The Master only makes you remember who you are

From:
Osho
Date:
Fri, 29 December 1986 00:00:00 GMT
Book Title:
Sermons in Stones
Chapter #:
30
Location:
pm in
Archive Code:
N.A.
Short Title:
N.A.
Audio Available:
N.A.
Video Available:
N.A.
Length:
N.A.

Question 1:

BELOVED OSHO,

YOU ARE FOR ME, THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY PERSON I CAN IMAGINE. YET I KNOW THAT
YOU FEEL ORDINARY. WHERE IS THE DOOR FOR A TALENTED AND GIFTED PERSON OR
A GENIUS TO FEEL AND BECOME ORDINARY? I SEE THAT EACH TIME I FEEL SPECIAL,
SOMETHING GOES WRONG. BUT I HAVE STILL NOT FOUND THE DOOR TO REAL MODESTY
AND SIMPLICITY. COULD YOU PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT?

I do not feel ordinary - I am.

The people who have talents, the gifted, the geniuses - they also suffer the same problem that you are suffering because they forget that the whole existence is ordinary. A sunrise, howsoever beautiful, is pure ordinariness. A sky full of stars does not feel in any way special. A rosebush full of beautiful flowers and fragrance is just part of the ordinary existence.

The talented people get into trouble because they forget their relationship with existence. They become confined and imprisoned in their small talents.

What are your talents and what are your geniuses? Because you can paint, you are a genius? Look at the butterflies, look at the flowers, look at the sky when the sun is setting - the whole existence is so colorful. And because you have painted a small canvas, you have become special. And what have you painted?

The existence has to be remembered; then you will not get caught in the net of an egoistic feeling, that "I am special." The moment you feel you are special, you have lost contact with life, with love, with the totality of the whole - you are alone.

A true genius does not know, does not feel that he is special. That is the criterion whether he is a true genius or not. If he feels that he is special, he's not a true genius. The very feeling of specialness arises out of your inferiority. The more inferior you feel, the more you try to pretend, to pose your specialness.

Looking at the vastness, the infinity and eternity of existence, we are just dewdrops in the early morning sun. We may shine like pearls on the lotus leaves, but just a little breeze and the dewdrop slips into the ocean and is no more. The ocean always is. If you also want to be always here and now, don't get identified with a tiny dewdrop. Howsoever beautiful it looks, it is only appearance.

Merge, melt, disappear into the ocean, and the ocean is no longer separate from you. It is not that the dewdrop has died. On the contrary, the dewdrop has become the ocean.

You are asking me how to attain, to achieve true humility, true simplicity - these things are never achieved. These things are not within your hands. If you understand, they happen. All that you have to do is to understand that we are part of a mysterious world. And the world is so vast, how you can be anything else but humble?

It is not a question of attaining, achieving humility. It is a question of understanding: how can I be other than humble? One day, you were not. One day, you will not be again - and still you are trying to achieve humility? You want simplicity in your life?

But life is simple. If you want to make it complex, you can - you can stand on your head and life becomes complex! You can do all kinds of stupidities and life becomes complex.

Don't do anything. Just try to be aware, alert, and see that you are related with such a miraculous, mysterious world. Suddenly, you will find that you are simple, just like a child.

The child has simplicity not because he has achieved it, he has simplicity because he is still, in a subtle way, in tune with the whole. He was in tune with the whole in his mother's womb. He has not forgotten it yet.

Have you noticed a fact - if you try to remember backwards, how far can you remember? When you were four years old or three years old? More than that, you cannot go back. But when you were three years old, you were perfectly conscious. You were enjoying more than you will ever enjoy life.

Everything was beautiful; small colored stones, sea shells on the beach were treasures.

The reason why you cannot remember backwards to the time when you were born is that in those three years you were simple - so simple that you had not even gathered memory. There was no need. You were just like a mirror - you reflected, enjoyed the moment, but you never collected. You were not greedy. Your ego had not come yet into being. It takes, for the society to bring the ego, at least three years in women and four years in men.

I have been always puzzled: why three years in women and four years in men?It is because women are more self-conscious.

Mulla Nasruddin was trying hard for two hours to catch two flies. Finally, he got them and he told his wife: "I have caught them. One is male, one is female."

The wife said, "My God! How did you figure out who is male and who is female?"

He said, "Very simple. The female has been sitting continuously for two hours on the mirror, and the male was reading the newspaper for two hours. It was not difficult to find out who is who."

The woman is more body-oriented... becomes aware of her beauty, becomes aware that others are also aware of her beauty. That's why the ego is created one year earlier.

The woman is more confined to herself.

The man looks around the world, forgetting himself completely; hence, it takes a little more time. But once the male ego is there, it is stronger, more poisonous than the female ego. Because the female ego is fragile - it depends only on her beautiful eyes, her beautiful hair, the beautiful proportions of her body. Its claims are not very big.

But when the man claims, he becomes Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ivan the Terrible.

His scope of the ego is the whole world.

When the first group of mountain climbers, early in the century, tried to climb the highest peak of the Himalayas - Gourishankar, known to the world as Everest - they were asked: "Why are you putting your life in unnecessary danger?" Because there is nothing to be found... eternal snow, which has never melted.

And do you know, the leader replied, "It is not a question of finding anything there on the Everest.

The question is that it is there, unclimbed, and it hurts our egos."

Strange - the poor Everest is not doing anything to you. Almost hundreds of people have died in climbing Everest, for a simple reason - because it is there. It cannot remain unclimbed, man has to defeat it.

What is there on the moon? But it is there, this is the difficulty. What is there on Mars? It is there.

And those millions of stars are there.

Man's ego has no limits.

It is vast and it goes on growing.

The woman is satisfied with beautiful clothes, ornaments, a beautiful, small garden, a swimming pool - she does not ask much. And by the way, this is the reason no woman has been able to become a Gautam Buddha. You will be surprised. What can be the connection in it?

To become a Gautam Buddha, you need a very big ego so big that it becomes a mountainous burden on you. You have to get rid of it; otherwise it will kill you.

But the woman's ego is so small, it never becomes a mountainous burden. There is no need to fight with it, to drop it. This is the reason why women have not been able to reach higher peaks of consciousness. They are easily satisfied with small things.

Man knows no satisfaction, and this dissatisfaction becomes so troublesome, so painful, that he has to find a way out of it.

You are asking how to achieve simplicity. A simplicity that is achieved is phony, because deep down you know you are not simple. A humbleness that is achieved is false because in your heart of hearts, you know it is just etiquette, mannerism. It pays in the world to be humble, to be simple - these are your masks.

But if you ask me, I will tell you: drop the idea of achievement. The very idea of achievement is egoistic.

You are simple, you are humble.

Just look all around.

Look at the ocean, look at the sky.

How can you manage not to be simple and not to be humble?

Question 2:

BELOVED OSHO,

WHEN I WRITE DOWN A QUESTION TO YOU, WITH EVERY WORD, MORE AND MORE
QUESTIONS ARE ARISING WITHIN ME. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE DOWN A
SINGLE SENTENCE WITHOUT GETTING LOST IN THE JUNGLE OF QUESTIONS. BY THE TIME
I AM FINISHED WITH ONE QUESTION, I AM COMPLETELY EXHAUSTED. I WANT TO KNOW IT
ALL, OSHO, SO DESPERATELY, THAT TEARS ARE COMING IN MY EYES. IT MIGHT BE THE
WRONG WAY TO START, BUT I WANT TO KNOW IT ALL. I WANT TO ASK EVERYTHING AND
I WANT TO KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS TO EVERYTHING. BELOVED ANSWER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE COMMENT?

Mind is just like a tree: questions grow on the tree like leaves. If you cut one leaf, the tree will replace it with three leaves, at least. That's how a gardener makes the tree thick, the foliage big.

Mind is very productive as far as questions are concerned. It manufactures only questions. And each answer, mind will immediately change into hundreds of questions. No answer is going to stop the mind. So you are on a wrong track, completely wrong. And what are you going to do by knowing all? Do you want to become a god?

There are people who say that even God committed mistakes in making existence. There are people who propose that if God had taken their advice, the world would have been far better. And you cannot simply reject them, they have a certain validity.

Just look at life and you will find how many mistakes God has committed. Just a few examples....

The biblical story is that first God created Adam and NOT Eve; Eve was the second woman that he created. He had created another woman before Eve. Christians don't talk about it, Jews are silent about it, because it will raise so many questions - what happened to the first woman?

But the very first night, the first mistake - he made only one small bed. It was not a double bed, king-size. What a foolish God, creating a man and a woman and giving them a small bed.

The first night, the fight started that you are still fighting. The woman wanted to sleep on the bed.

The man also wanted to sleep on the bed and there was a pillow fight. They could not sleep the whole night because nobody was ready to sleep on the floor.

Even an ordinary carpenter would have been better. Adam went to God and said, "What kind of life have you given to me? This is going to be continuous trouble. Why have you made a small bed?"

And a second mistake: rather than making a big bed, which was a simple thing.... For a god who can make the whole universe, to make a king-size bed would have been very simple, but rather than doing that, he withdrew the woman. And that was the right woman because she was made equal to man - in strength, in body, in intelligence, in everything she was equal to man.

These thousands of years of torture all over the world of women by men, would have been avoided just by making a king-size bed! But he made another woman, this time not equal. The first woman was made out of the same mud as Adam was made. The second woman was made by taking a rib of Adam, and out of the rib, the woman was made. Naturally, she cannot claim equality - she's only a rib.

And I have heard that whenever Adam was late coming home, when he went to sleep the first thing Eve used to do was to count his ribs. Who knows? There may be some other woman somewhere.

But there was no need to ask him... just count his ribs.

Even the smallest intelligence can understand that to prohibit anything is to create interest, attraction - and God prohibited. Not only prohibited, he showed Adam and Eve two trees - one of wisdom, one of eternal life - and said, "You are not to eat the fruits from these trees." And the garden was vast. If Adam and Eve had been left on their own, I don't think that even now we would have found those two trees.

God seems to be stupid: showing them the trees and telling them, "This is the tree of wisdom and this is the tree of eternal life. Never eat the fruits from these two trees. The rest of the garden is available." But naturally Adam and Eve must have become obsessed with those two trees. You would have done the same as Adam and Eve did.

And I say they did right.

Wisdom is not something harmful - ignorance is harmful. Eternal life is not something to be denied to your own children. But it seems he had no idea of the basic principles of psychology.

What are you going to do by knowing all?

It will be enough if you can eat the fruits of those two trees: the tree of wisdom and the tree of eternal life. And I am making available to my sannyasins only those two trees. Those two trees are not in the garden, those two trees are within you. As you meditate, as you become silent, as you become peaceful, wisdom arises. Wisdom is the light that radiates out of a silent consciousness. And once your inner being is full of light, instantly you know your life is eternal.

Death is a fiction. God has prohibited man to go within himself. Go to the whole Garden of Eden - that means the whole universe - but don't go within yourself.

The devil who persuaded, seduced Eve to eat the fruit of wisdom... and just see, the story is not only a story. There is a perfect science hidden behind it. The devil did not say, "Eat first from the fruit of eternal life." You cannot eat from the tree of eternal life. You are blind, you cannot approach the tree. First, your eyes have to be opened.

Hence, he persuaded her for the tree of wisdom. And the reason he gave is worth remembering: the reason he gave was that "God has prohibited you because he is very jealous of anyone becoming equal to him, and if you are wise and have eternal life, you are a god. God does not have anything more than you. Because of jealousy, he is prohibiting you." The logic was perfect.

By the way, people all around the earth have asked me: "Why are there so many women interested in you? Why are there so many women sannyasins?" The reason is the same - why didn't the devil approach man first?

Man is argumentative, does not listen from the heart. He listens from the head. The devil would have convinced him but it would have taken a long time, and perhaps God may have come to know; the thing had to be done quickly. The woman listens from the heart, and the heart is quick. Mind is lousy, slow, needs all kinds of arguments, and then too there is doubt. Then too there are questions and questions and questions. If the devil had met the questioner, even by this time the questioner would have been asking because he wanted to know all.

Eve was ready because she was not interested in knowing all. This was enough, to have wisdom.

Wisdom does not mean that you know all. It simply means pure intelligence, a heart full of light, no darkness in any corners of your being. Wisdom is a transformation of your whole being, knowledge is not.

You are searching for knowledge. And you can memorize all the libraries in the world; still, more and more questions will be coming. The final result will be a madman.

The woman, in this way, is simple. She listened to devil. The idea was perfectly clear.

One thing more to be reminded to you - that in Hebrew, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, they don't have the idea that the word "devil" comes from Sanskrit. Devil and divine come from the same root. Never condemn the word "devil," because it simply means divine. Then the whole story takes a different color:

God is against humanity.

God is against your being wise, against your enjoying eternally the fruits of love and life. How can you call the person who was the first seer, the first sage... we owe to him everything. He is divine.

And as God became aware that they had eaten the fruit of wisdom, he immediately turned them out of the Garden of Eden. Because now he was afraid: the second step is absolutely necessary, and that is the fruit of the tree of eternal life. Before they eat that, they have to be turned out of the Garden.

You may have thought or you may not have thought, but it is significant to know that the whole of humanity has been searching for more life, longer life, better life, healthier life. Why? - because that wound is still not healed. We are still searching. All our sciences, all our philosophical endeavors are nothing but a search for the second tree.

Science perhaps may gave a little longer life, but it cannot give eternal life, because it works on the body and the body cannot be eternal. Philosophy may give you great ideas, but just ideas - soap bubbles. They cannot give you eternal life.

There is only one approach and that is the approach of meditation. That goes directly to the tree of eternal life.

So rather than wasting your time in questions and answers, it is better to find the tree - and both trees are within you. And the methodology to reach to them does not need much effort. In fact, it does not need any effort, it needs an effortless relaxation.

So whenever you have time, just relax, close your eyes and forget the whole world. Thoughts will go on just because of old habit. You have to learn a simple secret: the name of the secret is watching without any judgment. Let the thoughts move, just like on the screen of a movie. You simply watch, don't judge. And slowly slowly, the traffic is less and less and one day suddenly you see - there are no thoughts, you are utterly empty in your mind.

And that is the turning point in one's life, because the energy that was going towards thoughts, finding nothing there, turns back to the original source.

The circle is complete.

You must have seen - many secret societies of the world have used the symbol of a snake with his own tail in his mouth. That symbol is nothing but your own energy turning back to the source, becoming a circle.

You will not find any answer, so please don't call me "Answer." I am not your Answer. Although I discuss your questions, I never answer.

My effort is just the opposite: I destroy your question, not answer it. In the name of answering, I am destroying it. I am taking it away from you, because I know that any answer given to you is going to become many questions. And I am not your enemy, and I don't want to burden you any more. You are burdened so much by your religions, by your philosophers, by your traditions. It is time that all your burdens should be taken away. You should be left alone in your silence. You will not find any answer, remember - but all questions will disappear.

And when all questions disappear, you have found something more than just a verbal answer - you have found your authentic reality, your being. And your being is rooted in the being of the whole universe. You have found the whole world.

Just find your own center and you have found the center of the whole world.

But beware of questions. They are not your friends.

You will be lost in the jungle of questions. You will become very knowledgeable, but deep inside there will be nothing but darkness and death.

I want within you light and life and love. I teach these three L's, just like educationists teach three R's.

Question 3:

BELOVED OSHO,

DO ALL DISCIPLES BECOME DEVOTEES? IN YOUR COMMUNES, I HAVE LOVED YOU, GOT
LOST IN YOU, BEEN EMPTIED OUT BY YOU. AWAY, YOUR PICTURE HAS LIT ME UP WHEN
I'VE GONE DARK. YOUR VOICE ON TAPES HAS WOKEN ME WHEN I'VE BEEN SNOOZING AND
MADE ME SNOOZE WHEN I'VE BEEN AWAKE. YOU ARE MY BLOOD, MY BONE AND MARROW
AND YET, AND YET OSHO, I DO NOT SEE MYSELF AS A DEVOTEE. WHEN I SEE THOSE WHO
CARE FOR YOUR BODY, I CAN NEVER IMAGINE HOW I COULD MANAGE SUCH A THING, SO
GENEROUSLY AND SELFLESSLY, EVEN THOUGH I USED TO DEEP-DOWN DREAM MY ROLE
SHOULD ONE DAY BE TO SERVE, COMPLETELY LOST IN LOVE. IF I NEVER BECOME WHAT
YOU CALL A DEVOTEE, HAVE I A DESTINY THAT SEPARATES ME FROM YOU?

Savita, every disciple grows into a devotee. There is no way to go anywhere else. But you have not understood the meaning of devotee.

I have almost one million sannyasins around the world. If they all think that by being devotees they have to be close to me, then I will feel that to become enlightened was a mistake!

A devotee is just like the fragrance of a flower. The flower is the disciple, the devotee is fragrance.

You can see the flower. You cannot see the fragrance. You can catch hold of the flower but you cannot catch hold of the fragrance.

And the fragrance has no destiny. Only machines have destinies.

You are conscious human beings. You don't have destinies because you are masters of your own being.

Only slaves have destinies.

The fragrance is freedom of the spirit of the flower. The flower was the body, the fragrance is the soul. Now the flower has come to blossom, the fragrance is released. Now the fragrance belongs to the whole universe. Wherever the breeze takes it, it has no resistance. It simply goes with it.

The life of a devotee is the life of let-go, of absolute surrender to existence - not to me, not to anybody else. And when you are surrendered totally to existence, then all these beautiful mountains, all these beautiful trees, rivers, this whole universe becomes your home.

A devotee is one whose ego is dead - in a certain sense, one who is absent as far as the ego is concerned and present for the first time, as universal consciousness.

Of course, I need a few people around me. Just being a lazy guy, it has nothing to do with devotees, it has something to do with me. I have never done anything in my life.

One friend has come from the Soviet Union. He said to me, "Never go to the Soviet Union."

I said, "In the first place, they will not allow me in anyway. If England cannot allow, if Italy cannot allow, if Germany cannot allow, the Soviet Union is going to be the last on the laundry list!"

But I asked him, "Why are you saying this?"

He said, "Because of your hands. If anybody shakes hands with you, he will take his hand away."

I said, "What is wrong with my hands?"

He said, "Your hands are bourgeois. You have never worked! And the Soviet Union is a dictatorship of the proletariat."

I said, "That's true, I have never worked. Even in the middle of the night, my cold drink is just by the side of my bed but I will ring the call bell - that call bell is also by the side of the bed - and somebody has to come to give me a glass of cold drink."

In fact, the people who take care of me insist: "Don't touch the glass, don't touch the bottle. You may break it!" So what can I do?

I am simply lazy.

Savita, you need not be in despair that perhaps you are not growing towards being a devotee - you are growing but it takes a little time. Just wait a little, let the spring come and your buds will open and your fragrance will be released.

This is real freedom, liberation, moksha. But every disciple sooner or later has to become a devotee.

There is no way that you can go back. For one who has tasted the sweetness and the beauty of being a disciple, it is impossible to go back, to fall back. You have passed the line from where people can go back.

There is a point of no return. Thousands of my sannyasins have passed that point. Even if they want to, it is not possible. It is almost like a child is born... he was in paradise in his mother's womb. The outside world will look very strange. He might like to go back into the womb but it is not possible. He has crossed the boundary, the point of no return. He has to go only ahead.

A disciple has come a long way, has come very close to the ultimate explosion. That ultimate explosion is devotion, but it has nothing to do with taking care of my body. It has something to do with taking care of your meditation.

Move with as much wholeness and totality as you can to the very center of your being, the center of the cyclone.

And you have come home.

Question 4:

BELOVED OSHO,

WHEN WE REACH A POINT WHERE INSANITY CAN OCCUR, AT THAT STATE, A
BREAKTHROUGH IN CONSCIOUSNESS CAN ALSO OCCUR. PLEASE TELL US HOW TO SHIFT
THE GEAR FROM INSANITY TO CONSCIOUSNESS?

Radha, the question is very significant to every seeker on the path. There comes a moment where there are two possibilities: a breakdown or a breakthrough.

Breakdown rarely happens because it needs certain conditions. For example: you don't have a master, you have been going on your own. You don't have anybody who knows the path. There is danger. Or, you may have a teacher, not a master, misunderstanding him as a master. Then there is more possibility of a breakdown.

A teacher is without any experience. He himself has never traveled on the path, although he is knowledgeable. Perhaps he may be more knowledgeable than any master. And if you are impressed by knowledge, there is danger. Don't be impressed by knowledge, because knowledge can be accumulated from scriptures, from books, from thousands of other sources, but it is all borrowed, dead.

How will you discriminate between a master and a teacher? The line is very fine.

I will tell you one story to make it clear.

One great philosopher, in the days of Gautam Buddha, came to Gautam Buddha to challenge him for a debate. He had been moving all over the country, defeating many many famous, well-known teachers but he had not come across a master. He had no first-hand knowledge, of what a master is.

He thought master and teacher were synonymous terms - they are not. They may be synonymous in the dictionary, but not in reality.

He was a famous man - five hundred disciples of his own always followed him.

Buddha looked at him. There were ten thousand sannyasins of Buddha. There was a great silence because this was the first time that any man had dared to challenge Buddha for a debate. The man must be blind!

Buddha said to the philosopher: "You have been traveling all over the country. You have been asking questions, answers have been given to you. Have you received any answer?"

The man said, "No, my questions are still there."

Buddha said, "I can also answer you but your questions will still be there, because the questions are yours, the answer is mine - there is no bridge, no connection. Your question needs your answer."

The man said, "Then what am I supposed to do?"

Buddha said, "You are really in search of truth? Then for two years, sit by my side. No question - just be silent and watch whatever goes on happening."

The man was certainly sincere. And looking at Buddha, his charismatic presence, his authoritative words, his penetrating eyes... he said, "I am ready. Can I ask my questions after two years?"

Buddha said, "Absolutely! You will have to! If you don't ask, I will remind you."

He sat down by the side of Buddha. At that very moment, an old disciple of Buddha - Mahakashyap - sitting under a tree just nearby, started laughing madly.

The philosopher said, "What has happened to this man?"

Buddha said, "You can ask him; it has never happened before."

The philosopher asked Mahakashyap, "What is the reason? Why did you burst into laughter?"

He said, "The same is my story. I had also come here to challenge Gautam Buddha, but this man played a trick. He said, 'Sit two years by my side and then you can ask whatever you want.' I said,'It is worth it.' But after two years, all my questions had disappeared! So I want to tell you, if you are really interested in asking your questions, this is the time. Ask! After two years, you are finished.

You will be sitting under that other tree."

For two years he sat, and forgot all about time, that two years had passed. And watching, for two years continuously, the beauty, the grace, the sincerity, the authenticity of Gautam Buddha, he became more and more silent. He fell into a certain kind of love, in tune with the heart of Gautam Buddha - his heart also started dancing.

And exactly after two years, Buddha said, "Now it is time. You can ask your questions."

He had only tears of joy in his eyes. He touched Gautam Buddha's feet and he said, "Mahakashyap was right, I am going to the tree."

A master is a totally different phenomenon. He does not teach you anything, he transforms you. He does not give you doctrines, he gives you a totally new level of consciousness. He gives you a new birth.

So if you want to become knowledgeable, this is not the place. But if you want to be awakened, to be enlightened, then you have come to the right place, perhaps accidentally.

A master imparts something invisible. His vibe enters your being.

The teacher only plays with words which cannot reach beyond your mind.

Your mind is only a mechanism. Your being is your reality.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is whether you want to become an Encyclopedia Britannica or you want to fall into the celestial music of existence and become an immortal part of it.

You are already part of it, you just have to be reminded.

The master only makes you remember who you are.

The teacher gives you many theories, many philosophies, many doctrines.

The master only gives you to yourself.

Knowledge in itself is useless, even parrots have knowledge. So don't bother about knowledge. You may be a better parrot... or perhaps not even a better parrot.

I have heard, a bishop had a parrot and he had taught him - with great difficulty - the Sermon on the Mount. Any guest who came was amazed - the parrot was so perfect, they could not believe it.

Perhaps even Jesus was not so impressive as the parrot. But the parrot died and the bishop was in great misery.

He went to the biggest pet shop. There were many parrots of different qualities, qualifications, but nothing satisfied him. His own parrot was so religious and so Christian.

He told the owner, "These parrots won't do," and he described his parrot who was dead.

The man said, "I have the right parrot for you but the price will be too much because it is far superior to your parrot who has died."

The bishop was ready to pay any price. The owner took him inside the shop to a special room where he kept that parrot, a beautiful parrot.

The bishop asked, "What are the qualities?"

He said, "Just look closely and you will see two small threads - one tied to the right foot, another to the left. If you slightly pull on the right foot by the thread, he will repeat the whole Sermon on the Mount.

The bishop said, "And what about the other leg?"

He said, "The other leg is for Jews, because sometimes some Jew may come."

The bishop said, "Jews come - they are my friends. The rabbi lives just opposite my house. He will be the first man to come and see it!"

The owner said, "Then that is the right parrot for you. If you pull the other leg, he will repeat the whole Song of Solomon."

The bishop said, "My God! A double scholar!"

He paid whatever was asked. While he was paying the money, he asked: "And if I pull both the threads together, what will happen?"

Before the owner could say anything, the parrot said, "You idiot - I will fall on my asshole! Never do that!"

Teachers are simply parrots.

A master is not knowledgeable but he knows his experience, his own experience. He does not depend on Gautam Buddha or Jesus Christ. He has entered into his inner subjectivity, and whatever he says is fresh - just born.

Avoid knowledge; insist on experience.

Only experience can bring salvation to you, only experience can give you wings which can liberate you. Neither any book nor any religion nor any teacher - they cannot help. They can only deceive you, perhaps without any intention - they have been deceived, and this deception goes on from century to century. Our whole heritage is thousands of deceptions, and we go on passing them to our children. But if you are not just a curiosity-monger but really thirsty, then existence is very compassionate. According to your thirst, you will find the well. If your thirst is total, you will find the door of the master. And if your thirst is just in the mind, you are not really thirsty. You will be wasting your time, your life, your opportunity because there are thousands of teachers and rarely one master.

Blessed are those who have knocked on the right door.

Question 5:

BELOVED OSHO,

I WANT TO DO A PERFECT JOB AND I DON'T SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM BUT WHEN I
CONDEMN MYSELF FOR DOING AN IMPERFECT JOB, IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT. IS THERE
A WAY TO ACCEPT OUR FAILURES GRACEFULLY?

The perfectionist is sick, psychologically sick. He does not understand that in life, everything is imperfect because imperfection is absolutely needed for evolution. Without imperfection, there is no possibility of evolution. If everything is perfect, the whole world will be a graveyard, because after perfection, what will you do? Except enter your grave - of course, perfectly.

Imperfection is the law. Nothing ever becomes perfect and nothing should ever become perfect, because you are driving it towards death. Imperfection is beautiful.

So your problem is first to understand that imperfection is perfectly beautiful. Do your best, hope for the best but always remember: nothing can be perfect.

I was staying in a palace of a Maharajah. It is one of the most beautiful palaces in India. His son was taking me around and I saw that on one side, a wall was only half-built.

I inquired, "What is the problem? What happened?"

He said, "My father never made anything perfect. This palace is so beautiful, he was afraid it might come very close to perfection, so he left this wall incomplete. It is a protection - the palace will live long, it will not die soon."

The old man was dead, but I said to his son, "Your father was a wise man."

Once this is understood, that imperfection is the foundation of all evolution, you will be very easily capable of accepting your imperfections without any guilt - gracefully.

Question 6:

BELOVED OSHO,

THE WEST CONCEIVED INSTANT COFFEE. THE EAST CONCEIVED INSTANT ENLIGHTENMENT.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Milarepa, the West has created the instant coffee, but the West does not know how to sip it.

Enlightenment is nothing but the right, meditative way of drinking coffee or tea.

Enlightenment is to live gracefully, lovingly, moment-to-moment - not only being blissful yourself but showering your bliss all around - that is instant enlightenment.

You can become enlightened this very moment.

Because the East does not conceive anything more than this moment - who knows about the next moment? It may come, it may not come. If you want really to do something - coffee or enlightenment - do it now, immediately.

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
andto 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 the Black 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 theWest 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
neighbor-hood of the Caucasus, refers evidently to the Khazars.
This would 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
threegroups, 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 a ruling 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 wasa
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]