Question 1:
Ashok Saraswati, there are many things to be understood.
One - the most fundamental - is that love is not deserved. There is no way to deserve it. It cannot be earned, you cannot do anything to be worthy of it. It is a sheer gift.
This is one of the reasons why love is so scarce in the world, because we are expecting that people should deserve it, only then can they get it. And it is something which is not a commodity. It is a value which is not of this world. You love someone, you cannot say why. You cannot answer, you can simply say "I love." There is no rationality in it.
So don't feel in any way unworthy that you have not done anything active for me, yet my total love is there for you just to take.
This has to be remembered not only in relation to me; this has to become your deep insight into the very phenomenon of love. Love people not for any reason at all - just loving is so good, so beautiful, so intrinsically blissful that it is not a question whether the person who is loved deserves it or not.
You are in love just like a raincloud - so full of rain, ready to shower. You cannot bother whether the rain falls on rocks or on the thirsty ground, it is not your concern. Your whole concern is, you are so full and overflowing that you have to share; otherwise it will be such a burden. The same thing that by sharing becomes bliss can become a burden if it is not shared.
And always be grateful to the person who receives your love. Don't expect him to be grateful - these are the wrong attitudes, this is how we have made this world loveless. We expect the loved person to be grateful, which is absolutely wrong, because he could have rejected your love; you have to be grateful that he received it, opened his heart, was available to you. What more worthiness is needed?
Ashok, as you are, to me, you deserve my love, my compassion. Just by being receptive, you have earned it. Just by being open, you have deserved it. And now you deserve it even more, because you are feeling grateful.
The second thing: you are concerned about my safety, about the people who want to destroy me.
Your concern is natural, but remember one thing: However powerful the inhuman forces may be, however powerful the cruel, the ugly and the animal in man may be, it cannot destroy the higher values of life. It cannot destroy love, it cannot destroy compassion, it cannot destroy truth. It can destroy, at the most, the physical body.
And here with me, the basic lesson to be learned is that we are not bodies, that we are immortal souls. The house can be burned, the body can be burned, but the consciousness will remain unaffected.
And by these acts of violence, the inhumanity, the cruelty goes on condemning itself. Each time a Socrates is poisoned or a Jesus is crucified or a Mansoor is killed, nothing is lost; only the inhuman part becomes weaker, starts feeling guilty, becomes criminal in its own eyes.
I am reminded of Judas. Judas betrayed Jesus, sold him into the hands of the enemies for only thirty silver pieces. But at the moment Jesus was crucified, Judas was standing in the crowd. And when Jesus said, "Father, forgive these people because they know not what they are doing" - a great shock; Judas could not live more than twenty-four hours. He committed suicide within twenty-four hours. Within twenty-four hours he was hanging from a tree on the mountain. He killed himself, those thirty silver pieces lying on the ground.
The ugly cannot be victorious. It is not power that wins; it is peace, it is love, it is consciousness which goes on winning.
Look at the whole history - the powerful have not been of any importance in human growth, and they have not been able to hinder anything that is of authentic value.
So don't be worried. All that you can do is be more loving - because we have to fight nuclear weapons with love, bullets with roseflowers. And don't be worried about small battles. In a war you can lose small battles, that is not decisive; what is decisive is ultimate victory, and we are moving towards the ultimate victory. And each day in the life of humanity we are becoming closer to Gautam Buddha - not closer to Genghis Khan, Nadirshah, Tamerlane, Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan.
They may have power but the existence is not with them; the existence is absolutely supportive to consciousness and all that brings more consciousness into the world.
Existence is a tremendous experiment in becoming conscious, and man is the pinnacle of the experiment. There are problems, and there are difficulties - but they are the challenges, they keep us alert. They are not ultimately against us, but perhaps they are needed to keep us awake.
Existence has staked much on man; otherwise, man is just what the word means - it comes from 'mud'. 'Human' comes from humus. What is the difference between mud and man? There is a difference which is not of quantity, but of quality. Man is not only alive but conscious too, and has the potential to become fully self conscious.
Feel compassion for those people who are still living in the dark, still crawling like animals, thinking in inhuman terms. Perhaps your compassion, your love may help them. Nothing else can help them.
But you can love them only if you don't condemn them. You can be compassionate only if you feel pity, if you feel a deep concern for their undeveloped souls. This is the only way to help them, and this is the only way to help my work.
Question 2:
There is no end of this journey.
There are overnight stops. To bring you from the mind, the heart is used. The heart is closer to your reality than the mind; the mind is the farthest, the circumference of your being. The heart is somewhere between the circumference and the center.
A master has to be alert not to give you impossible goals, because those impossible goals will make you feel, "It is not for me. It is too much, too big. I am too small."
A Taoist parable is: There is a statue of Lao Tzu, the founder of Tao. And a young man has been thinking for years to go to the mountains and see the statue of Lao Tzu. He loves the words, the way Lao Tzu has spoken, the style of life that he has lived, but he has never seen any of his statues.
There are no Taoist temples, so there are very rare statues and they are all in the mountains - standing in the open, carved out of the mountain - no roof, no temple, no priest, no worship.
And years pass, and there are so many things always coming in between. But finally one night he decides that he has to go - and it is not that far, only a hundred miles - but he is a poor man, and he has to walk. In the middle of the night - he chooses the time in the middle of the night so that the wife and the children and the family are asleep and no trouble arises - he takes a lamp in his hand, because the night is dark, and goes out of the town.
As he comes out of the town to the first milestone, a thought arises in him, "My God, one hundred miles! And I only have two feet - it is going to kill me. I am asking the impossible. I have never walked one hundred miles, and there is no road...." It is a small hill path, a footpath - dangerous too.
So he thinks, "It is better to wait till the morning. At least there will be light, and I can see better; otherwise I will fall somewhere off this small footpath. And without seeing the statue of Lao Tzu, simply be finished. Why commit suicide?"
So he was sitting just outside the town, and as the sun was rising an old man came by. He saw this young man sitting; he asked, "What are you doing here?" The young man explained.
The old man laughed. He said, "Have you not heard the ancient saying? Nobody has the power to take two steps together, you can take only one step at a time. The powerful, the weak, the young, the old - it doesn't matter. And the saying goes, 'Just one step by one step, a man can go ten thousand miles' - and this is only a hundred miles! You seem to be stupid. And who is saying to you that you should go continuously? You can take time; after ten miles you can rest a day or two days, enjoy. This is one of the most beautiful valleys and the most beautiful mountains and the trees are so full of fruits, fruits that you may not have even tasted. Anyway, I am going; you can come along with me. I have been on this path thousands of times, and I am at least four times your age. Stand up!"
The man was so authoritative: when he said "Stand up!" the young man simply stood. And he said, "Give your things to me. You are young, inexperienced; I will carry your things. You just follow me, and we will take as many rests as you want."
And what the old man had said was true - as they entered deeper into the forest and the mountains, it became more and more beautiful. And wild, juicy fruits... and they were resting; whenever he wanted, the old man was ready. He was surprised that the old man himself never said it was time to rest. But whenever the young man said it was time to rest, he was always willing to rest with him - a day or two, and then they would start the journey again.
Those one hundred miles just came and went by, and they reached one of the most beautiful statues of one of the greatest men who has ever walked on the earth. Even his statue had something - it was not just a piece of art, it was created by Taoist artists to represent the spirit of Tao.
Tao believes in the philosophy of let-go. It believes you are not to swim, but just to flow with the river, allow the river to take you wherever it is going - because every river ultimately reaches to the ocean.
So don't be worried, you will reach the ocean. There is no need to be tense.
In that lonely spot the statue was standing, and there was a waterfall just by the side - because Tao is called the watercourse way. Just as the water goes on and on flowing with no guidebooks, with no maps, with no rules, no discipline... but strangely enough in a very humble way, because it is always seeking the lower position everywhere. It never goes uphill. It always goes downhill, but it reaches to the ocean, to its very source.
The whole atmosphere there was representative of the Taoist idea of let-go. The old man said, "Now begins the journey."
The young man said, "What? I was thinking, one hundred miles and the journey is finished."
The old man said, "That is just the way the masters have been talking to people. But the reality is now - from this point, from this atmosphere, a journey of one thousand and one miles begins. And I will not deceive you, because after one thousand and one miles you will meet another old man - perhaps me - who will say, 'This is just a stopover, go on.' Go on is the message."
To bring you down from the head, the heart is used; the master says that a heart-to-heart communion is needed. It seems possible, because the heart is not very far. And you have some experiences of the heart. You have loved someone - you may be a mother, you may be a husband, you may be a brother, you may be a friend - you know that there are things which are not of the head. The heart is not absolutely unknown.
The absolute unknown cannot be presented to the disciple - not by the artful master - but something that seems realistically plausible. That's why the master talks about heart-to-heart communion.
It is immensely deeper than the communication that happens between one head and another head.
It is tremendously gratifying, but it is just an overnight stay. In the morning we go again, because your being is there. At just the same distance as the mind is from the heart, towards the periphery, the being is in the opposite direction, towards the center.
Once you have come to the heart - known its joys, known its song, known its beauty, now you can be persuaded to go a little further. And the master who has brought you to the heart has meanwhile also created a trust that he knows what he is talking about, that he knows the way; that he was not simply a thinker, he was sharing his own experience. He has walked the path many times, each nook and corner is known to him. He says, "There is much more: being-to-being contact, and the communion becomes just as ordinary as communication was."
He allures you, persuades you; but the meeting with the master at the point of being is only one hundred miles. The moment you have come to the being, then he says, "Now begins the real journey. Up to now we were only preparing for it; it was preparatory work."
From being to the universal consciousness...
And that journey is endless, but the ecstasy goes on deepening.
At each step, you are more; your life is livelier, your intelligence is aflame. And nobody stops. Once the seeker has reached to his being, he himself becomes capable of seeing what lies ahead - treasures upon treasures. Persuasion is needed only up to the point of being; those one hundred miles are the most difficult. After those one hundred miles, it may be one thousand and one miles or an infinity - it makes no difference. Now you know that there is no goal in reality; the very talk of the goal was for the beginners, was for children. The journey is the goal.
The journey itself is the goal.
It is infinite. It is eternal.
You will find stars, unknown spaces, unknowable experiences, but you will never come to a point where you can say, "Now I have arrived." Anybody who says "I have arrived" is not on the path. He has not traveled, his journey has not begun; he is just sitting on the first milestone.
But each time it is painful too - it is a sweet pain. You get to the heart and it is so beautiful, so lovely, one would like to remain. There is no point in going anywhere any more, it seems everything is achieved.
But you will have to leave it.
And the departure is a little painful, but the pain will be forgotten immediately - because more and more blissfulness will be showering on you. And soon you will learn this: that there is no need to feel pain when you depart from one overnight stay. You become accustomed, you know that the journey is endless. And the treasure becomes more and more, you are not a loser. Stopping anywhere will be a loss. So there is no stop, no full-stop, not even a semicolon....
You will have to learn to enjoy even the sweet pain of departing from beautiful spaces to more beautiful spaces.
Question 3:
Because I am only a witness.
My function as a master is not my identity.
It is just like somebody is a plumber and somebody is a surgeon; I am a master - but it is functional, it is not my reality. That's why I speak in the third person.
So I go on talking about the master as 'he' - I don't use 'I' - just to make you aware that I am more than the master, that I am watching the master. Just as you are watching him, I am watching him too. You are watching from one side, I am watching from another side.
But I am as different from it as you are different from it.
Question 4:
Yashen, don't you see the same ego in this question? Don't you know the answer to this question?
Don't you know that this type of question has been asked many times before? Then why are you asking the question?
First, you think that in all the questions that arise in you, your ego is involved - but do you think that by not asking them your ego will disappear? If your ego is involved, then ask them so I can hammer your ego.
You say, "Many questions arise and I find that I know the answer already" - but how do you know that your answers are right?
Ask them, so that you can know whether your answers are right or not.
You say many questions arise in you but they have been asked many times before. Does that help you? Many people have loved before - are you going to love in your life or not? Many people have lived before and are living right now - what are you doing? You need not live even for a single moment more, because so many people are living - why repeat it? And so many millions of people have lived before. Wherever you are sitting, there are at least ten persons' graves exactly on that spot.
And I have always emphasized - have you heard it or not? - that I answer people, I don't answer questions. So it is possible that the same question may be asked a thousand times - I will answer the question in a thousand different ways, because those people who are asking the question are different from each other. Their questions cannot be the same; it is only the language that is giving us an illusion.
I love a beautiful story about Gautam Buddha. One morning a man asked him, "I am an atheist, I do not believe in God. What do you say about God?"
And Buddha said, "God exists, and God exists more than you exist." His disciples were shocked, particularly Ananda, who was always just by his side.
That very day, in the afternoon, another man came and said, "I am a believer, a theist. I believe in the existence of God. What do you say about God?"
And Buddha said, "There is no God, and there has never been any. God does not exist at all."
Now it was becoming more puzzling - not to those people, but to those who had heard both answers.
In the evening a third man came. Only Ananda was present. The man touched the feet of Gautam Buddha, sat there, and said, "I don't know anything about God. Will you help me a little?"
Buddha closed his eyes, and sat silently.
Ananda was even more puzzled, because that man also closed his eyes and sat silently. One hour passed, and then the man opened his eyes and he said, "How can I thank you? I don't have any words. You have answered my question." With tears in his eyes of joy and gratitude, he touched the feet of Buddha, kissed the feet of Buddha, and went away.
Now Ananda was going mad! He was waiting for this moment, when there was nobody else. He closed the doors and said, "This is too much. You will drive us insane! To one man you say God exists. On the same day you say to another man that God does not exist. And on the same day to the third man you don't answer, you simply sit in silence - and he receives the answer, and with tears of gratitude he kisses your feet. What is going on? Where do we stand? What is our philosophy?"
And Gautam Buddha said, "Relax, it is time to go to sleep. And remember, none of the questions were yours. Why did you hear the answers? Can't you be a little more alert, that I am answering the question of this particular man in a particular context? You are not that man - neither is the question yours nor is the answer for you. Why should you bother? It has nothing to do with you. And as far as I am concerned, I have been absolutely consistent all three times.
"The man who said 'I am an atheist and I believe there is no God' needed a great hit, because his atheism is only a philosophical approach. He has been only thinking, and by thinking you cannot decide whether God exists or not. To demolish his idea... He had come for a different purpose - he had come to get my support. He wanted me to say 'Yes, you are right,' so his ego would be inflated more, and his mind concept - that there is no God - would become more rooted; and he could proclaim to other people that 'Not only do I say so, Gautam Buddha also says there is no God.' He simply wanted my support. I cannot give support to any mind game, I had to shatter his mind. I had to shout at him, 'God is! God exists, and he exists more than you exist.'
"The other man was a theist, but the same mind-game. He believes, he does not know. He believes that there is a god who has created the world. He has also come for the same purpose, to have my support - because mind itself is always doubtful and needs many props of other peoples' opinions.
And if a man like Gautam Buddha can support you, then the idea can become very fixed. It is not a question of what the idea was; the question is that it was only a mind game. One was atheist, one was theist, but both were playing the same game. I had to shatter the game. And so to the second man I had to say, 'There is no God, never has been.'
"The third man was a totally different story. He had no mind projection. He said, 'I don't know anything about God.' He was absolutely clean and innocent, and he was ready to listen. He had not come to get support for his own idea. He came to be enlightened about the fact, about the truth - 'What is exactly true about God? I myself don't know anything.' There was nothing to shatter. So I taught him the real answer: to be silent. And when I became silent - he was a man of innocence, just like a child - seeing that I am sitting silent, perhaps this is the answer, he also sat in silence.
And one hour of silence, with his innocence, gave him a clarity, an understanding, and he was full of gratitude. He received the answer although he had not asked the question."
Silence is God; or to be more exact, silence is godliness. Silence is divine.
You say that questions arise in you which have been asked before - but not by you. They must have been asked by other people, and the answers were given to those people. Those answers are not for you. And when you are present here, don't be so stupid. When you can get an answer directly for yourself why take an answer which was given by me to somebody else? The context was different.
Yes, when I am gone then from books you will be reading answers given to others. But when I am here with you, missing the opportunity is sheer stupidity. Either you know - then no questions will arise in you - or you don't know. Then questions will arise in you. Then it is better to ask rather than to hide them thinking that they are ego trips.
Looking at your question my feeling is that not asking is an ego trip, because to ask means you are accepting your ignorance. Not to ask you remain knowledgeable, you know. These are other fools who are asking.
Question 5:
All disciples are female.
All masters are male.
The very qualities of being a disciple are the qualities which are feminine - receptivity, openness, trust, love, a deep surrender.
It is not a coincidence that there have not been many women masters, and those that have been were almost as male in their approach as any male can be. For example, I will give you few names - because there are only few women masters in the whole of history. They can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The most ancient is Gargi. She's reported in the VEDAS. One of the great kings - five thousand years ago according to Christian scholars, and ninety thousand years ago according to Hindu scholars.... And I have not been able to find any fault with the Hindu scholars. Their arguments are immensely valid, and the Christian scholars have not been able to answer them.
The Christian scholars have a difficulty, because the Christian ideology says that the world was created six thousand years ago - so they have a problem. The problem is: everything has to fit into six thousand years. The frame is there, so they have to put everything into six thousand years' time.
They cannot go beyond that, because there was no world.
But there is a difficulty about the VEDAS. One of the great scholars, Lokmanya Tilak, proved beyond any doubt that RIG VEDA is ninety thousand years old. It is now almost more than half a century that his argument remains undefeated, and I don't think there is any possibility in the future that his argument can be defeated - because it is based not on logic, but on astronomy.
In the RIG VEDA there is a description of a certain constellation of stars that happened ninety thousand years ago. Now the Western astronomers have agreed: that certain constellation has not happened again. It has happened only once, and that was ninety thousand years ago. And it has been described in such detail that it is impossible - if the RIG VEDA was written only five thousand years ago, then who was going to describe that constellation which happened eighty-five thousand years before that? And they did not have any modern equipment. Unless they had watched it with their own naked, bare eyes, there is no other way.
Gargi is one of the most ancient masters.
One of the kings had called a conference of all the great philosophers of his time. That was usual in India, that kings would call conferences of great scholars, philosophers, saints, to discuss problems.
And for whoever was the winner there was a great prize. This time the king had offered one thousand cows, their horns covered with gold and diamonds; whoever won was going to get those one thousand cows with all their gold and diamonds.
One of the most important philosophers of those days was Yagnavalkya. He was so certain about his victory... he had his own small university, his own gurukula, the family of the disciples; he brought his chosen disciples with him to listen. And just in front of the palace were standing those one thousand cows, the most beautiful cows, their horns shining in the sun. He told his disciples, "You can take these cows to our gurukula. As far as the debate is concerned, I will win it - why unnecessarily harass the cows in the hot sun?" He was so certain he was taking the reward before winning the debate.
And there were thousands of scholars gathered and none of them was courageous enough to say that this was strange behavior. They all knew that the man was going to win; it was better not to say anything.
But one woman stood up, and that was Gargi. And she said, "Stop. You cannot take those cows - Gargi is still alive!" There was a great silence in the conference hall. Even the king could not believe that Gargi would give the challenge. And Gargi said, "Don't waste time with others. Let me ask a few questions, and if you can answer them you can take the cows. If you cannot, my disciples are going to take the cows."
And she really asked questions which are not answerable. She asked, "Who has created the world?"
And Yagnavalkya said, "This is not a great question. Everybody knows God created the world."
Gargi said, "It does not matter whether everybody knows or not. Do you know? The debate is between me and you - do you know? Were you an eyewitness?"
Now, that is very tricky. If he says he was an eyewitness that means the world had already begun - he was there. If he says he was not an eyewitness then on what grounds - just public opinion? Is it a matter of public opinion?
Yagnavalkya remained silent.
Gargi said, "Okay. If you cannot answer that, the king should take note of it. I ask you, who created God? - because it seems the logic is that everything that is, has to be created by somebody; otherwise, the existence needs no creator. If the existence needs a creator in God, then the same logic has to be applied to God also. Who created God?"
And Yagnavalkya became so angry. He forgot all his wisdom, proved that he was not a master but just a teacher. He said, "Gargi, if you say a single word more, your head will fall down on the earth"
- and he pulled his sword.
Gargi said to the king, "This is enough proof of defeat." And she told her disciples to take the cows, and told Yagnavalkya, "Put your sword back into the sheath. It is a conference of wise people, not of warriors. Next time, come better prepared."
This woman is the first woman master, but her behavior shows that she is not feminine, not at all - so courageous, so bold. She deserves to be a master, and she was a master.
The second great woman is one of the great masters of the Jainas, Mallibai. They changed her name to Mallinath so nobody would know that in twenty-four great masters of the Jainas, one is a woman. Even in statues, all twenty-four are male - and Jaina tirthankaras are naked, you cannot hide the difference between a man and a woman.
I have been asking Jaina monks and Jaina thinkers, "How did Mallibai became Mallinath, and how did the body of a woman go through a transformation and become the body of a man?" Nobody has been able to answer. They simply said that it has been coming on for centuries; in the scriptures everywhere there is no other mention. But I know the answer; my answer is that Mallibai behaved like a man - she was a master. And it is perfectly appropriate to change her name from Mallibai to Mallinath and to change her statue into a statue of a man. This is symbolic: even if a woman becomes a master, she will have to grow qualities which are basically male.
And if a man becomes a disciple, he will automatically grow qualities which are female. There is nothing wrong in it. Qualities are qualities, and all beautiful qualities are feminine - love and trust and compassion and gratitude and surrender. All beautiful qualities are feminine.
The male has courage, perhaps guts to go alone on the path without following anybody; strong enough to risk, perhaps many lives. As a disciple he may have reached in one life, but he prefers the longer path - stumbling, falling, going astray, but not asking for help. He is a warrior, and his path is that of a warrior. He is almost fighting with existence.
The disciple is not fighting with the existence. On the contrary, through the master he has made a deep communion with existence.
So as far as I can see, all disciples are female, all masters are male. And this should not be taken in terms of equality or superiority or inferiority. They are unique. Just as no man can be pregnant, he cannot be a mother - that does not mean that he is inferior.
There are a few idiotic scientists who are trying to make men pregnant. This is bound to happen when ignorant people are doing all kinds of things. Now, wasting unnecessary energy... on the one hand we are teaching women birth control - these idiots are trying to make men pregnant! They are thinking it is a great idea. And there are bound to be a few fools ready to be pregnant - pioneers.
But there is no need, women are enough.
It is not a question concerned with your sexuality; your being a male or female has many dimensions.
One of the dimensions is that there are qualities intrinsic to females which make them easily disciples. There are men who have those qualities - those qualities are not the monopoly of anybody.
There are men who are more soft than any woman, more loving than any woman, more grateful than any woman - but the qualities are feminine.
You will be surprised to see that I have been asked again and again, why have so few women become masters? - for the simple reason... why were all the great masters men? for the simple reason.... It has nothing to do with superiority.
To be a master needs different qualities than to be a disciple, and both together make a harmonious whole. So once a master and disciple have met, there is really one organic unity; otherwise the master is half and the disciple is half. Only when the master and the disciple are together and the harmony is complete, there is a mystery - two bodies and one soul.
For this to happen these totally opposite qualities are needed, because these opposite qualities function as complementary qualities.
Question 6:
It is not a question of understanding.
Forget the word 'surrender'.
Can you love? Can you trust? Then surrender will come like a shadow, on its own accord.
Your difficulty is arising because you want first to understand intellectually what surrender is.
Intellectually the mind, the ego - both will say no. "Surrender? You are not going to be subjugated, enslaved by anybody" - because the word 'surrender' has been used with those connotations.
One country surrenders to another country in war. One wrestler surrenders to another wrestler in fight. The surrender has lost its beauty; it has become ugly, vulgar, violent. Drop that word.
You simply think of love and trust, and if these two are possible, one day you will find that the surrender is happening.
And the surrender is not a kind of slavery. It is a freedom - freedom from the ego. You don't surrender anything except your ego.
The master takes away only things which you don't have, but you think you have. And he goes on giving you things which you have, but you have forgotten completely that they are your intrinsic nature.