Be Assertive!

The first question

Question 1:

Anand Niketana,

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to remember is truth cannot be defensive; it is against the nature of truth to be defensive. Just think: if Jesus has been defensive, then humanity would have missed all that is valuable. Truth has to assert itself. There is no need to be aggressive, remember that too.

Truth is neither defensive nor aggressive, but truth has to be assertive.

Jesus said to his disciples, "Go to the rooftops and shout the truth from there!" - because people are deaf. Unless you shout they are not going to hear.

Only lies are either aggressive or defensive; truth is neither. Truth simply is as it is - available, open.

The great political philosopher, Machiavelli, said in his treatise, THE PRINCE, that if you want to be accepted as true then even if you are not true be aggressive, don't be on the defensive. that is for the politicians, because to be on the defensive, according to Machiavelli, is to be fighting a losing battle. Your very desire to be defensive shows that you are weak, that you are afraid, that you are willing to compromise. Truth cannot do these things. Lies will either be aggressive, when they are winning, or, when they start losing they become defensive.

By the way, Machiavelli's great-granddaughter, Anado, is here; she is my sannyasin. If Machiavelli comes to know he will toss and turn in his grave, because I am against politics. Politics is basically rooted in lies.

So, Niketana, you have been doing something wrong from the very beginning. There is no need to be defensive, there is no need to compromise, there is no need to be accommodating. it is better to be destroyed than to compromise, because when truth is crucified that's its victory, when truth is crucified it is crowned.

So don't be afraid of crucifixion. It is beautiful to die on the path of truth, it is ugly to survive through compromising. Each compromise means you have fallen from the truth into the ditch of lies. What else can a compromise be?

I have come across the news that the Dutch Government has made a commission of inquiry to investigate 'impartially' about sects. Now, this is sheer stupidity! How can they inquire impartially?

And the people, the majority of the people, who have been appointed to the commission are Christian Democrats. Now, how can Christians be impartial? and they call it 'an inquiry into SECTS'.

The very word 'sect' is condemnatory. Christianity is a religion - and my sannyasins are a sect, a cult! That is the beginning of prejudice. Now, how do you define a cult or a sect?

When Jesus was alive, whatsoever he was teaching, and the people who were following him, were they a religion or a cult, a sect? Of course, in the eyes of the Jews - the established religion - it was a cult, a sect; it was not a religion. If it was religion, then Jesus could not have been crucified.

A cult is something that takes you away from religion, that distracts you from the true religion, from the main path.

Jesus was a cult when he was alive. Now, how can Christianity be a religion? If in the source it is a cult, if the seed is the cult, how can the tree be religion? And when Jesus was alive, THEN it was a cult, and now he has been dead for two thousand years and around his corpse a religion has grown.

When Buddha was alive it was a cult, a sect; now Buddhism is a religion. So what is the definition?

When the Master is alive, when he is living, when the truth is breathing, then it is a cult - it has to be condemned. And when the Master is dead... and with the Master's death the truth disappears, because truth needs an embodiment. It is an experience; it has to exist in the person who has realized it. When the person is no more, the truth is no more.

If Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zarathustra, Mohammed, while they are alive are only creating cults and sects, then the definition of religion is: the corpse of truth - rotten, stinking.

Jews were also very impartially inquiring about the phenomenon that Jesus was - VERY impartially.

Hindus were inquiring into Buddha and his disciples VERY impartially. Now they are inquiring about me VERY impartial! And who are they to inquire? And why should they be worried? And not only are Christians worried - Hindus are worried, Mohammedans are worried, Jainas are worried, Buddhists are worried, Parsis, Sikhs. All the established religions are worried because I am taking away their sons and their daughters, and the fear is: "What is going to happen to our tradition?"

Tradition belongs to the past. Spirituality has no tradition, cannot have; it is against the fundamental law of existence. Tradition has no soul, how can it have spirituality? Science is a tradition because science depends on the past. If there had been no Newton, no Edison, no Rutherford, then there would have been no possibility for an Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein has to stand on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Take away Newton and Albert Einstein will fall flat on the ground! He cannot stand on his own. That's what a tradition means: a continuity; it is a chain. If one link is missing, the chain is broken.

But religion is not a tradition, spirituality is not a tradition. If there had been no Krishna, I could still be; it does not matter. I am not standing on the shoulders of Krishna or Buddha or Jesus. I am standing on my own feet just as THEY stood on their own feet.

Buddha denied the Vedas; that was the tradition - Hinduism. He denied it absolutely. He was utterly against the Hindu scriptures. Any man of understanding is bound to be against the scriptures, because truth cannot be contained in the scriptures, truth cannot be expressed through words. And what can scriptures have? - only words, theories, hypotheses, assumptions. Buddha said, "Get rid of all the scriptures if you want to know the truth." Naturally the Hindu priesthood was against him.

Buddha was not standing on the shoulders of the past giants, in fact he was denying them. He was saying, "Get rid of them, only then can you be your own self." That's the beauty of religion.

Science is borrowed; it is information, and information has to come from others, That's why science can be taught in schools, colleges, universities, but religion cannot be taught. Religion can only be caught, it cannot be taught. It is like an infection: when you are with a Buddha you can get infected - if you are not too resistant, if you are not too much on guard.

If you remain vulnerable with Jesus, with Zarathustra, with Lao Tzu, something of their being can penetrate your being. The being of the Master can overlap the being of the disciple. A moment comes when the Master and disciple start merging into each other; that is the moment when something miraculous transpires. It is not information, it is transformation.

So religion is not a tradition: it is a heart-to-heart contact, it is a love affair. Christianity DIED with Christ; since then it has been only a cult.

The cultists in Holland are trying to inquire about religion! When I am dead it will be a cult, but while I am alive it is religion. That's my definition of a cult and of a religion: a religion means while the experience has still a heartbeat to it; a cult is a corpse, the heartbeat has stopped. It LOOKS the same, but it is no more the same. It is only a concept, a philosophy; the life has departed. It is only a cage - maybe a golden cage, but the bird is dead, the bird is no more alive. It will not sing any more - or you can put gramophone records in it. That's what priests are: gramophone records. They go on repeating.

Friedrich Nietzsche is absolutely right when he says that the first and the last Christian died on the cross two thousand years ago - the first and the last Christian. Christ was the first and the last Christian. Buddha was the first and the last Buddhist. After that it is only footprints on the sands of time... you can go on worshipping.

So, Niketana, tell those fools there that "You are cults and we are a religion!" And make a commission of inquiry, because only MY sannyasins can be impartial. Here are Christians and Hindus and Mohammedans and Parsis and Buddhists and Jainas; in my sannyasins all the rivers are meeting and merging. It is an ocean! Only my sannyasins can be impartial - how can these Christians be impartial? They have already shown their faces that they are Christians. They are already prejudiced that Christ is right, that the Christian dogma is right, that anything that goes against it is wrong. How can they inquire? Inquiry needs no A PRIORI assumptions, no conclusions.

So you can make, Niketana, a commission of inquiry to look into what Christianity has done in two thousand years. All kinds of crimes have been committed - murder, rape, arson - all kinds of crimes have been committed by these so-called religious people. In fact, they have proved the greatest calamity to humanity.

Be assertive! Drop all ideas of being defensive! But you are still talking in terms of defence.

You say:

IT FEELS THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO BE LESS ACCOMMODATING, LESS COMPROMISING AND LESS DEFENSIVE.

LESS defensive or MORE defensive, LESS accommodating or MORE accommodating, LESS compromising or MORE compromising, is only a question of quantity. It is not a change of your vision, of your perspective. Change the whole perspective! It is not a question of less or more - simply drop being defensive. And don't move to the other extreme: don't become aggressive - but be assertive. Open up your heart, say the way you feel, explain it to the people the way you feel.

You say:

IT IS COMING TO A POINT WHERE BECOMING STILL MORE DEFENSIVE WOULD BE A DENIAL OF OUR INNERMOST EXPERIENCE.

Never betray your own innermost experience. If you betray it you are committing suicide. A person who kills himself physically is not really committing suicide, because he will be born again; he will have a new body that's all, a new model. But the person who goes against his own inner experience is committing a far deeper suicide - he is destroying his very soul. It is better to suffer; it IS BEAUTIFUL to suffer on the path of truth. Even death on the path of truth has a beauty of its own.

And these governments are going to do the same thing everywhere, all over the world it is going to happen, because my sannyasins are now in almost all the countries of the world. Sooner or later everywhere the same problems are bound to arise. In Germany the government has appointed a commission, now it is Holland, soon it will be Italy, and so on and so forth. You are going to be tortured everywhere! That's how it has always been.

Truth cannot be accepted because people are living in such comfortable lies. Accepting truth means destroying the whole edifice that they have created around themselves. It is cozy and comfortable, and they have put so much energy into it. It has become their lifelong work, and nobody wants it to be destroyed. Nobody wants to be told that it is all dreamstuff: "You are just befooling and deceiving yourselves. Come out of your deceptions!" And the masses, the crowd mind, the mob psychology, has not that much guts; they cannot come out of their comfortable lies. So the only way left for them is to destroy truth.

That's why Jesus is crucified, Socrates is poisoned, Mansoor is killed, Sarmad is beheaded. But I don't think that that has destroyed anything. The crucifixion of Jesus has made him one of the MOST significant expressions of truth on the earth, so much so that now we think of history being divided by HIS name: before Christ and after Christ, as if history took a new route with that crucifixion.

That cross on which Jesus was crucified has divided the whole of history.'Before Christ' - it means man was not yet aware, alert about real religion;'after Christ' - something happened, something so tremendously significant that humanity took a new step, rose higher than ever before. The same has happened with every enlightened person.

So, Niketana, change your attitude totally. You are not to be defensive at all. But let me remind you again - because mind moves to polar opposites - I am not telling you to be aggressive, I am not telling you to be violent. I am telling you to be simply IN the middle, EXACTLY in the middle, neither defensive nor aggressive but assertive - standing naked in the sun, in the rain, in the wind and telling the world what sannyas is all about.

The second question

Question 2:

Anand David,

THAT'S THE ONLY THING that will be missed if all these churches, moralities, puritanic attitudes disappear from the world - the only thing that will be missed is the jokes, because jokes need a certain background. Without the popes there will be no jokes, because the background is absolutely essential.

In the day you cannot see the stars - they are there. They don't simply evaporate in the morning; they are not like dewdrops evaporating in the sun. They are far bigger than your sun; suns millions of times bigger are there. Those stars look small because they are so far away; actually our sun is a very mediocre sun, bigger suns are there. They don't disappear, but in the light you cannot see them - the background disappears. The background is the darkness of the night; against the darkness of the night those stars shine forth.

So that much I also feel, that once all these fools disappear - the popes, the ayatollahs, the imams, the shankaracharyas - and this whole nonsense is no more there, one thing will certainly be missed:

jokes will be missed. The best jokes arise around the priests, the rabbis, the popes. You are right, David, in saying:

I HAVE JUST REALIZED THAT SOME OF MY LAUGHTER AT YOUR JOKES COMES BECAUSE OF MY OLD-FASHIONED CHRISTIAN MORALITY.

Not some of it - all of it!

You say:

A SAINTLY MAN WOULD NEVER SAY 'FUCK' OR 'SHIT'.

That is true, but I am not a saint! I don't want to be categorized as a saint. I don't want to stand with those long faces, with those stuffed tomatoes, with all kinds of rubbish. And they have only one idea in their heads: 'holier-than-thou'. That's why they cannot use these words - otherwise these words are there. They cannot use them, but the words are there.

At a southern Californian school for underprivileged Mexican children, the brightest boy in the class was named Jesus Christ Gonzalez. In preparation for the coming visit of Monsignor O'Brien, the teaching nun rehearsed with the boy, "My name is J.C. Gonzalez and I am going to spell 'rose'." The nun warned him against using his full name.

When the Monsignor arrived, the boy got up and said, "My names is J.C. Gonzalez and I am going to spell 'chrysanthemum'."

The bewildered nun remarked, "Jesus Christ, you can't spell 'chrysanthemum'!"

"Goddamit!" snapped the clergyman, "Let him spell 'chrysanthemum' if he wants to!"

They are human beings just as you are, they are just hiding behind masks.

I have heard:

A Pope - maybe this Polack Pope - was going for a morning walk with a rabbi. The rabbi stumbled on a stone, hurt his foot, and said, "Shit!"

The Pope said, "This is not right, because God is everywhere and he must have heard you."

They walked a little further and again the rabbi stumbled and again he said, "Shit!"

The Pope said, "Enough is enough! God will punish you."

And the third time it happened suddenly there was great thunder in the clouds, lightning struck the Pope dead, and then somebody in the clouds shouted, "Shit! I missed!"

There is nothing wrong - even God uses these words! I don't know about your saints, I know about God, and who cares about your saints?

David, are you English or something?

Judge: "You are accused of making love to a dead woman in the desert."

Drunkard: "Who me, Mr. Judge?"

Judge: "Yes, you!"

Drunkard: "But that woman... hic... that woman... hic... was she dead?"

Judge: "Are you trying to tell me that you didn't know?"

Drunkard: "I swear to God, Judge, Your Honor, Sir, I... hic... didn't know. I thought... hic... she was English!"

You say:

A SAINTLY MAN WOULD NEVER SAY 'FUCK' OR 'SHIT'.

Then after me you will have to change the definition of the saintly man.

One Indian friend has written - his name is Iqbal Kureshi - he says:

Question 3:

Iqbal Kureshi, that's exactly the purpose: to destroy the image! I don't want to be known as a saint - that's exactly the purpose. And I am not worried about what others think of me - I am not a politician. Only politicians are worried, continuously worried, about what others are thinking about them, because they have to depend on others - the others have the votes. I don't depend on anybody's votes, anybody's opinion. I am simply whatsoever I am. Why should I be bothered about my image?

The very worry about the image is egoistic, but your saints are worried, I know that. I have known all kinds of your saints - Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian, Sikh Jainas, Buddhists - I have come across all kinds of your saints. They are far MORE political than your politicians, because this very idea is politics: what people are thinking, remain respectable. Respectability is nothing but nourishment for the ego.

I don't want to be respectable. Either you love me or you don't love me; respect is simply meaningless. Respect and the desire for it is egoistic. So those who love me, they will love me as I am. I am not going to compromise, I am not going to accommodate. And I could create that accommodation so easily: I could not use a few words - 'fuck' and 'shit' - and I could become a

saint. You see how cheap it is! But I am not interested in such cheap saintliness. If I am a saint then whatsoever I say is saintly; if I am not a saint then I may go on reciting the Gita and the Koran and the Vedas but I am not a saint, I am just a parrot.

I am not interested at all in mirrors. I know my original face - and the original face is not known through mirrors. Public opinion is only a mirror.

Iqbal Kureshi must be worried about my image. He says, "It puts your image upside-down." What is wrong with being upside-down? That's what they call in yoga SIRSHASAN - the headstand. And as far as I am concerned, I know that you are upside-down, so when you see me upside-down that simply means I am standing on my legs and you are standing on your head!

There is a story:

Once a donkey went to see Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru when he was the Prime Minister. The guard was on duty and, as guards are supposed to, he was snoring. And when the donkey went in he opened one eye and saw: "Only a donkey is there - there is no need to worry. A donkey cannot be a spy, a donkey cannot kill the prime minister, he cannot bring weapons with him. So there is no need to worry - a donkey is a donkey - let him go. What can he do? At the most he may eat a little bit of grass here and there." So he closed his eyes and started snoring again.

Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru was very much interested in SIRSHASANA, the headstand, so early in the morning he was doing a headstand on the lawn. The donkey went close, looked at him and said, "Punditji, why are you standing upside-down?"

Jawaharlal said, "Am I standing upside-down or are you standing upside-down?" But he jumped onto his feet the moment he realized that the donkey had spoken. He said, "Am I hearing right? Have your really spoken?"

The donkey said, "Don't get so upset. I am only a donkey - I have just learnt the art of reading and speaking, In my spare time I have nothing else to do, so I go on reading newspapers. Don't get so upset."

Jawaharlal relaxed and he said, "I am not upset, because I have seen many speaking donkeys in my life. In fact, nobody else comes to see me except speaking donkeys!"

But the first idea in Jawaharlal's mind was that the donkey was standing upside-down. He had completely forgotten that he himself was doing a headstand.

The whole of humanity is standing upside-down, but because all are standing upside-down whosoever tries to stand on his feet will look upside-down - he will be a minority. The Buddha is always a minority.

Iqbal Kureshi has asked in a friendly way... he must be in love with me so he is worried. He says:

WHATSOEVER YOU SAY BETWEEN THE JOKES IS BEAUTIFUL, RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL.

I don't think so - that is really bullshit! Only the jokes are beautiful, religious and spiritual. But we cannot agree. I cannot agree with you because you are absolutely unconscious, and you cannot agree with me because I am absolutely conscious. We are living in totally different dimensions.

He asks:

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THESE JOKES?

I also ask, "What is the purpose of all these religious and spiritual things that I go on saying?" Just old habit, I think. Otherwise there is no point! And sooner or later you will see - I will only tell jokes.

His background is Indian, Mohammedan, and people think according to their background..

Mr. Bates first introduced his wife, Mrs. Bates, to President Lincoln. Then he introduced his son and said, "I would like you to meet my son, Master Bates."

President Lincoln said, "Oh? I'm so sorry to hear that!"

People hear according to their background! Now, Kureshi is hearing according to his Indian background. Otherwise what I am saying is very simple: I am using these jokes to bring a little sense of humor to religion. Religion has lacked a sense of humor so much so that H.G. Wells reported to have said that a religion had never been founded by a man who had any sense of humor. I want to prove him wrong so later on nobody can say that!

And a sense of humor has its own spirituality. If you cannot laugh you cannot understand life. If you cannot laugh you are not open. Laughter opens you towards existence. When you are not laughing, when you are sad and serious, you are closed; your doors, your windows are all closed.

In laughter, heartfelt laughter, all your senses function at their optimum. You experience life entering you, touching you at the deepest core.

But Kureshi is worried because he thinks the jokes are sometimes dirty. I have never come across a dirty joke. The idea of the dirty comes from your interpretation, otherwise what is dirty? If you think sex is dirty, then any joke which implies some sexuality becomes dirty. It is your idea that makes it dirty. To me sex is as sacred as anything else - to me the whole of life is divine. And these so-called saints have always been telling you that the whole of life is divine, but it seems they don't mean it. I really mean it!

The annual contest for the best joke had been won for five consecutive years by the same person, Rabbi Abe Cohen from Brooklyn. Each year he sent in his entry and four weeks later he received the cheque and the winner's certificate from the sponsors, a world-famous glossy magazine. This year, however, two months had passed since the closing date for entries and he had heard nothing.

Feeling a little worried lest the letter had been lost in the post, he phoned the editor and asked what had happened to his winnings.

"I'm terribly sorry, Abe," sympathized the editor, "but surprisingly enough, you only made second place this year."

"I don't believe it!" roared Cohen. "My jokes have always won. Who on earth could beat me?"

"Some new entry from India, a chap called Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh," the editor informed him.

"Look," said Cohen, "I find it hard to believe that anyone could tell a juicier joke than me. You must have made a mistake. But let me hear this joke so I can judge for myself."

The editor hesitated. "I'm sorry, Abe, but this joke is so juicy that I don't dare to tell it over the phone.

It's really juicy!"

Cohen was indignant. "If you don't even let me hear the joke, I may have to take legal advice before I accept your decision!"

The editor thought for a few moments. "I tell you what," he offered, "let's compromise. I'll censor it a little to make it acceptable, and you use your imagination to fill in the gaps. Where the joke gets too juicy I'll say 'ladi-dah'."

Cohen agreed enthusiastically and the editor began, "Ready? Okay, here it goes: 'la-di-dah-di-dah- di-dah, la-di-dah-di-dah, da-di-dah-di-dah-di-dah... fuck!'"