a singular to the classical
Massagetai (Massag-et). (Ibn-Fadlan, 244, n. 3) A Bashmakov
emphasizes the connection of "Meshech" with the Khazars, to
establish his theory of the Khazars, not as Turks from inner
Asia, but what he calls a Jephetic or Alarodian group from
south of the Caucasus. (Mercure de France, Vol. 229 (1931), 39ff)

Evidently there is no stereotyped form of this legendary
relationship of the Khazars to Japheth. The Taj-al-Artis says
that according to some they are the descendants of Kash-h (?
Mash-h or Mash-kh, for Meshech), son of Japheth, and according
to others both the Khazars and the Saqalibah are sprung from
Thubal (Tubal). Further, we read of Balanjar ibn-Japheth in ibn-
al-Faqih (B.G.A., v, 289) and abu-al-Fida' (Ed. Reinaud and De
Slane, 219) as the founder of the town of Balanjar. Usage leads
one to suppose that this is equivalent to giving Balanjar a
separate racial identity. In historical times Balanjar was a
well-known Khazar center, which is even mentioned by Masudi as
their capital. (Tanbih, 62)

It is hardly necessary to cite more of these Japheth
stories. Their JEWISH origin IS priori OBVIOUS, and Poliak has
drawn attention to one version of the division of the earth,
where the Hebrew words for "north" and "south" actually appear
in the Arabic text. (Conversion, 3) The Iranian cycle of legend
had a similar tradition, according to which the hero Afridun
divided the earth among his sons, Tuj (sometimes Tur, the
eponym of Turan), Salm, and Iraj. Here the Khazars appear with
the Turks and the Chinese in the portion assigned to Tuj, the
eldest son. (Tabari, i, 229)

Some of the stories connect the Khazars with Abraham. The
tale of a meeting in Khurasan between the sons of Keturah (Gen.
25:1; 25:4; 1 Chr. 1:32-33) and the Khazars (Ashkenaz Gen.
10:3) where the Khaqan is Khaqan is mentioned is quoted from the
Sa'd and al-Tabari by Poliak. (Loc. cit.; Khazaria, 23, 142,
148; Cf. ibn-Sa'd, I, i, 22; Tabari I, i, 347ff)) The tradition
also appears in the Meshed manuscript of ibn-al-Faqih,
apparently as part of the account of Tamim ibn-Babr's journey
to the Uigurs, but it goes back to Hishim al-Kalbi. (Hisham
ibn-Muhammad, the authority given by ibn-Sa'd=Hisham
ibn-Lohrasp al-Sa'ib al-Kalbi in ibn-al-Faqih's text (in V.
Minorsky, "Tamim ibn-Bahr's Journey to the Uyghurs," B.S.O.A.S.,
1948, xii/2, 282)) Zeki Validi is inclined to lay some stress
on it as a real indication of the presence of the Khazars in
this region at an early date. ((Ibn-Fadlan, 294) Al-Jahiz
similarly refers to the legend of the sons of Abraham and
Keturah settling in Khurasan but does not mention the Khazars.
(Fada'il al- Atrak, transl. C.T. Harley Walker, J.R.A.S., 1915,
687) Al-Di-mashqi says that according to one tradition the
Turks were the children of Abraham by Keturah, whose father
belonged to the original Arab stock (al-'Arab al-'Aribah).
Descendants of other sons of Abraham, namely the Soghdians and
the Kirgiz, were also said to live beyond the Oxus..."

[Zionism, chabad, Nazi, ZioNazi, Judeo-Nazi, racism, fascism,
Illuminati, Freemason, NWO, Lucifer, Satan, 666]