|
This
state of "not knowing", or natural state, is not
just my particular state. This is as much your
natural state as it is mine. It is not the state of
a God-realised man, a Self-realised man. It is not
the state of a holy man. It is the natural state of
every one of you here. But since you are looking to
somebody else and you are reaching out for some
kind of a state of liberation or freedom, you are
lost. So, how can one understand the limitations of
thought? Naturally, the only instrument we have is
the instrument of thought. But what is thought? I
can give you a lot of definitions, and you know a
lot of definitions about thought. I can say that
thought is just matter; thought is vibration; and
we are all functioning in this sphere of thought.
And we pick up these thoughts because this human
organism is an electromagnetic field. And this
electromagnetic field is the product of culture. It
may sound very inappropriate on this occasion to
say that in order to be in your natural state, all
that man has thought and felt before you must be
swept aside and must be brushed aside. And
that means the culture in which you are brought up
must go down the drain or out of the window. Is it
possible? It is possible. But, at the same
time, it is so difficult, because you are the
product of that culture and
you are that. You are not different
from that. You cannot separate yourself from that
culture. And yet, this culture is the stumbling
block for us to be in our natural state.
Can this natural state be captured, contained and
expressed through words? It cannot. It is not a
conscious state of your existence. It can never
become part of your conscious thinking. And then
why do I talk of this state of "not knowing"? For
all practical purposes it does not exist at all. It
can never become part of your conscious
thinking.
Here, I have to explain what I mean by the word
"consciousness". You and I mean two different
things, probably – I don't know. When do you
become conscious of a thing? Only when the thought
comes in between what is there in front of you and
what is supposed to be there inside of you. That is
consciousness. So, you have to necessarily use
thought to become conscious of the things around
you, or the persons around you. Otherwise, you are
not conscious of the things at all. And, at the
same time, you are not unconscious. But there is an
area where you are neither conscious nor
unconscious. But that "consciousness" – if I
may use that word – expresses itself in its
own way; and what prevents that consciousness to
express itself in its own way is the movement of
thought.
What can anyone do about this thought? It has a
tremendous momentum of millions and millions of
years. Can I do anything about that thought? Can I
stop it? Can I mould it? Can I shape it? Can I do
anything about it? But yet, our culture, our
civilisation, our education – all these have
forced us to use that instrument to get something
for us. So, can that instrument be used to
understand its own nature? It is not possible. And
yet, when you see the tremendous nature of this
movement of thought, and that there isn't anything
that you can do about it, it naturally slows down
and falls in its natural pattern.
When I say that, I do not, of course, mean what
these people in India talk about – that
thought must be used in order to get into a
thoughtless state or into a meditative state. But
there is no such thing as a thoughtless state at
all. Thoughts are there; they will be there
all the time. Thoughts will disappear only when you
become a dead corpse – let me use these two
words – "dead corpse". Otherwise,
thoughts are there and they are going to be there.
If all the religious teachers tell us that you are
going into a "thoughtless state", they are taking
us all for a ride. They can promise you that in
that thoughtless state – in that state of
silence, in that state of quietness, or in that
state of a "quiet mind", or whatever phrase you
want to use – there will be this real "bliss",
"beatitude","love", "religious joy" and "ecstatic
state of being". All that is balderdash. Because,
that state – if there is any state like the
state of bliss – it can never become part of
your consciousness. It can never become part of
your conscious existence. So, you might as well
throw the whole thing – the whole crap of
these ideas, concepts and abstractions about the
blissful states – into a cocked hat, if I may
use that American slang.
So, what is one to do? Can anybody help you? No
outside agency can help you. That means a complete
and total rejection, as I said in the beginning, of
all that man has thought and felt before you. As
long as there is any trace of knowledge, in any
shape, in any form, in your consciousness, you are
living in a divided state of consciousness.
I refer to my coming into a state of "not knowing"
as "the calamity". What happened? I don't know.
Suddenly thought has fallen into its natural state.
The continuity has come to an end. So, what I am
saying is not the product of thinking. It is not
manufactured by my thought structure inside. Nor is
it a logically ascertained premise. But what is
happening here is only the expression of that state
of being where you do not know what is happening.
You do not know how this organism is functioning.
This is a pure and simple physical and
physiological state of being. It has no religious
undertones or overtones. It has no mystical content
whatsoever. And, at the same time, this
extraordinary thing, the extraordinary intelligence
that is there, which is a product of centuries of
human evolution, is able to express itself and deal
with any problem and any situation without
creating problems for us.
Question: I was told by people who are
around you that when this "calamity" befell you,
you couldn't recognise even ordinary things. You
were asking like a new-born child, "What is this?"
Even if there was a flower in front of you, you did
not know if that was a flower. Then you would ask,
"What is this?" And the Swiss lady who was keeping
house for you, who was looking after you,
Valentine, said "This is a flower." Then you would
ask again, "What is this?" You mean to say that at
the time when the calamity took place, all
recognition was gone?
U.G.: Not only then, but even now, as I
said, this is a state of "not knowing". Since the
memory is there in the background, it begins to
operate when there is a demand for it. That demand
is created by an outside agency, because there is
no entity here. There is no centre here. There is
no self here. There is no Atman here. There is no
soul here at all. You may not agree. You may not
accept it, but that unfortunately happens to be a
fact. The totality of thoughts and feelings is not
there. But in you there is an illusion that
there is a totality of your feelings and thoughts.
This human organism is responding to the challenges
from outside. You are functioning in the sphere
– so, thousands and thousands, perhaps
millions and millions of sensations are bombarding
this body. Since there is no centre here, since
there is no mind here, since there is nothing here,
what is it that is happening? What is happening
here is that this human organism is responding to
the challenges, or to the stimuli, if I may put it
that way. So, there is nobody here who is
translating these sensations in terms of past
experiences. But there is a living contact with the
things around. That is all that is there. One
sensation after another is hitting this organism.
And at the same time there is no co-ordinator here.
This state of "not knowing" is not in relationship
to your Brahman, or your Nirguna Brahman or Saguna
Brahman or any such thing. This state of "not
knowing" is in its relationship to the things that
are there around you. You may be looking at a
flower. You may think that it is a crazy
state. Perhaps it is – I don't know. You
do not know what you are looking at. But when there
is a demand for that – and that demand always
comes from outside, asking what is that, and
then the knowledge, the information that is there,
locked up in this organism comes and says that it
is a rose, that this is a microphone, that's a man,
that's a woman, and so on and so forth. This
is not because there is a drive from inside, but
the outside challenge brings out this answer. So, I
say that this action is always taking place outside
of this organism, not inside.
How do I know that these sensations are bombarding
or hitting this organism all the time? It is only
because there is a consciousness which is conscious
of itself and there is nobody who is conscious of
the things that are happening. This is a living
organism and that living state is functioning in
its own way, in its natural way.
Mr. Kothari: U.G., it appears to me
this Nirguna Brahman, Atman, whatever it is –
when somebody uses the word "Bhuma" [the
unconditioned Infinite], another uses the word
"Unknown," the third man says "Akal" [the
Timeless], the fourth one says something else
– all of them say that this cannot be
described. Probably they meant the same thing; I
don't know. I think they meant probably what
you are saying as "Totality". As I understand it,
Brahman means "Totality". If I would translate this
state into terms of those times, probably this
state is the state of Brahman and it is
thought which is limiting the Akal, which is
limiting the Bhuma, which is limiting the
Limitless, since it does not function like that,
creating an individuality within you. Maybe I am
wrong, maybe I am translating, but I say that it is
possible that the person who listens to you doesn't
know the old terms. You are not going to use the
old terms, because the new terms are your terms.
And every teacher, every person who has come into
some state like this has generally used a different
term, a different word, according to his
background. But personally I think you mean the
same thing. This is a commentary on what you are
saying.
U.G.: What do you want me to say?
[laughter] If they have understood what
there is, they wouldn't be here. They wouldn't go
to anybody. They wouldn't ask these questions at
all. If they translate what I am saying, in terms
of their particular fancy or their particular
background, that's their tragedy; it would be their
misery. It hasn't helped them. This is my
question: Has it helped you? Why are you hung
up on these phrases? They are after all phrases.
When once you realise, when once this is understood
– how this mechanism is operating, how
automatic it is, how mechanical it is, you will
realise that all these phrases have no meaning at
all. You may very well ask me why I am using these
phrases: it is because you and I have created
this unfortunate situation where you have put me
here on the dais and asked me to talk, and
naturally, as I said in the beginning, I have to
use words. So, the moment I stop talking, the
whole thing has come to a stop inside. Is that so?
It is so here, in my case, because there is no
continuity of thought.
We go back to the thing Mr. Kothari referred to
about the things around me. Here there is a
table. I don't know what it is. And, at the same
time, if you ask me, "What is that?" I would
immediately say, "It's a chair." The
knowledge is there in the background. It comes
automatically, like an arrow. But otherwise, the
impression I have is just a reflection of the
thing in front of me. I don't translate this at all
as "like an image" [bimbavatu]. But I have
to use that word: this is reflecting the thing
exactly the way it is. I don't want to use these
metaphysical phrases because you will immediately
translate them in terms of your particular
parallel. There is no subject here independent of
the object at all. So, there is nothing here inside
of me. What is there is all that is there, and you
do not know what it is. So, now you turn there, and
this object has just disappeared, there is
something else. This has completely and totally
disappeared from here and then what is there is a
thing that is there in front of me and it is just
like this object, exactly the way it is. But you do
not know what it is. That is why I say it is a
state of "not knowing". Probably you will find
parallels to these things. What I am trying to
point out is the absence of what you are all doing
at this moment; that is the state that I am
describing, and it is not just my state but
that is the way you are also functioning.
May I give an example of what is happening in the
field of spectroscopy. I don't read books, but
sometimes I read magazines. I get interested in
these things. They have developed very powerful
lenses to take photos of objects. They have
developed milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds
and picoseconds. It doesn't mean anything to you
and me – it's all technical language. Now they
are able to take pictures of objects, say for
instance, of this table, every picosecond. Every
picture is different. In exactly the same way, the
reflection of that object was once new; another
time, you turn this side, and look back again
– it's again new. But don't translate this in
terms of newness and oldness. It cannot be
communicated to you at all. This can never become
part of your experiencing structure.
I am throwing a lot of conclusions at you. But even
a thing like this cannot be experienced by you at
all. I don't know if you understand this. You have
necessarily to abstract this in order to experience
a thing. So, what I am trying to say is that you
can never experience your own natural state. This
can never become part of your experiencing
structure. And what you are all trying to do all
the time is to make that part of this experiencing
structure. So your experiencing structure and your
natural state cannot co-exist at the same time.
Mr. Kothari: The way you want to say is that
everything is in a continuous flux all the time.
The human eye being limited and the human ear being
limited, and the human senses being limited, they
cannot respond to the quick movement of existence.
They don't respond, they don't reflect. You say,
unless there is a need of recognition – which
is thought, which is verbalisation, which is word
– it is just a way of affecting the life
within you, and that's all. There is no need to
verbalise, or translate, if possible. Am I
describing what I understand of your state?
U.G.: That's what you understand.
[laughter]
Mr. Kothari: What happens is, it seems to me
that all these persons coming to this have tried to
express this in terms of what somebody else has
said. It is all the time new. It is all the time
fresh. It is all the time indescribably beautiful.
When they came into the world they have to say
something about it. He says it is neither new
nor old. It is never old. It is never old because
he does not take it into the past experience. It is
not translated, unless, as he says, it is needed
for translation. Otherwise, every time, life is
indescribably, extraordinarily – all that is
outside – is extraordinarily fresh,
extraordinarily new, though he doesn't use the
words "fresh" and "new". This is how I
understand.
U.G.: This I must stress: that the need
for the operation of thought, or the movements of
thought to come into being, is decided by factors
outside of this organism. When and why and how this
translation is to come into being is decided by an
action outside. The actions are always taking place
outside. When there is a demand, the movement of
thought probably separates itself for a while to
meet the demands of the situation and then it is
back again in the movement of life. So, thought is
only functional in value, and it has no other value
at all.
What is more is that the continuity of thought is
destroying the sensitivity of your senses. When the
movement of thought is not continuous, the senses
begin to function in an extraordinarily sensitive
way. When I use the word "sensitivity", I mean the
sensitivity of the senses and not the sensitivity
of the mind. The sensitivity of the mind is a trick
of your mind, and you can create a state of mind
where you feel sensitive to the feelings of
everybody, to the things around you and wallow in
that sickly state of mind and think you are getting
somewhere. You are doing this all the
time.
There is nothing to achieve, there is nothing to
accomplish, nothing to attain, and no destination
to arrive at. And what prevents what is there, this
living state, from expressing itself in its own way
is the movement of thought which is there only for
the purposes of functioning in this world. When the
movement of thought is not there – I have to
use the clauses in terms of time – but time is
thought. When thought is there, time is there. When
thought is there, sex is there, when thought is
there, God is there. When thought is not there,
there is no God, there is no sex, nothing is there.
It may sound objectionable to you to accept my
statement, but the drug of virtues you practice,
the practice of virtues is not a foundation for it
at all. And the practice of abstinence, continence,
and celibacy is not the path to it. But if you want
to indulge in them and feel greatly superior, it's
your own business. I am not here to reform you. I
am not here to lead you anywhere. But this is a
fact. You have to understand a fact as a fact.
It is not a logically ascertained thing, it is not
a rational thing so as to understand it rationally.
A fact is a movement. Truth is movement. Reality is
movement. But I don't want to use these words,
because they are all loaded words. You know all
about them. The unfortunate thing about the whole
business is that you know a lot about these things,
and that is the misery of you all. This is a thing
which you do not know at all. I am not claiming
that I know it. I myself don't know. That is why I
say I don't know. It's a state of "not knowing".
Let alone God, let alone Reality, Ultimate or
otherwise, I don't know what I am looking at –
the very person who has been with me all the time,
day and night. That is my situation. If I tell this
to a psychiatrist, he will probably put me on a
couch and say something is radically wrong with me.
Probably, I am functioning like any other human
being. He doesn't understand that. That's his
problem, it is not my problem anymore. So, all your
search – for Truth, God, Reality – you
use any phrase you like, is a false thing. You are
all on a merry-go-round, and you want to go round
and round and round.
How can you ask for a thing which you do not know?
How can you search for a thing which you do not
know? You all seem to know. You have an image of
this state. From the description of this state
probably you have already created an image. What
state? Somebody asked me: "What is the state
you are in?" "What state? I'm in the State of
Mysore [renamed Karnataka in 1973]. What
state are you talking about?" This is my response.
What is the state you are talking about? This
is your natural state. You don't want to
understand that. You don't want to be in your
natural state. It requires an extraordinary
intelligence to be in your natural state, to be
yourself.
You always want to be somebody else; you want to
imitate the life of somebody else – you want
to imitate the life of Jesus, you want to imitate
the life of Buddha, you want to imitate the life of
Shankara. You can't do it, because you don't know
what is there behind. You will end up changing your
robes, from rose to saffron, saffron to yellow, or
from yellow to rose, depending upon your particular
fancy. How can you ask for a thing which you do not
know? How can you search for a thing which you do
not know? That is my question. So, search has no
meaning at all. Only when the search comes to an
end, what there is will express itself, in its own
way. You cannot tamper with that. You cannot
manipulate that. You cannot manipulate the action
of the thing which is there, which has an
extraordinary intelligence.
To be yourself is the easiest thing. And you don't
want to be in your natural state. You'd rather be
somebody else, imitate the life of somebody else.
That's your problem. To be yourself doesn't need
any time at all. But you talk of timelessness,
which is a mockery. To be yourself, do you need
time? To be a good man, to be a marvellously
religious man, to be in a state of peace, to be in
a state bliss, naturally you need time. That will
always be tomorrow. When tomorrow arrives, you say,
"All right, day after tomorrow." That is time. I am
not talking about this metaphysical or
philosophical thing. I am not talking about
metaphysical time and timeless. There is no such
thing as the timeless.
I am making assertions, statements and conclusions
– you will object to them. Take it or leave
it. I don't expect you to accept anything that I am
saying. You are not in a position to accept or
reject it. You can reject it because it does not
fit into your particular framework of your
philosophy – Shankara, Gaudapada, Ramanuja,
Madhvacharya, God knows what – we have too
many of them here. So how can you understand this?
The only thing to do is to throw in the towel. Turn
your back on the whole business. That is why, it
takes extraordinary courage, not the courage or the
bravado of these people who climb Mount Everest or
try to swim across the English Channel, or cross
the Pacific or Atlantic – whatever their fancy
– on a raft. That is not what I mean. What I
mean is the courage. You quote your Bhagavad
Gita, or your Brahma Sutras. All these
phrases. What do they mean? "Abhayam
Brahma." ["Fearless is Brahman."] Why
do you all repeat these phrases? It has no meaning.
It's a mechanical thing. "How are you?" "I am all
right, I am fine. Just fine. I couldn't be better."
In America, you know, they say "How are you this
morning," "I am just fine. I couldn't be better."
In exactly the same way, you throw these phrases at
everybody. If you understand the way
this mechanical structure is functioning inside of
you, you see the absurdity of the whole business of
discussing these matters everlastingly. Can you
throw the whole business out of the window and walk
out?
Mr. Kothari: I think what he means is...
When I meet him.... I have known him for about five
years now. And I am many times reminded, on account
of my having read the Upanishads and this
and that,.... I am reminded of
the passage in the Isavasyopanishad,
"asmai nayatu patha", "Oh fire, takes us on
the right path!" I find there is a sort of fire in
him which sometimes, I fear, would frighten a
person who does not understand, quite grasp, even
intellectually, what he is trying to convey. As I
understand it, he is not advocating anything. His
whole approach is that he has no system. He
says something about these states – that this
is your natural state. But the whole thing, this
achievement business, to get something, the state
being like something, comparing something to some
imaginary state which one has formulated, an image
we got by reading about those things – that he
says is all futile. It is strengthening the mental
structure, it is strengthening the thought
structure, and it is giving a life to it –
which, he says, is all useless. It is the cause of
your very misery, all the problems. It seems he has
seen it himself. And the structure went phut,
the whole thing broke inside, and, as he says, he
even does not know it himself. That is the
state of unknowing. When he says this, I am
reminded of the words of Jnaneswar who says, "I
don't know what I am or where I am."
Even ignorance has gone,
and knowledge has gone also. So, I see...
only I want to remind some of my listeners here...
that the newness of expression ... but whatever he
is trying to convey, is as old as the hills and as
fresh as the vibrations from that thing now. It is
as fresh or even fresher than the words I am
speaking, the sounds that I am throwing at you. It
is more fresh than that. It
is ancient and old. But, he says
that it requires total courage.
Another thing that I have noticed in him is a kind
of – I am talking personally about you
– but, since there is no personality, it
doesn't matter. [laughter] – is a
tremendous fearlessness, "abhayam tattva
samsuptih." I would again quote the
Gita, the divine qualities, this is
something that does not happen in the usual, normal
men in whom the animal fear is functioning all the
time, as he says. But he does not come out of that
state. I don't know how he came to it. But there is
in him a tremendous fearlessness and a sense of
abandonment. He is not a perfect specimen of all
the wonderful virtues. He gets annoyed, and he gets
angry also. But, for a moment you see the cloud of
anger on his face, and after a minute you see the
full moon is again on his face, smiling. The clouds
have disappeared all of a sudden. So, I say, he
says there is no system, no matter. Probably, in
whatever he conveys, there is some suggestion. He
says you don't have the courage to throw in the
towel. You don't have the fearlessness. "Everything
has got to go." He says, "You throw out the speaker
also." I hope some of you certainly have got the
hang of what he is trying to convey.
Question: When there is hunger and pain in
the body, what happens?
U.G.: First of all, there is no hunger at
all, in the sense in which we use the word. It's
pure and simple chemistry. And then there is what
you call hunger which is like any other sensation,
you understand. The consciousness or life, or
whatever you want to call it, becomes conscious of
that thing called hunger. And the next
moment it is gone. It is not there. It does
not push you to reach out for food. And so, the
next sensation is coming. It's a continuous
movement. You are looking at something which is
finished. Probably your body will become weaker and
weaker, if you don't eat food. People give me food,
so I eat it. Otherwise, there is no such thing as
hunger at all. And the pain, there is a physical
pain. Since there is no continuity of thought, as I
pointed out, there is no continuity of the pain. It
comes in impulses like that – just the way you
are throwing out words. There is no continuity of
the pain. I don't want to use the word
psychological pain, because it gets us involved
in..., because we will begin to tie things in
knots. There is only physical pain and there is no
other pain. But even that physical pain is not
continuous, and so it is not much of a pain, in the
sense in which we use the word.
Question: What is the way or method of
getting into this state?
U.G.: What state? When the movement in
the direction of wanting to be into your own
natural state or in the state of God knows whom you
want to be, your idol, or your hero or your Master
is there – it is there – this
movement in any direction, is taking you away from
yourself. That is all that I am pointing out. When
the movement is not there, you are your natural
state. So, the sadhana or the method, or
system, or the technique, is taking you away from
yourself in the direction of the state you want to
be in and that is the state of somebody else. As I
pointed out, you have the knowledge about this
state. Unfortunately, so many people have talked
about it. I am already doing the mischief, perhaps.
Kick them all out, on their backs. Yes, throw
stones at me and walk out. My interest is to send
you packing, as the expression has it. If you can
do that, you will never go to listen to
anybody.
Question: If I throw stones at you, I will
go to jail.
U.G.: I will not take you to jail. That's a
problem with the society in which you are caught. I
can't help you. I will not be the first one to
complain about it. Whose body is it? If it gets
hit, that's all probably; that's the end of it. Are
you not tired? I can go on. That's enough, I
suppose.
I haven't said anything. What all you think I have
said is a "bag". You think it makes sense. How can
this make sense? If you think that it makes sense,
you haven't understood a thing. If you think that
it doesn't make any sense, you haven't understood
it either. It's just words – you are listening
to this noise – words, words, words –
mechanically coming out of this organism. I don't
know how they are coming. I wish I knew. I wish I
knew how I got into... what state? It always
irritates me when people ask me "You tell us
something...." About what state? What state are you
talking about? I know Mysore State. I am in the
Mysore State. How do I know that I am in the Mysore
State? Because people tell me that I am in Mysore.
So, what state do you want to get into? That is
your natural state, I am saying.
What takes you away from your state is this
movement in the direction of wanting to be in some
state other than yourself. To be yourself doesn't
need time. If I am a village idiot, I remain a
village idiot. Finish. I don't want to be an
intelligent man. Even if my neighbour takes
advantage of his extraordinary intelligence and
exploits me, good luck. What can I do? To accept
the reality, this is the reality of the world.
There is no other world. There is no other reality,
ultimate Reality. This is the only reality. You
have to function in this world. You can't run away
from this world. How can you run away from this
world? Because you are that world. Where
can you go? Hide yourself in a cave? Yes, you are
taking your thoughts wherever you go. You cannot
run away from your shadow. It's there all the time.
So, you can't do a thing about thought. That's all
that I am saying. When you realise the absurdity of
all your effort to do something about the thought
– it's creating the problem; it's misery for
you; you can't do anything – when you can't do
anything, when you realise that you can't do a
thing about it, it's not there. You are not using
thought as a means to get something for
you.
I want to say this again. You desire. If you do not
want anything, there is no thought at all. You
understand? Wanting is thinking, it doesn't matter
what you want – want Self-realisation, want
God-realisation – you want anything, that
means you have to use this instrument. These are
not your thoughts, these are
not your feelings. You may not like it.
They belong to somebody else. You want to make them
your own. You have unfortunately made them your
own. That's why you ask all these questions. Why do
you ask all these questions? These questions have
been put before to so many people – all the
sages, saints and saviours of mankind, the holy men
dead and alive. They are all ready to answer. They
have composed a lot of lullabies. You go and listen
to them and go to sleep, if you want to. That's
what you are interested in. You want somebody else
to pat on your back and say, "Oh, fine, just fine,
you are doing very well. Do more and more of the
same and you will reach the destination you want to
arrive at." What is the destination you want to
arrive at? To be gentle, meek, to be soft, to talk
in whispers. You know if you go to some of these
monasteries in the West, the Trappist, they talk in
whispers. They don't even understand what the other
man is saying. That's the secret to the spiritual
path.
Mr. Kothari: When a man is in love, he talks
in whispers to his beloved. What objection have you
to anybody talking in whispers?
U.G.: I have no objection at all. I
wonder if he is really in love.
[laughter] You don't even have to talk
about it. You want to reassure your partner that
you are in love with that person. It isn't worth a
tinker's damn, that love. That's not love at all.
You can call it love. I don't want to go into that.
It's a forbidden subject. You will ask me, "Do
you have anything to say...?" It's a four letter
word. It's like any other word – "dog",
"pig", "love". In love, can there be any
relationship at all? Can you have any relationship?
This is your problem. You are all the time trying
to have relationship with people. You cannot
have any relationship with people at all. "Love is
relationship." "Life is relationship." All that
guff. Trite. Crap. You memorise and repeat those
phrases. They all become fancy phrases these days.
"Freedom", "first and last freedom" and "the
freedoms that come in between." What is this
nonsense? This is like any other trite phrase, any
other crap that these people are repeating. You
have memorised a new set of phrases. That's all you
are doing. You sit and discuss everlastingly all
this awareness. What is that awareness you are
talking about? How can you be aware of this? Can
you at any time be aware of this? If you are aware
of this once in your lifetime, the whole structure
has collapsed; it has fallen in its proper place.
You don't have to do a thing about it. So, it
doesn't mean a thing at all. You can talk of
awareness – choiceless or otherwise – or
conditioning. Conditioning – what can you do
about it? Conditioning is intelligence. You can't
do a damn thing about it. You can't free yourself
from it. If you want to free yourself from your
conditioning, or uncondition yourself and all that
nonsense that is going on .... How are you going to
uncondition yourself? You create another
conditioning – instead of repeating
Upanishads you will repeat some other books,
the fancy books.
Question: What is the secret of total
happiness?
U.G.: There is no happiness. I never
ask myself the question. So many people ask me that
question, "Are you happy?" What is that question?
Funny question. I never ask myself that question,
"Am I happy?" Total happiness is an invention.
Mr. Kothari: Invention of the mind, you
mean? Naturally.
U.G.: There is no mind. There is no such
things as the mind at all. Where is the mind? Is
the mind separate from the body? Distinguished from
the body? Apart from the body? These questions have
no meaning at all. You have no way of separating
yourself from what is going on. The moment you
separate yourself means you have a knowledge about
it – the knowledge given by either the
biologists, the physiologists, the psychologists or
the religious people. So through that you are
looking at it. You cannot experience anything
without knowledge. You cannot experience this at
all, let alone Brahman or Reality. You cannot
experience this at all. Only through
abstraction. And what is that abstraction?
The knowledge you have about it. This has been put
there. Your mother told you, or your neighbour or
friend told you that this is a table. What the hell
is that, you don't know, apart from what you have
been told. Every time you look at this, you have to
repeat to yourself that it is a table. What are you
doing that for? This is my question. This is the
continuity I am talking about. You want to reassure
yourself that you are there. The "I" is nothing but
this word. There is no "I" independent of this
word. Maybe you find some parallel to what I
am saying in Shankara or God knows what.
Mr. Kothari: Plenty, plenty. Because this is
the same thing that they have talked
about.
U.G.: Yes, yes. The consciousness
I am talking about is a state where there is no
division which says that you are asleep, that you
are awake, that you are dreaming. There is no
division at all. I don't even know if I am alive or
dead. This is my state. I have no way of knowing
for myself. The doctor can come and say that I want
to examine your lung, your lung is functioning all
right – there is heartbeat, there is this,
that and the other – you are alive. That's all
right. I am delighted. You reassure me that I am a
living being. But...
Question: How do you know at any given
time that you are in your natural state?
U.G.: That, as I said, can never become
part of your conscious existence. It begins to
express itself. The expression of that is
energy; and that is action. It is acting all the
time. This is not a mystical term. What I mean by
action is that the action is taking place always
outside. The senses are working at their peak
capacity all the time. It's not because you want to
look at a particular thing. There is no time even
for the eyelids to blink for a second. They have to
stay open all the time. And when they are tired,
naturally, the body has its own built-in mechanism,
which cuts off the sensation. And then it's back
again.
Question: What is that mechanism?
U.G.: What is that mechanism? Supposing
somebody gives you an answer. So, where are you?
Can you separate yourself from that mechanism? This
is what I am saying. You can separate yourself from
the mechanism and look at it only through the
knowledge, whether the knowledge is provided by a
physician or by a saint or by a sage. And
that knowledge is worthless. Because you are
projecting this knowledge on what you are looking
at, and that knowledge is creating or producing
these experiences. That can never become part of
that experiencing structure. That's the trouble.
You want to experience this. You can't experience
this at all. Whether it is the consciousness that I
am talking of, or the living state or the state of
"not knowing" or the things that are there around
you. How is it expressing itself? It is expressing
itself as energy, it is expressing itself as
action, in its own way. If I use some words, "It is
aware of itself, it is aware of its own its
incredible depth, it is conscious of itself" –
all these phrases may sound very mystical to you
– but you cannot experience it. The brain
physiologists, if I may quote somebody, – they
are trying to understand the brain. And they have
to find some means to define it. They have defined
the brain as an instrument with which we think that
we think. They are not so sure. You cannot separate
yourself from the brain and its activity and look
at the brain. Can you look at your back and tell me
something about your back. Somebody else must come
and tell you. And he has his own ideas, fancy
ideas. "You have a straight back." The doctor
always observes people. And from his point of view
he says that that man is sick, this man's back is
not correct, and so forth. Or, if I see a painter,
his description is something else. So, this is a
thing which you cannot communicate to somebody
else. Can you communicate your sex experience to
somebody else? Or any experience, for that
matter. That's what everybody is trying to do
– a painter, a poet or a writer. He is trying
to communicate some experience, which he calls an
"extraordinary" experience, through his medium
– writing poetry, sculpture. He is like any
other artisan.
Question: How do you reconcile your
existence with the world?
U.G.: I don't bother. Do I exist in this
world? Does the world exist for me? Where is the
world? I am not trying to be clever with all these
phrases. I don't know a thing about it. Am I
talking, am I saying anything? This is like the
howling of a jackal, the barking of a dog or the
braying of an ass. If you can put this on that
level and just listen to this vibration, you are
out, you will walk out, and you will never listen
to anybody in your lifetime. Finish. It doesn't
have to be the talk of a Self-realised man. You
will realise that there is no Self to realise.
That's all. There is no centre there. It is working
in an extraordinary way.
Question: In the extinction of sense organs,
if the sense organs do not function at all, for
instance with death, is the state of "not knowing"
still functioning?
U.G.: There is no death. You are never
born. You are not born at all. [laughter] I
am not trying to mystify. Because life has no
beginning, it has no end. Has it a beginning, has
it an end? What creates the beginning is your
thought. Why are you concerned about death? There
is no such thing as death at all. Your birth and
your death can never become part of that
experiencing structure. If you want to experience
death, you are not going to be there.
[laughter] Somebody else will be there. It
will be somebody else's misery.
|
