Roaring Peace
Excerpts by Robert C. Smit
The Disillusionment of Oneness
The Difference Between a Photo and a Tent
Try, Try, and Try, and In the Meantime People Die
Omniscience, a Matter of Knack
Foreword
I always thought that UG Krishnamurti aimed at his audience's belief structures and attempted to demolish. It's not only true that he attempted to demolish mental structures, but he tried to quell thought itself. More often than not, he tended to frustrate every attempt of thought to build, defend and justify its beliefs and constructions of various sorts. (His often used expression was: “I am always shooting; but you duck!”) And to those who have been around him for a long time, this seemed like an endless and futile effort. I was one of those. On many occasions I was myself indulging in justifying myself or attacking UG's ideas. I even wrote several articles critiquing his teaching. UG's attempts to stultify thought is not always evident nor does it easily sink into our minds.
Even after years of listening to UG or reading, one is still battling with what he says and trying to show how his ideas are contradictory or absurd. But we haven't gotten the point yet. To get the point is to get what Robert calls the ‘Living Truth’.
All UG's other books, The Mystique of Enlightenment, Mind Is a Myth, Thought Is Your Enemy, No Way Out and Courage to Stand Alone are examples of how he tries to drive home his message: There is no enlightenment; there is nothing to get. Thought creates the division between the self and the world and then posits an illusory ideal of the unity of the two. To think there is a ‘higher state’ or ‘enlightenment’ and strive for it is precisely what prevents us to be in our natural state. Once there is truly such understanding, one is automatically out of the ‘stranglehold of thought’.
It is Robert's attempt in the following book to present UG and what he says as living truth. His book belongs to the same genre as the other classics of UG I have mentioned above. If the material succeeds in its purpose, which Robert hopes it will, the reader should be at least for the moment, be left in a ‘de-clutched’ state, to use UG's own expression.
Robert intersperses his transcribed dialogues of UG with his own skillful introductions, comments, allusions, background accounts and jokes, which make the text more readable, comprehensible, interesting, and hopefully enlightening. In this book Robert makes it easy for the reader to identify himself with the author and his encounters with UG, and leads slowly and gradually into the deepest recesses of UG's teaching. He has selected those topics for his chapters which would typically introduce the reader to the wondrous being of UG and his Truth.
Be prepared to hear UG grilling your mind and dinning into yours to the point of utter frustration and exhaustion!
Narayana Moorty
UG's friendly advice to writer and reader
UG, you said that every interpretation on you and your ‘teaching’ is just the same. What do you mean by that?
UG: The same, yes. What's the difference between all those interpretations? Whether you call me a saint or a sinner, both are true depending upon your point of reference.
Don't you think, when people listen to you for many years and study your tape-recorded conversations sincerely and carefully, those well-informed people got a better idea of you and the things you are expressing than people who just met you once?
UG: No, sorry, no.
You don't think that someone who wrote this study on you, might be in a better position to introduce people to what you say?
UG: No, I don't think so.
So, the purpose of writing this book might be limited merely to the earning of some money, if there is going to be any commercial business at all?
UG: If you can make some money . . . I hope you will; that's all that will please me (joking and laughing). And you can make some money if there are enough fools in this world to buy your book. As I told you, this is the way it should be done. I am not interested - you understand me well; but, like with any other product, you have to create an interest in the man, write about him and about the book, in the newspapers, and create a demand. And if you are not interested in it, please don't do it at all. Don't do it in a half-hearted way.
Of course, I am very much interested; I worked on it for half this year at least.
UG: That's what I said: so it must produce results, dividends. And whatever dividends you get out of your efforts, they are yours, not mine. I have nothing to do with them.
UG, would you do me a favor?
UG: Do you a favor? What favor?
Well, speak your preface for my book.
UG: No sorry!
You are not interested?
UG: He who buys and reads this book must be a damned fool! (UG laughs at his own indulgence.)
Yes, this kind of excuse you always use when people come to you with some request. I don't believe you actually mean it.
UG: I mean it!
Come on UG, I invested fifteen hundred Dutch guilders to record your voice in hi-fi stereo this time on my professional Walkman. Don't brush it aside with a joke. Speak your preface, please?
UG: What I said about the reader of the book applies to you first: you are a fool, a damned fool, to invest that much money! It is a total waste . . . !
The Disillusionment of Oneness
The land where disillusionment is not some disconsolate disappointment but the very perfection of Reality is a very weird land. One cannot reach it by any good actions or philosophical effort.
In the years I had known UG, it many times happened that visitors meeting UG wanted to discuss their experience of ‘Oneness’. The following conversation is an example in which a guy is trying to convince UG of the existence of oneness:
The visitor says: . . . UG, you say you are now without any goal.
UG: No goal: nothing to be achieved; nothing to be accomplished; nothing to be attained.
Yes, but before, in your past, you did have a goal?
UG: Yes, there was a time when I did, I distinctly remember. But the memory of it has no emotional content anymore. I was like anybody, chasing something, searching for something, pursuing something, and putting the whole of my being in that search. I had invested everything in that goal because I wanted to find out for myself that there might not be anything to be achieved. Then I realized that I had spent all my life searching for something that didn't exist at all. So this understanding, which is not the result of your logical thinking or rational thinking or any such thing, suddenly hits you, as if a lightning hits you. That's the end of it. You are finished with the whole thing, forever.
It was finished for you for good?
UG: Forever, once and for all. So that's something which you cannot make happen through any effort or will.
Do you think this can happen once and disappear again afterwards?
UG: No, that's why I use the word lightning: when the lightning hits, the whole thing is burnt to ashes, as it were. Nothing more is left; you can't put it together anymore.
Can you explain your enlightenment?
UG: No . . . I didn't use the word ‘enlightenment’, you are using the word. ‘There is no such thing as enlightenment,’ that was the thing that became obvious to me. I realized that there is no such thing as transformation, no such thing as self-realization. The whole lot, the whole thing, is just a variation of the same. You replace one with the other. But the whole pursuit has no meaning. And that realization releases a tremendous energy. All the energy you always used in that pursuit is suddenly released, and then living becomes very simple; it has no problems anymore.
So, if someone would say to you that he has been hit once like you said you had been and that it hasn't lasted forever . . .
UG: He doesn't come here.
No, I mean, suppose . . .
UG: No suppositions here. I don't want to discuss suppositions.
No, I tell you, I have been hit.
UG: That's not a fact. You wouldn't be here discussing these things. There would be no need for you to talk about these things.
But . . .
UG: You wouldn't be here talking about that at all, because there is nothing to talk about. And comparing notes doesn't exist at all.
No, I am not speaking of that. I said: do you believe that one can be hit once and then somehow, as it has happened, it disappears?
UG: It cannot disappear.
So it did not disappear for you?
UG: It cannot. The very nature of it makes it impossible. If it is some experience, probably an extraordinary experience, then yes, it disappears again. Not this. The moment it hits you, it puts an end to the experiencing structure. It is something that can never, never be experienced. I was not talking about that state or whatever it may be . . . But when it has been understood that no matter what the experiencing structure experiences - however extraordinary it may be - it is worthless, then the question for more and more is absent, because it has no meaning. The nature of the experiencing structure is that it demands more and more of one thing and less and less of the other. So I tell you, the demand for experiencing anything is not there anymore. The demand for permanence and the demand for things is not there anymore, except the physical needs of food, clothing and shelter. Even if they are denied, it is not much of a problem for this living organism.
Can I ask another question?
UG: Yes, please.
When this was experienced, this state . . .
UG: You are using the word ‘experience’ . . .
Yes, yes, but there was not the feeling at all that it had happened; there was was only the fact that it had always been there and also that it could never never leave, because it was one's natural state of oneness. So there was no idea at all at that moment that something had been achieved, so . . .
UG: Let me interrupt you. The oneness that you are talking about is something which cannot be experienced at all. That there is an integral relationship with everything is something which can never, never be experienced by that experiencing structure. So, to talk of oneness has no meaning.
But don't you feel one with all you see?
UG: Not at all. The separation is not there, but that doesn't mean there is oneness. What creates the separation is very clear, but what is there when the separation or the division is not there is something nobody can talk about. The divisive movement that comes into being is all that you can understand. When that movement is not there, what is happening in that situation is something that can never be experienced by you; it can never be talked about. It's not a mysterious, mystifying thing. Don't call it love, compassion and all that kind of a thing. You cannot talk about it, you cannot experience it, and what it is you will never know.
When you say that it is something which you cannot experience, do you mean that it is something which one cannot experience as an individual?
UG: No, the totality of it cannot be experienced. You see, you must have the knowledge about things to experience them. So when there is no knowledge, how can you experience? When you are talking of oneness, that ‘oneness’ is the knowledge.
To me it is just the fact of not knowing, the fact of living integral knowledge, not the result of any acquired knowledge or information.
UG: There is no experience at all. The oneness is something which cannot be experienced.
It's just a way of speaking.
UG: For all practical purposes, there is no integral relationship and there is no oneness at all. What is there is only the division.
Well, yes, but one could have some feeling about it?
UG: How can you feel it? Feeling is thought. You have to fix a point; and the moment the point is fixed thought is there.
That thought is not disturbing the oneness. Why should it disturb that oneness? It belongs to the oneness.
UG: There is no oneness at all.
You know, it is not something which as an individual I have experienced. It has nothing to do with that. When the individual, which was believed to exist, ceased to exist, then . . .
UG: No, no. You see, when the individual ceases to exist, as you put it, the oneness does not come into being. It is the individual that is projecting the oneness. The integral relationship, the oneness of things is something which cannot be captured, it cannot be contained.
I never said it could be captured.
UG: Otherwise, you can't experience it.
Why should you relate ‘experience’ to ‘capturing’?
UG: Both are the same.
If somehow this hankering after stages disappears totally from you and if you are no longer projecting any goal to achieve or to attain, if then the individual which had been created by the goal also disappeares altogether and you feel a total . . .
UG: Where is the feeling? Where is that feeling if the individual ceases to be?
It is not your feeling; it is the total feeling of everything there is.
UG: Where is that feeling felt?
It is everywhere.
UG: Where?
Everywhere.
UG: There is no point; there must be a point.
Here some illustration might be useful:
Imagine that you are standing between two train rails. Just in front of you the distance between the rails is about one and a half meter, but near the horizon this space between them no longer exists: the two rails merge at one point. Now we start to walk to the spot at that horizon. When we arrive there we'll find out that the distance between the two rails is the same distance we measured in the first position. The rails do not meet each other at one point. Of course, nobody is really surprised because everybody knows something about the effect of perspective. But even if our eye produces a so-called true to nature image, and although we dare to travel by train without any fear of derailment, something is wrong. The image is not true; it is not reality.
Imagine watching rails from different spots at the same moment. How would they look from such a point of view? Try to imagine you are watching the world from all spots and places at the same moment. What would you see?
The principle of perspective would disappear; the rails wouldn't seem to meet at the horizon, because you also are watching from that spot on the horizon. Moreover, you also watch the rails from below, and then the image of two long rails doesn't exist at all. If we would watch from everywhere, from every spot on earth, what would the world look like? Where is the horizon if there is such watching? Where is any form if this watching occurs both inside a form and on its surface? Where is ‘there’ if ‘there’ this watching is also present? Where is ‘the other’, if your watching is also in him or her? If this watching is truly everywhere, can there still be any meaning to the word ‘everywhere’? If this watching ‘everywhere’ is really in operation, is it still possible to speak of ‘watching’? Because if this watching is everywhere - and everywhere is everywhere - so if even this watching is inside the one who is watching, how can there be watching anymore? And what things could it possibly see?
Then watching as ‘total watching’ has to knock itself off because it occupies the space where the objects of this watching exist. Thus omni- or total-watching in the final analysis means not watching at all. The normal ‘watching’ only shows us our limitedness, narrowness. Beyond this level watching ceases to be . . .
UG says: If this feeling is everywhere, how can you speak of feeling?
It is not your feeling; it is the total feeling of everything there is.
UG: Where is that feeling felt?
It is everywhere.
UG: Where?
Everywhere!
UG: There is no point; there must be a point!
No, there is no point!
UG: Then there is no feeling.
There is an endless feeling.
UG: You see, these are all words. It cannot be felt. You are talking of feeling; where is that feeling?
It doesn't belong to someone in particular, because when this is lived, if you don't like the word ‘feeling’ or ‘experience’, when this is lived, then . . .
UG: What is there to be lived?
That non-separation.
UG: You see, the non-separation you are talking about is a projection of the separate entity. It projects, it creates. When this entity is absent, the opposite is not in operation there at all. And what is in operation you will never know, you will never feel.
You know, as long as we are using words, of course we have to use words which inevitably have opposites.
UG: There is no need for this conversation at all.
If I tell you that I have come here to . . .
UG: No, there is no need to, no!
I have come to you for some reason. My friend brought me here. You are supposed to speak whenever people ask you a question, as for example, about the subject we are talking about now. It happened that such an egoless consciousness was experienced.
UG: I don't know, you see . . . first of all, there is no ego.
Yes, that was experienced; that was evident.
UG: That cannot be a fact.
It was evident at that moment; then it disappeared again.
UG: No, no, this experience of the non-existence of the ego cannot be an experience at all.
Use a different word if you don't like the word.
UG: All right, yes. Use anything: ‘self’, ‘psyche’ or ‘mind’, any word you want to use.
I mean, that accumulation which is always trying to achieve something different from what was there at that moment, that accumulation had disappeared; the urge to achieve anything at all was no longer there. There was no enlightenment to achieve, there was no liberation to achieve, there was nothing to achieve. This was a fact and it was evident at that moment. So, all that which had been accumulated to achieve some goal had disappeared at that moment, since there was nothing to be achieved. There was no need for keeping the individuality which was only there relative to something to be achieved. Both of these disappeared simultaneously.
UG: Yes, and along with them the feeling of oneness.
It was not the feeling of being one with something. There was not the feeling of unity with something in particular. There was just the feeling that there was no separation between something and anything else. It was only the idea of achieving something in particular that had created a division. As soon as this hankering to achieve something, or the desire to achieve non-desire, as soon as that had disappeared, there was only . . .
UG: Can that disappearance be experienced? Can that be felt?
Don't use the word . . .
UG: Can that be felt?
Some other visitor, a woman who had known UG for a long time, interrupted the conversation with a question:
Do you mean, UG, that in that state there is a washout of all differentiation, a total blank?
UG: No, it is not blank, it is not emptiness, it is not fullness. It is not anyone of those things.
Well, let's say, it is much more like the sea in the sea, there is only the sea and nothing else in contradistinction with the sea?
UG: All right, you see, the sea does not know anything about its quality or what it is. We have hundreds of these metaphors in India. The three different Vedantic philosophical systems are based upon this metaphor: the raindrop falls into the ocean. And then the three systems of philosophy say: one system, the system of non-duality, says that the raindrop falls into the ocean and it loses its identity and has become one with the ocean. The second system, qualified monism, says it has lost its identity, but it's not the same as the ocean. The third, the dualistic system of philosophy, says the drop emerges and maintains its individuality. So they go on and on and on, philosophizing about these raindrops. Let me tell you, all of that is nonsense. All the systems of philosophy are nonsense.
So you really think that there is no coming back from that state to express it in words.
UG: Not a word.
And there is nothing to come back from?
UG: No.
And if there is an immersion in something as he might say, and then he says, ‘I have come out of it.’ That means . . .
UG: . . . Thank God I have discovered something extraordinary!
Yes, I am not using those words because I know they would be the wrong words.
UG: Yes, not because they are wrong, but because you cannot say that.
Any sort of coming back is the very mark of the fact that it was just a dream or an experience?
UG: There is no experiencing at all.
Right, but at what point do you know that there is no experiencing at all?
UG first starts to formulate an answer, and then, with a smile, he says:
UG: Alright, that's very clever of you! I know that, you see: ‘How do you know that there is nothing to know?’ That question wouldn't be there if you were lucky enough to be in that situation. The question which you are throwing at me wouldn't be there. Until then you will be asking these questions: ‘How do you know that it is not that?’ You want to know, and that's how this tricky thing maintains its continuity.
Yes, but in you how does the idea that ‘There is neither a knower nor knowing’ arise?
UG: It arises in response to your question. You are asking the question. They are not my questions, ‘How do I know that it is not there?’ or ‘How do I know that this is not also an illusion?’ It is a question that has no answer. You see, that question cannot be there at all.
The first questioner resumes his conversation now:
But are you not in some way limiting the possibility of this, whatever name you give to it? If you say: ‘To me there was no entering, so how could there be any going into or coming back out of that state?’ Aren't you limiting this thing? Because the fact now is that to me it seems that today I am living in total illusion; that I am living in a different state, a different awareness or consciousness than in that state of oneness. And if you say . . .
UG: You are . . .
No, please let me finish my question . . . If you say, that it is impossible to come back from that, then somehow, according to me, you are limiting something. Because you are saying that it is impossible and I say it is possible.
UG: You say it is possible and I say it is not possible, yes. That's the end of our conversation. There is no such thing as ‘before the wash’ and ‘after the wash’. My shirt is hanging there. So, you are comparing these two points: it was a soiled clothing before and now, after washing, it is a clean clothing. But here there is no ‘before’ and no ‘after’. The line of demarcation between the two is not there anymore.
You are lucky enough to live it; so there is no feeling that is has happened and also there is no feeling of coming back from it; therefore, it is not going to vanish.
UG: Listen, since I have not achieved anything, gained anything, I cannot lose anything.
Exactly. And this is what has brought me here, because this I have lived, and while living this state there was the full evidence that it was something that I had not achieved; it had always been there and it will always be there. What I felt at that time was . . .
UG: No, I think it wasn't there at all. What was there?
You may say that, but this idea of achieving anything had disappeared altogether. That which was there at that moment was not corresponding to any achievement at all.
UG: What was there was this movement in the direction of achieving something; that was all that was there. So, then what is there is something which you can't say. It is something which cannot be experienced, something which cannot be communicated, something which cannot be talked about.
I agree with that.
UG: Then . . . ?
My question is . . .
UG: No, if, as you say, you agree with me, then there is no place for this dialogue. I'm sorry to say this. You and I wouldn't be sitting here and talking about that; there is no need to talk about it. None of those questions would be there.
I was lucky enough then, but there was ‘nobody’ to be lucky at that time to share that. I was first surprised that somehow this state was evident for a long time at a stretch and then somehow it disappeared again. In those days, it was evident that everything appeared to me as just a game: people hankering after a goal to achieve, although they were fully bathing in that consciousness or non-experience or non-knowledge or whatever you like to call it. It was crystal clear. And then, suddenly as miraculously as it had happened, it disappeared and I found myself back again with the same fear, the same feeling of separation. Then the goal of trying to experience or to live again that state which was absent before now began to show up again.
UG: Wanting that experience again . . .
Yes, or maybe it is more correct just to say that the proces of experiencing appeared again.
UG: It was there all the time!
It was not there.
UG: It was there; otherwise it wouldn't demand anything. I would humbly submit that it was very much there. You see, this experience strengthened and fortified that. It was very much there. That is the trickiest of all the things. It has millions and millions of years of momentum. It knows all the tricks in the world. It was very much there.
But there was no experience there and there was no experiencer!
UG: You can never say that the experiencer was absent; that cannot be an experience. He was very much there. And the silence you experienced was . . .
It was not silence. You see, thoughts were there, speaking was there, not speaking was there, sleeping was there and not sleeping was there. No separation between all of them. Nothing was rejected and nothing was accepted.
UG: ‘There was no separation’ - that was the experience. The fact of non-separation is something which cannot be experienced. Separation can be experienced. You see, when I am talking, there is a separation here.
From my point of view, yes.
UG: From my point of view too. This conversation between us is possible only when there is a separation there.
Yes, I am now feeling that there is a separation. Do you also feel like that?
UG: Listen: how this conversation and your questions are creating the division here, that is all that I am talking about. Even if it is possible for you to be in that undivided state of consciousness or whatever you want to call it, every question you throw in here creates a division at that particular moment. Then it bounces back into its undivided state or whatever you want to call it.
Yes, from your point of view, but from my point of view . . .
UG: From your point of view also. Your question has created a division here; otherwise, how can any answer come? It is a reflection of the thing; it is bouncing back. ‘Bouncing back’ implies that there are two. What ‘this’ (UG is pointing at himself) is pointing all the time, is ‘Don't ask those questions, because those questions have no meaning at all.’ The very question creates division there. Whether it is temporary or permanent, it doesn't matter at all.
But does this questioning create a division there?
UG: When there is a bouncing back of your question, there is a division. Otherwise how can there be two things? Don't mystify the whole thing. It comes and goes, comes and goes. Otherwise this would be a corpse! It is responding to the stimuli. But what I am trying to say is that it is a unitary movement: there are no two separate things. The stimulus and the response are one unitary movement. So when there is a question like that, it creates a counter-thought here, it creates a division, a temporary division, and then it bounces back into one unitary movement. To imagine that it will be a continuous absence of something has no meaning to me.
To imagine what?
UG: . . . That it is finished once and for all: the division is there; and then, the division is not there. When it is not there, you wouldn't know, you cannot know. You have no way of knowing whether the division is there or not. And so, the unitary movement is something which cannot be experienced. You can't talk about that at all. How this division is created - that's all you can say.
You are not tired?
UG: I am not tired, no. Please go on.
Let us take it from an other aspect. At one moment, there was the desire to achieve something, and then, for some reason, somehow, that desire to achieve something was not there anymore. There were no more desires to achieve anything. Well, this lasted for quiet some time, a few days. There was just perfect enjoyment or whatever at the moment when it was happening - just responding to the situation, rather, the situation responding to itself. There was just the simple joy of being, nothing more.
UG: How do you experience the joy?
Because there was nothing to achieve, the joy was flowing naturally.
UG: You see, the joy you experienced is related to something. It cannot exist in a vacuum. The feeling that you are finished with your search . . . means that the search has not left. It hasn't. If this search really has gone, then there is no joy there, there is no pain, nothing. What is there you will never know. Not only then; from then on you will never know anything. The ‘joy’ is the knowledge, don't you see?
It is just the simple joy of not knowing anything. There was no knowledge; there was no knowing. It just was the perfect mystery which had not to be understood but which one was. One was not to unravel the mystery but had become the mystery. That was all. One was not hankering after any answer.
UG: It was not what you are saying it is.
How strange it is: somehow you are refusing to admit that it could exist.
UG: No, it is for you to see, not for me. I'm not blaming you or any such thing. But it is for you to see. If it were as you are saying it was, it would operate now in you. The fact that you are sitting here and asking these questions means that it was nothing. I'm sorry to say that, but you will have something more extraordinary than this petty little experience if you can let go that one as a petty little worthless experience as any other experience is.
(Long, deadly silence . . .)
You see, it will be something new. I put in the word ‘new’ because you don't know what it is. It will be yours; it will not be any one of those things; it will be something which you cannot describe it at all. It is an irreversible thing.
And that was the end of this conversation. Indeed, it is the end of any conversation, an irreversible end.
The visitor stands up, smiles and leaves.
UG: Yes, that experience was very important to him: ‘Nothing to reach at, nothing to achieve;’ well, what's the point in going on with this? He himself admits that he is back again. The oneness he experienced, oneness of life; ridiculous!
But is it possible to experience the oneness? asks the friend of ‘raindrops’.
UG: Yes, it is possible, but it's an experience. And through that it gathers momentum.
Why don't you accept the fact that there are levels in experience?
UG: There are no levels.
No, not in the field of absolutes, but in the field of experience.
UG: No, the gurus feed you on that kind of a thing. So the hierarchy is there: slowly, step by step and so on. But there are no levels in consciousness.
Well, not really, but . . .
UG: No; ‘not really’ means: how can there be levels?
That night, just before I fell asleep, a brilliant poem of the mystical poet Kabir whirled through the darkness of my lodging place:
‘He is the true guru,
who reveals the form of the formless,
to the vision of these eyes . . .’
The Difference Between a Photo and a Tent
UG: Listen, ‘This is the biggest controversy ever in India about my book.’ I had a telephone call from Bombay. There is a newspaper called The Sunday Observer, like The Observer in England. It has written a full-page review, blasting me, condemning the book and attacking me, sentence by sentence; and then somebody else attacked the review in the Times of India, supporting me and my book. And then there were letters to the editor - it is going on and on. They have sent (copies) to me, it seems. I haven't received them yet.
Although UG was known as a person who didn't care for publicity, this time he walked into the Chalet Sunbeam garden and mentioned the news to his friends in a delighted voice.
UG: No book has ever had such a controversy in the Indian press, they said. Mahesh called me today.
‘That's bad news for you!’ says one of the friends mockingly.
UG: No, good news. Now there is a tremendous demand for the book, Mahesh said.
Yes, but isn't that bad news?
UG: . . . Then, also in America they want it; and in China they want it too!
China? Isn't that bad news?
UG: Not for me. They want thousands of copies.
No bad news, according to UG, although he and his book hit the headlines. Generally UG is rather indifferent in these matters of publicity. And we must take it for granted that he really considers it as good news, since it was his own idea to send some specimen copies of the book to the Chinese embassy.
This policy is contradictory to his usual approach.
UG: I never stepped out of my house, you know. But if I say that, you say that I am full of vanity, hmm? In all these years that I have been talking, thousands of people have come to see me. I don't have to get up on a platform. I could have had the biggest publicity in the United States, in the prime time news. But it is too silly, as far as I am concerned. If I am interested in publicity, I know how to use every technique, every means of propaganda and every instrument man has at his disposal. Then I wouldn't just sit here. But I am not interested. I don't think I have a message to give to the world.
I just express what I have discovered for myself and by myself, that's all. Man is doomed anyway.
So, your trying to fit me into any framework with a religious slant is an exercise in futility. What I have discovered is something which cannot be shared with others. This is a certainty that I have. It is something that cannot be transmitted.
Given such ‘certainty’, it is strange that UG spoke in such an enthusiastic voice about the success of his book. The paradox of UG expresses itself not only in the fact of what he is saying, but far more in the fact that he is talking, and to so many people at that. Every new visitor who poses questions to UG is told by him that there is nothing that one can do to attain liberation and that the world is already perfect the way it is. Any supposition of the visitor is frustrated by UG's paradoxical way of answering his question. About one thing UG leaves no doubt at all:
Anything the gurus are teaching you is rubbish. All the energy you invest in their teaching and meditations could better be used in the things of your day-to-day life.
Nevertheless, this does not sufficiently explain UG's enterprise of tirelessly answering people's questions.
Two days after the telephone call from India about the fuss in the newspapers, UG again got a message:
UG: I had a telephone call from Bombay. They want some photos. Robert, you select the best of your negatives, one or two, and I will send them.
To illustrate new articles on UG and his book, journalists needed a portrait of UG. The other day, I had taken a series of them, but he didn't like the smile on his face in those photos.
Well, I'd like to shoot a new film.
UG: No, those ones; I want those. It's urgent. You give me the negatives and the contact prints. I will give you the money for them, and then you buy a new film.
Please, I would like to give it a try and shoot another film.
UG: You see . . . I don't know; I'm not so sure . . . answers UG with a cautious smile on his face, remembering the tiresome conversation we had had the day before:
UG, what's the difference between a photo and a tent?
UG: Hmm?
What is the difference between having a photo ready and a tent?
UG: What do you mean?
. . . a tent to welcome people.
UG: You see, when an interviewer comes . . . I don't know what you are talking about.
Well, I mean, you spend some money and time to have a photo ready to give away, but . . .
UG: Not money. I don't give any money. You see, if they come with a cameraman, it's all right; if they bring the camera, good!
No, you do some work, some effort to have the photos ready here. But you don't put up a tent to welcome people who want to visit you.
UG: I am not interested.
Then why don't you say, when a newspaper man comes here, ‘Sorry, I don't have any photos?’
UG: Yes, why do I sit and talk to him?
Yes, that's also a good question.
UG: . . . and so you can always ask such questions. You see, if I get up on a platform it would be to save people. But I am not interested. This man, the journalist, wants to make some money. Why not? Why do I talk to you? Why don't I throw you out? . . . call the policeman and ask him to throw you out? Yes. That's what you want me to do.
No, what I want is . . .
UG: Then what's the difference between you and . . . Why do you want to write a book? You answer those questions!
. . . to earn some money. (If I tell UG anything about any vocation, he would surely sneer at me, finish me off in one stroke, and then I surely can forget about getting a satisfactory answer to my question!)
UG: So, precisely for that reason, he comes, the interviewer - to write an article and make money. Why not? Somebody wants to make money; somebody wants to publish a book. I gave you the material and then you ask me, ‘What's the difference between sitting on a platform and giving you material? Why do you come and ask for material here? There is no reason for you to be here. I am sorry, but I have to be blunt. You think you are very clever, hmm?
Well . . .
UG: Surely you are not. That puts you in a very awkward situation: your being here is absurd; your taking photos is absurd; and your wanting to translate that book is equally absurd. I have not asked you to come here, have I? Did I invite you here?
No.
UG: Has anybody asked you to come here, then?
But UG, why are you not interested in making money?
UG: I am not interested. That's your problem. I have nothing to sell.
For some moments there was a silence in which there were some funny and distant circus music-like laughs on the scene. Although the amusing sounds seemed to have all the right to ridicule this conversation, the question still wasn't answered, namely, why didn't UG put up a tent to increase the number of people who wanted to visit him?
UG, I think I understand what Robert wanted to say . . . another visitor started playing.
UG: It's very simple: I rejected all his photos. So he is hurt.
Come on, UG!
UG: Yes, that is the basis for you to look at it. Don't tell me all that stuff.
Are you hurt, Robert? No, he is not.
UG: Yes, certainly he is hurt. You don't have to tell me; anybody would be. That's normal. He is hurt like any hurt photographer. How many hundreds of photographers have I seen? When I rejected all the photos taken by the top ones, what do you think?
Well Robert, allow yourself to be hurt; you have the right to be hurt. Well anyway UG, I think Robert is curious as to why you become concerned about your image in some newspaper.
UG: I am not interested.
Otherwise you would accept it?
UG: No. I don't like his photos.
Well, you wouldn't give a damn!
UG: I do give a damn. I don't like a smiling face on my picture.
Oh that's all? (making fun of UG's remark) Well how is it that you reject one type of image of yourself?
UG: I have my own image. Don't bother about that and don't throw all that psychological gibberish at me. It is for you to understand. I have my choices. I choose this color. And why not a dark red like that? Why not having long hair? And why not a beard? So, in exactly the same way, I have my own choice here: I don't like those photos - period, full stop, full period. He is hurt - I am sorry.
The conversation was very serious and very ludicrous at the same time. People made fun of UG's ‘fiery defense’.
UG: I have thousands of photos. Not one of them do I like.
Come on UG, I'll take another series of photos. I'll be more careful concerning your choice of expression. This time you'll like them - no more smiling faces.
UG: You forget one basic thing: the photo is yourself. I see the photographer there.
Yes . . . I understand. (UG's remark, ‘The photo is yourself,’ succeeded in hurting me more than his previous remarks, although I didn't grasp the meaning of it yet.)
UG: What you like, what you don't like and what angle you like - that's you.
Yes, so if ‘This is not well done, let me change it into that.’
UG: It's very subjective; the choice is subjective.
That's why I really want to try another film.
UG: I don't like it. Period, full stop! Why should I give an explanation for it? I just don't like it!
UG: All right, if you are not hurt by it, that's the end of it. You see, you should not have asked all those questions.
I am not hurt by your opinion about my photos. I'm not so much interested in the pictures; it's not my job. Why should I feel hurt?
UG: Nor am I interested. So, why the hell . . . Listen, I am not interested in your tape recording; I am not interested in your taking photos, hundreds of them; and I don't give a damn whether you publish a book or not. Let us be very clear about it, you see. It is your problem, it's not my problem.
No, I understand that. But we are not talking about either of us having problems.
UG: If you come or don't come, it doesn't really matter to me. Whether a journalist comes and writes about me nice things or bad things, what do I care?
Well, I hope you are not hurt now?
UG: Not hurt, you see. But I want you to understand and put you in the place where you belong. I am not a holy man; I don't want to be polite.
I have the equipment to take pictures, but I am not involved in that.
UG: You know, when you think you are very clever in asking me ‘Why do you meet people? Why do you talk to people?’ I can tell you: you are one of them!
Actually he said something else. He said, ‘Why, if you are concerned with your image, don't you put up a tent and propagate your philosophy?’
UG: Maybe, one day, I'll do it. Then you can ask me, you see.
Anyway, I'll go to that shop and buy a new film to photograph your portrait.
UG: I tell you it would be a waste; I am not going to like it. I warned you even earlier that there is no guarantee that I would like them. You can say what you like, ‘My image like this, that and the other,’ but it would be the same, finished. I have hundreds like that, not one or two.
After the animated conversation paused for a few minutes, I dared to ask UG about his fierce reaction on my ‘tent-and-photo’ question, in reaction to which he exploded into a rage:
UG: I don't want to discuss that again! If you are not hurt, you are a sick man! You should be hurt in such a situation; otherwise you are mentally ill. It is natural in such a situation to be hurt. But you see, you are going too far! ‘Why isn't he setting up a tent, this, that and the other, and the images I have (of myself), and my choices - yes, I reject even that color picture which everybody likes. You see, in exactly the same way, it is not that I have an image which I want to be present there all the time, but my likes and dislikes are there. Why do I select these colors - light colors, faded colors - hmm? Well, in the same way, I don't like those color photos of Valentine. What I like of her is a different one. So they are purely subjective, your likes and dislikes. That does not mean that if you take another twenty or thirty photos, I will like them. And if you say that I have an image, it's all right with me. Even if you take another sixty, I may not like them.
Well, I can accept that you won't like them.
UG: You asked me: ‘Why do you like faded colors, why don't you wear clothes like that, what is the difference between this . . . ?’ You have your own choices, I am telling you, and I have my own.
Yes, I know that you have your own choices and behavior, and all that. This has nothing to do with your state, your natural state or something like that, I know.
UG: It is part of that state! That is what I am telling you all the time. That is it; there is nothing else there. You don't like it? Go away! I am not interested in your adoration, worship or your photos and books. It's not just to you; this applies to everybody.
So, ‘Why do I give you material,’ you asked me, hmm? Because you are asking for it, you see.
This is not something new to me. It's an everyday affair. Everywhere in the world, people ask me. They come to me uninvited. And then they ask me this question: ‘Why are you talking?’ They throw all those idiotic, silly questions to me; absurd questions! ‘Why do you talk, why do you sit here, and then why don't you go and get up on a platform?’ You see, I didn't ask you to come; I ask nobody to come. I don't need any advertisement for me. I am not interested in enlightening them, I am not interested in freeing them and I am not interested in liberating them.
One thing you don't seem to understand is that unless you get something out of it - some self-fulfillment or some motivation - you don't do a thing. I tell you, there is a motive here. It is not out of compassion that I am talking to you. The motive here is to make you see the absurdity! You don't easily see the absurdity, so I have to go on, for fifteen minutes, to point out here the absurd situation you have created for yourself and for me! That's all that I am saying.
You know, I did not want to go and see my son, when he was in a hospital. They said to me: ‘How can you be so cruel? How can you be so entirely unconcerned about that dying son of yours?’ These press people bothered me that way. I said, ‘All right, I will go and visit him. If he is asking me to come, I go there.’ And then all these Vedantins came and asked me the question: ‘How can you go to see your son? You are an enlightened man, and you are still attached to your son?’ What do you want me to do?
Well, what did you do?
UG: No matter what I did . . . I was there in Bombay, and I visited him a few times. That was the end of it.
You have been there, with him?
UG: Sure. First they pushed me when I didn't want to go to see him, and then when I did go and see him, people said, ‘Oh, you are still attached to your son!
These last sentences UG was shouting in a loud voice.
UG: Why do you want to ask me these things? Because no matter what I do, the newspaper people came and asked me questions. They put it in the papers: ‘This fellow didn't want to see his son!’ . . . and not only in this situation, in every situation!
In 1982 UG's son died of cancer. That was the son who suffered from polio earlier in his life. UG and his wife had traveled half the globe seeking for medical help for his polio.
-------
So, UG had a cautious smile on his face when I suggested to him that I wanted to shoot a new series of photos.
UG: Probably it will be the same.
UG, I really like to try it.
UG: I don't know. You see, what I have in my mind is not the . . .
Not the smiling face?
UG: Yes. Not that I am judging the photos there; I am not saying anything against those photos. But that's not the thing I want. That's my approach. He asked me, ‘Do you have an image?’ Certainly I have an image of the kind of photo I want.
Can you tell something about it? Maybe you can give me some idea?
UG: It must be . . . well, people are most anxious to know what this man looks like. This is not my idea, but this is what the film man told me: ‘You see, UG, you should not change your photo each time. People need a fixed idea of what you look like. When they read something of yours, they want to know what you look like.’
And what do you mean by ‘not changing the photo?’
UG: You see, from this book, The Mystique of Enlightenment, you don't know how I look. They used three different photos. So he told me that people should have one single idea of me. You know, if you see Krishnamurti's photos, it's the same photo all the time. Of course now, since he has become old, they have changed it. Ramana Maharshi or anybody else, Ramakrishna, they have only one photo. The others you can have them in an album. The point is not to study faces. I think what he said is better. Now they write about me, all the film magazines. The whole film world in India knows me. But many people don't know how I look. Very rarely they published my photo. So, I should have one photo that shows how I look, to give to these newspapers. But the photos I have - the ones that appear in the papers - are very old now. I need a photo which tells the reader how I look; the personality of the man - that should come out. I don't know if I make myself clear?
. . . very clear.
UG: I have hundreds of photos like yours. Everybody tried to produce a perfect picture, according to them. The photos you took, by themselves they are very good.
But not for this purpose, hmm?
UG: Not for the purpose of giving to the papers. You know, people come and they want to bring their cameraman - this person, that person. So I said, ‘Why, you please take one of these photos and forget about the matter.’ That's easier. Otherwise they have to bring their photographer with them and then it's a big fuss here.
And you can do what you like with all your photos. Even if you publish ugly photos, I am not concerned. But you see, what I want now is something quite different. So, when you come next time, please bring your negatives with you. For the time being, I'll choose one of those to send to India.
This time, with a new film, we were luckier. UG selected a few pictures in which his personality came through well.
But this photo affair, especially the topic of UG's putting up a tent to welcome far more people than he ever could accommodate in the small room of his chalet, all this was merely an illustration of the unanswered question: ‘What exactly was UG up to?’ Because, if a man has such an influence on people only by expressing improbable, paradoxical comments on anything, and if this man is able to modify people's world-view thoroughly without any use of ‘holy’ pressure and ‘saintly’ display of power, then he must be up to something.
In addition of all this, the Kaumara Nadi predicted a long time ago that ‘UG will be one of the great teachers of mankind,’ a rather intriguing prediction, especially when UG himself quotes this line.
UG was particularly convinced of the fact that the things he was talking about are not transferable. He also maintained that it was not his destiny to save the world. Since he had been answering people's questions now for so many years at a stretch, there is great mystery as to why he went on speaking, and what he was actually saying.
The extreme of this obscurity is this paradox of UG:
UG: All those to whom this kind of a thing (this natural state) has happened have really worked hard, touched the rock bottom, staking everything. It doesn't come easily. It's not handed over to you on a gold platter by somebody!
And UG's second remark seems to negate the first one:
UG: It is not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort. The search is always in the wrong direction!’
UG's riddle will haunt us, until these two incompatible statements are reconciled deep inside of us.
UG, you say that ‘In spite of all this (all effort UG put in his forty-nine years of searching), it happened.’ That's what you say. But if you had not . . .
Try, Try, and Try, and In the Meantime People Die
Wanting peace is creating war
UG: I tell you: all the humility, sensitivity, innocence, and all these religious things like morality - not that you should become immoral or any such thing - I tell you, that is not the point. Any fool can do that: try to model his life after that framework, fit into that framework and talk about it. That's what everybody is doing now in the holy business. It is easy to exploit people, but it has nothing to do with it at all. Sorry. But they, those teachers, have always abstracted something and then translated it in terms of religious things and created business for themselves.
Saying that it is for compassion, this, that or the other, means nothing at all.
Changing the world springs from the same drive as the drive to change yourself; they go together. If this is finished, that is finished. You don't talk of the mess in the world anymore; you don't talk of these horrible wars in the world; there is nothing that you can do about them. Your search is responsible for the war! You don't understand this simple thing.
As long as there is love, so long there is war! They go together. You never can trust these people. And they themselves become . . . their teaching becomes the basis of war, don't you understand? That's history, not my opinion. The quarrels are going on all the time here! Even amongst themselves they cannot be together. So what is the point in talking about those marvelous things? Anybody can do that; talking about tomorrow and indulging in moral platitudes - anybody can do that.
Unless the whole thing is stripped of that, you can't understand this, what I am talking about.
He thinks, ‘He is a man of great humility,’ hmm, ‘He has no ego, he is a selfless man.’ This has nothing to do with it. That is why those teachings don't touch anything there; they have never touched. This is going on in its own way, the human life.
And the opposite thing is that you practice or preach atheism, which is as ridiculous as the other. It (atheism) is still related to god. Whether god exists or does not exist is of no importance. If not god, you create some hero. You externalize what you want to be. You create a model and try to be like him. The whole thing becomes a joke. Even today people will do anything, give anything, just to kiss the ring of the pope!
Many times it is very surprising to see how well UG succeeds in relating his abstract teachings to practical and worldly matters, although sometimes his steps (in that direction) are rather inscrutable.
When our political leaders come up with a new plan, it's easy for us to form an opinion. The way UG talks about political, social, economical and other matters is very original and touches their rock bottom. Therefore it is rather difficult for us to form an opinion about his views with a degree of soundness. A fair sample of that difficulty is the subject matter of this chapter:
UG, I have a problem!
This visitor and her question provide a good idea of UG's radical approach to problems:
The problem is that I cannot see my mother crying; so I am kind to her. And I cannot hit my father. That's my problem. Is this a moral problem?
UG: Hit your father and forget your mother! They will cry until their eyes become dry.
Is it a moral issue?
UG: What is so moral about it?
Well, I have the idea that I'm doing something wrong. You see, I don't want to hurt them.
UG: There is nothing wrong with you. But you have been told by your parents that it is indifference, lack of caring, hmm?
They did so much for me!
UG: What? They did nothing for you; they did everything for themselves! They would like to make you feel that they have done so much for you.
I have so many problems with my mother; they are undermining my activities. Yet I take care of her, I'm kind and nice to her. But that makes me so tired.
UG: And yet you are doing it. Why? You are only asking me questions. I don't have any solutions to your problems. I don't see any problem there in the first place. Nobody has any problems, only solutions.
Yes, I know all that.
UG: . . . And those solutions are not really the solutions. That's really the problem. If they were the solutions, the problems shouldn't be there. And if there is no solution for the problem, the problem cannot stay there anymore. In either case, there is no problem, because the problem is the solution offered by we-don't-know-who - your culture, your society. You feel guilty all the time . . .
Yes, that's it, guilty.
UG: ‘It's not right to do this, it is immoral, you are not expected to do it.’ But, you are not looking at the problem in any case.
According to UG, we are trying to find solutions for our problems where they never can be.
There exists some kind of ‘world citizen group’, an international . . .
UG: It's a bogus thing. There are no world citizens. It will never work.
They are thinking about an international passport.
UG: It will never work.
No, well, maybe; but that's how the world is.
UG: That's not the way the world is; that's the way man is. The man who wants to be a world citizen, he is responsible.
Responsible for the super nationalities?
UG: Yes, because he has frontiers there inside of him. They must go first. Don't trust that man who talks of world citizenship, or says that he doesn't belong to any nation or that he doesn't belong to this world. You see, every thought, every experience of yours belongs to the society. What are you saying?
Well, I'm sorry, but this I don't understand.
UG: Every experience you have belongs to the society. That thought structure you have, without that you can't experience anything. All your pleasures belong to the society; all your appreciation of music belongs to the society. If you go and listen to that crap there, those classical concerts in the church of Saanen . . . (UG had to laugh about his own uncharitable remark) . . . you know, that belongs to the society, not to you.
What does that have to do with the citizen chappy?
UG: Everything is due to that. You create frontiers there inside of you, and as long as you are thinking, the frontiers are there. Thought creates a frontier, it separates you.
And what about the creating of a world citizen?
UG: That's a joke! It's a reaction. All those people who didn't want to go and fight in the war, wanted that kind of an excuse. Such people, they are not internationalists; nothing there, just talk. Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
They have an interesting organization.
UG: Yes, yes, ‘an interesting organization’! But it's never going to be materialized; you can be certain. Those who want to belong to such a group, they will be the ones who will make it impossible. Don't trust them.
You mean, because they have to be separate or different from the others?
UG: Yes.
~~~
Dear UG, there is so much sorrow and there are so many wars in the world; isn't there anything that we can do to eliminate the very cause of all this? All right, ‘make love not war’ and ‘loafing while smoking a joint and wearing flowers in the hair’ didn't work out, but there must be something that we can do to prevent the aggressive destruction of everything and everybody in this world.
The next rather aggressive conversation will show us what actually we can do to initiate this transformation. World problems turn out to be more humane than what we thought. And because of this quality they also turn out to be so terribly inhumane and difficult to solve:
UG: I am just pointing out - I am not saying anything against it - but I'm just pointing out the absurdity of man's thinking. You see, this ‘Love thy neighbor . . .’ on the one side, and killing thousands and thousands of women, children for that ideal, on the other side - that's absurd!
But is not every civilization . . . ?
This conversation speaks about our thinking structure and our civilization based on it, which have nothing to do with survival or Life. The so-called bestiality of animals is the very expression of Life, in contrast to our human brutality, which is merely a sick expression of egoism.
Does it not find its beginning in the fact that even if we do it, we know it is wrong?
UG: Why do you do it then? You say, ‘We know it is wrong.’ Knowing a thing to be wrong and still doing it is an inexcusable thing.
All justice, all right has come from the notion that it (an action) is wrong. We don't accept that people are killed. We know that every day people are killed. Nevertheless we don't accept that they are killed, and . . .
UG: What does it mean? As long as your kith and kin are not killed, it's all right, in a distant place.
No, it is not all right.
UG: If it is not all right, why do you tolerate it?
We do not tolerate it.
UG: Then, what do you do? Support it?
We don't support it.
UG: Then what do you do?
We just denounce it.
UG: What is that good for? You are so incapable of doing anything. You have elected people who butcher people. You cast your vote there, don't you?
Oh, come on, sir! You cannot speak that way!
UG: How do you want me to speak?
You cannot speak that way. That is not serious.
UG: This is serious.
This is not seriously speaking about serious problems.
UG: What are the serious problems, hmm?
The serious problems are that, although all those forces are at work, which you say, we still have to take care that the world is not becoming a total chaos. If what you say is right, we would live in total chaos in which man is like a wolf to another man, and every man eats every other man. And I don't minimize the seriousness of that.
UG: You can close your eyes and tell yourself that all is right with the world . . .
I don't close my eyes! I am not an idealist in the sense of this little-sheep-and-clergyman story, which is an old fairy tale called ‘I Change the Lamb Every Day’ (A lion and a lamb seemed to be able to live in peace with each other, but the priest later on explained that every night he replaced the half-eaten lamb with another live lamb. This funny story UG had told us a little while ago as an example of how romantic ideas of love do not have a real basis.) You know, telling this to serious people is not serious.
UG: What is so serious sir? You tell me the serious story.
The serious story is that the world is a very bloody place to live in and that we have to make it as less bloody as possible.
UG: Then we are not responsible for making the world a very . . .
We are responsible.
UG: Then what do you do about it?
Yes, we are responsible for it. All the people who don't think about it, and those who act without thinking and kill without thinking - those are the people who are making a mess in the world we are in.
UG: What is your responsibility? What is the part you can play to make this world less bloody than what it is. You please tell me, sir!
To tell people that they must use their thinking for good purposes and that they must not act like idiots.
UG: They have been telling that us for centuries. It doesn't seem to have done any good.
Policy is a thing of a very long term.
UG: Yes, and in the meantime thousands of people are dead and gone. What good is that to me?
Yes, but you accept that; you say people are doing that.
UG: What good is that to me? ‘Tomorrow it is going to be a marvelous place for people to live in, you are going to create a paradise . . .’
No, I am not creating a paradise!
UG: Then what are you going to do?
I know that culture is a thing which has to be built every day from the beginning. We are not speaking in terms of paradise and eternal good. No!
UG: What are we saying?
It's a struggle.
UG: How long?
Until the end!
UG: Seventy, eighty years of your life?
Until the end. Everybody who says there is paradise and there is a life possible without struggle - some kind of Nirvana - in which nothing happens . . .
UG: There is no such thing; it's a dream, a pipe dream. Even those who talked of Nirvana massacred people.
Yes, that's what I say!
UG: Then what do we do about it? Wait until doomsday comes, or what?
I agree with you.
UG: What do we do then!
But what are you saying about what we should do?
UG: I am not telling you to do anything. I'm just pointing out the absurdity which we have created for ourselves. And what is the way out?
I know the absurdity. But the way out, in the sense of a global, total solution tomorrow, ready for everybody, is not there. It's a struggle. It is just thinking about what can we do.
UG: And giving lectures.
Who is giving lectures?
UG: That's all; thinking can only help you with making speeches about how the world should be run, how to make the world a happy place to live in and how . . .
And how do you put an end to it!
UG: I am not (putting an end to it). You see, you are the one that is talking about struggle, struggle, struggle. And this struggle has gone on for centuries.
And you kill, kill, kill?
UG: You are killing. I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am telling you that those people who are talking of peace are the ones that are killing. Those who are talking of humanitarianism are the ones that are killing. But what about the ones who are dying!
You only take note of the fact that people are killed, and for the rest (of the people) you do nothing?
UG: What are you doing? The rest is participating in killing, sure!
And you? I don't know what you want to say. All the time I'm asking myself what is it that you want to say.
UG: I have said already that anything that you do through thinking is destructive in its very nature. And you say that impulsive action is the solution; not at all.
No, I didn't say that. No, no, no, I have asked you: ‘What is the driving force of action, because if the driving force of action is not thinking, then I only can see impulse as the driving force of action.’ This is what I asked you.
UG: That's all that you know. You see, it is neither this nor the other.
What is it then? What is the driving force of action?
UG: Any action that is born out of a motive is destructive in its nature, and it will remain that way! That's all that I am saying! So, what other action do you think you can ever have, other than this. . . ? No, it's for you to answer.
I asked you what is . . .
UG: I've told you: there is no solution. The world will go on exactly the way it has gone on for centuries.
Still, I have the . . .
UG: We can still talk about ‘try, try, try,’ but in the meantime people die. As long as they are not your kith and kin, it's all right; we can sit and talk and plan seven-year plans, fourteen-year plans, twenty-one-year plans, and (in the meantime) hundreds of thousands of people die. We can all think and prepare plans, sure.
And you think there is nothing to do about it? We have to let them die?
UG: We are letting them die. We are not interested.
You are not interested?
UG: You are not interested! You want to think; and so, if you think, what is your solution? Don't ask me what my solution is. I don't see that there is a damn thing that you can do as an individual. And if you do anything collectively, you will murder people, whether it is in the name of religion or in the name of a political ideology or in the name of a particular philosophy. And what is it that you can do as an individual? Not a thing. An individual can save himself from this monstrous situation that he finds himself in, and can live in peace in this world and in peace with himself. Whether this has an effect on the world or not, that is not your concern. So, you say, ‘I am really concerned about the world,’ but you are not doing a thing about the world. You are living in your own world. I am not saying it is wrong, but I am just pointing out what it is. Just look at it and find out for yourself if you have any solutions for the problems of the world.
You are not really interested in the world; you are interested in yourself. So, as long as you are seeking security for yourself for whatever reason, there can't be any security in this world. We are progressively moving in the direction of destroying the whole of mankind. It was not possible a few hundred years ago to destroy the whole of mankind. And that (destruction) is only an extension of the individual trying to protect his own way of life and his own way of thinking, which resulted in the discovery of destructive weapons with a tremendous power of destruction which will wipe out the whole of mankind. Individually what is it that you can do? Come out with some blueprints, talk of a utopia, the Kingdom of God or god knows what, and when?
All the religions have failed; and all the political systems have failed. There is not a thing that you as an individual can do, and you are not interested in doing anything. You are just talking of the misery of the world. And (doing something) collectively means that you will add more misery to the world. Collectively means that we all belong to one group. So, when there is one group with a particular ideology based on a particular belief, there is another group with a different ideology based on another belief. And then the beliefs fight, and anything you believe is going to be a destructive force in the world. That is all that I am pointing out.
I am not saying anything against violence. I am only pointing out that nonviolence has no basis. It's the opposite of that (violence), but there is no room for it. It is this that has turned man into a neurotic. There are two things at the same time: he is violent and he wants to be peaceful. So, wanting to be peaceful has no basis really, because he is all the time violent; there is this conflict between the two. That peace doesn't exist. What is real is the violence here.
When an individual holds an idea that he wants to be peaceful . . .
UG: That itself is violence. You see, it is like a person wanting to be healthy. If the question of wanting to be healthy arises, that means you are unhealthy. That is why you want to be healthy. So in the same way. you are already violent. What has created this situation is the other one, the concept of peace. It is like the horizon: the horizon doesn't exist at all; it is the physical limitation of the eye that has created the horizon. But there is no such thing as horizon at all. So, it is this that has created the opposite so that it can continue. You are going to be peaceful only tomorrow! But the fact is the violence here. You are not dealing with it at all. You have to do something with this and not with that peace-thinking. Deal with this and not with the one that doesn't exist, which is the idea of peace, a non-existing (peace).
You see, this discussion is meaningless, because we are discussing something which is not there at all. When that is there, you wouldn't talk or discuss it at all. You would act! And what is acting now is the violence. That is all that I am pointing out. Every culture is built on the very foundation of violence; otherwise there can't be any culture.
Your way of life is violence. You can condemn a little murderer here, a little murderer there, and put him in jail. But you see, this is sadism, (it is) sadistic. That fellow who steals your milk bottle here is put in prison for seven years. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit . . . But you are all sadistic people. He wants to eat something, that's all; he is hungry, that poor fellow. . .
All right, not an easy lesson. But the worst part is yet to come: like a real teacher UG is now going to test our comprehension:
UG: So, what have you made out of all this? You tell me.
Ehmm . . .
UG: Does it make any sense to you?
Yes . . . that you have to accept yourself as you are.
UG: Yes, but can you do that? What is the good of my telling you? You can't do that.
No, you can do nothing.
UG: So this is nonsense; it has no meaning to you.
Well, now you become aware of the fact that you . . .
UG: No, that's another word - ‘aware’. All right, all right, be aware . . . Why do you have to start schools to tell people to be aware? If an individual is not aware of his neurotic situation, why (is he not)? You see, he is a neurotic man and he wants to change the world; he is a sick man and he wants to change the whole world. And so you start schools, you start brothels, you start foundations, you start all kind of things. Do you see how it deteriorates? Not deteriorates; in the very source it is nothing. Don't blame it on the followers; it is in the very source . . . that you don't see your wanting to change this world carries this vicious thing. If you are not aware of that, hmm, we talk of ‘awareness’ - this is the worst neurotic thing that we have in this world. Anything that is born out of that will end up in psychotic situations: violence and wars. So, he, this teacher, is more neurotic than those who go to listen to him, for whatever reason. He thinks he is a sage, a wise man, an enlightened man, a transformed man; you see, that is the biggest mistake you are making or one can make. Because he is neurotic. He talks against enlightenment and yet he sits on a platform to celebrate his enlightenment day. What do you think of that fellow? He says there is no teaching, no teacher and no thought, and you do everything to preserve the teaching for posterity. What for? If that teaching is not preserved for posterity, nothing is lost for mankind.
UG seems to criticize Rajneesh and J. Krishnamurti in the above passage (1984).
UG: And all those teachings that have been preserved have created all the mess in this world; sure! It's not my personal opinion; it is history. If you read your history, you will understand. The teachers themselves are responsible. Those teachings have laid the seeds for the destruction of mankind. They can talk of love; they can talk of compassion; they can talk of kindness, brotherhood, ‘love thy neighbor,’ and all those things; but what is the result?
But when the world is perfect, then this is also perfect.
UG: When do you expect the world to be perfect? When? And all those people are perfect people, hmm, those teachers? And they have created this, their teaching!
But . . .
UG: Their teaching!
Yes, ehh, but . . . but.
UG: What ‘but, but’? Say ‘yes’. It's a fact. So, they are obviously not perfect.
Well, you once said: ‘What is wrong with the world?’
UG: I don't see anything wrong with the world. He is talking of changing the world, and those teachers are talking of changing the world. The teachers and the followers are talking of changing themselves first and then the world. I don't see anything wrong with the world. Where is the question of changing the world, reforming the world, transforming the world?
But when I see my situation, I realize that I'm completely alone, that I am creating my own world, neurotic or not. The world is my creation, my projection.
UG: Yes, all right; then what?
Well, and then you can say . . .
UG: Why do you want to change yourself, first of all? Why do you want to change that situation?
Because then you can see that you are always trying to change your situation.
UG: Yes, yes, change yourself first . . . Why
I don't know.
UG: What do you mean, ‘I don't know’? You have to find an answer for that yourself.
That feeling is there.
UG: When that feeling is there, you will create a messy world, because you are creating a mess yourself.
Yes, but what can I do with that feeling, with this desire to change? You say it's nonsense, but . . .
UG: What are you doing?
Nothing.
UG: No. You want to change, obviously! You want to bring about a change in yourself. Why you are still trying? You have failed so far.
I don't know. The desire is there, but where the desire comes from, I don't know.
UG: This desire is simply there; it doesn't have to come from heaven. It is there. So, as long as you want to change yourself, so long you will talk in terms of changing the world, and that will create the need for all those teachers. And the teachers exploit that situation. The teachers are responsible because they place before you the desire to change yourself into a better man, a kind man, a generous man, a compassionate man. Now all that has failed and then some chappy comes along and says, ‘I have a revolution, the only revolution!’ Yes, the bogus revolution! This is bogus - you see that? Or he is talking of ‘radical transformation’; well, what radical nonsense it is! The same old nonsense as always, and it comes in through the backdoor. You see, they have a new kind of cigarette to sell to people, a new brand. But actually it is the same cigarette. But you want it, and as long as you want, so long those peddlers are there in the market, selling those shoddy pieces of goods to you. You are satisfied with that. And if you don't want to change, that's the end of the whole story.
UG, but aren't you seeing the problem that in fact you are . . . - interrupts an other visitor.
UG: . . . responsible for yourself?
No, that you are doing the same thing that this man, Jiddu Krishnamurti, is doing?
UG: So, what are you doing here then? (Laughter)
No UG, no. I think this is foolish, what you say!
UG: Why do you remain foolish while you don't want to listen to the fact that you are an idiot first of all?
I am not an idiot.
UG: Then why are you here?
I am waiting for him; he'll drive me home in his car.
UG: You don't have to sit here. You can wait outside, smoke your hash. You see, you are a damn fool, otherwise you wouldn't be here!
The snappy conversation goes on for a little while. It comes down to the fact that the very presence of the visitor speaks against his own argument. Then the other person continues his questioning:
But UG, once more: when you see that. . .
UG: What do you mean, ‘When you see . . . ?’ You are not going to see! These jokers are selling that: ‘See, see, see!’ When are you going to see? You can't see.
It's a word.
UG: There is nothing to see as long as you think that there is something to see. You are hooked to that seeing. But what is there to see? There is nothing to see!
To see the desire to change yourself or the world.
UG: All right, when are you going to see that?
Ehmm . . . when you are aware.
UG: Ohww . . . All right: when is that awareness going to dawn on you?
After, ehh, after . . .
UG: After when? Never! ‘After’ means never!
Never?
UG: Never! There is nothing to see there.
I don't understand. Maybe it's stupid, but I . . .
UG: No, it's not stupid. (Smiling)
Well, is your question ‘How to stop the desire?’
A third questioner now assists the first questioner, who seems to be totally confused. There is a big difference between reading these conversations and being on the spot and participating in them.
No, no. Ehm . . . when, when, ehm no, when one, if you excuse me, ehmm . . . stutters the first visitor.
UG: You can put it in any language you want; it really doesn't make any difference.
Well, all my words are just pointers, ehh . . . signs.
UG: Mmm? Science?
Signs . . . to give direction. And they have no meaning on their own.
UG: Listen: if there isn't any meaning, you wouldn't do it. Somehow you are hooked to this idea, which is put in there by your culture, by your society, of what you call the desire to change. It has come from there and you have accepted it because (you believe) the change will help you to be in harmony with the society and not in conflict with it. That's all that you are interested in. So, when are you going to see that this desire is not going to be fulfilled at all?
And then, when you . . .
UG: When there is no seeing, there is no desire. It is the demand for seeing that in one way or the other keeps that desire going all the time. So you are not going to see that. Your seeing is only postponing the possibility of that desire to go out of your system once and for all.
The thinking?
UG: Wanting to see. This desire to bring about a change, gently or otherwise, is not going to happen, because it is not there at all. You are caught up in this problem of seeing. This is a new gimmick. Nobody is worried about seeing that; only the desire is there and either your fulfillment or suppression of the desire for some reason or the other is there. So, now you have come out with this new word ‘seeing’. The psychologists are partly responsible for that. Now ‘you have to see that,’ not to suppress your desire, not to fulfill your desire. But it's the same. This is no different from the other one. And so, he, your teacher, comes along and tells you, ‘Don't suppress your desire, don't do anything to fulfill your desire, but just be aware.’ So what is that? That is also a desire. You use another phrase: ‘Just be aware;’ hmm? That's all.
Yes, a trick of the mind.
UG: That's the same. So you are not doing anything with the desire; but you are changing these techniques. You are sold to a new technique, hooked to a new technique of ‘seeing this’ or ‘just being aware.’ But the desire is something which you cannot see. You cannot separate yourself from the desire; so there is no question of your seeing the desire at all. There is no desire; only the suppressing of your desire, for whatever reason, and the fulfilling of your desire, for whatever reason you want to fulfill your desires. Besides these things, you now have a new gimmick, a new toy to play with, and that is called, ‘Don't do any one of these things, but just be aware.’ Don't you understand that you are playing some idiot's game, a new idiot's game?
Some chappy, a very clever, persuasive chappy is selling these shoddy pieces of goods to you and you buy this junk there! And then you begin: ‘Now I am going to be just aware, without condemnation, without justification and without identification,’ and all that crap! So, new words, new phrases, but you are in the same situation. How can you look at desire, see your desire or be your desire or suppress your desire? They will go, the desires will go when the body becomes a corpse! If you do that (if your desires go) now, it (your body) is going to become a corpse now! But you are not going to kill that desire!
Ehmm . . . The last thing that I . . .
UG: Never!
Still Life Full of Action
UG's original vision about art and creativity
We may safely conclude that UG has come to destroy, and surely not to redeem or fulfill. One thing we have to realize is what ‘destroying’ means and what ‘redeeming’ or ‘fulfilling’ mean. ‘Destroying’ used in the normal sense has a negative connotation: Destroying a building will no longer provide any home to the inhabitants; destroying a love will no longer give warmth and wonder to the lovers and destroying self-respect will turn someone into a rather worthless person.
Destroying a disease, on the contrary, will turn someone into a healthy and vital person again; destroying a mental prison will set a person free again; and destroying someone's philosophy will turn him or her into a state he or she was in before that conditioning.
The ruthless cold winter not only destroys all superfluous material and transforms it into simpler elements, but it especially prepares enormous quantities of food for the diversity of life spring will bring forth. UG is like this winter with its cutting east wind and its bleak frosty nights. He settles the hash of all sultry and romantic summer reveries, or, to use a more concrete metaphor, UG makes us shiver with cold until he is convinced of the fact that we have caught the chill!
Visiting UG from time to time, it is a tall order and a provoking frustration to decry again and again that the ‘winter’ hardly has set in!
During the after-visits at UG's there was the feeling in me that now, eventually, I had understood his point of view, his ‘wisdom’. Alas, every image of a new life, colored with fresh, springtide insights and founded on solid rock bottom, was detracted by UG's fatiguing conclusion that I was, am and ever shall be fumbling after the old-fashioned scraps of an outdated culture.
As an artist it was my dearest wish to create that piece of art through which the real and infinite beauty of Life would radiate. This miraculous artwork has to reveal the great secret of existence to any person who would behold it.
Once, at UG's chalet in Gstaad, Switzerland, I showed him a color photograph of my latest artwork. To my own opinion this artwork expressed to a certain extent the poetic quality I wanted it to. It presented in a rather stylized way a master and a disciple, both testifying to the Truth. The meditating disciple was in serene surrender in the immaculate awareness of his master. The master embraced with his majestic arms and glorious look the disciple on all sides, radiating a relentless love. Master and disciple together formed a beautiful branch of the endless universe, and beyond this splendor, an all-seeing centre was giving strength and form to the harmonious composition. Here is a photograph of the artwork . . .
UG looked upon the picture from all quarters, turned it upside down, even had a glimpse of the reverse side of it as if hoping to find some indication there, and for one moment, by coincidence, watched it in the correct position. No reaction! Absent-minded and pretty indifferent, UG returned the photograph to the disappointed artist. He couldn't make head or tail of it! ‘I'm sorry,’ he apologized with a smile.
If this artwork contains any spark of ‘holy’ quality, UG would have noticed it, I said to myself. Well, anyway, he didn't show any signs in that direction. And to be honest, it is not at all UG's ‘talent’ to stimulate people in their traditional vision of philosophy, which is based on droopy-eyed disciples and bombastic bhagavans.
(By the way, proud as a peacock I'd like to tell the reader that UG in one of his visits to my studio selected a drawing he said he would like to hang on a wall of his house, if he ever owned one, which, as we know now, he never did ;-)
Lately our conversation was on art and science:
Do you appreciate art, UG?
UG: I don't care for anything. All the techniques - I'm not interested in them. Yes, I could appreciate art because I have read books on art and I saw modern artworks. But that's all. I am not interested in it. After all, it's just a technique, you see, and nothing else. Music is technique, painting is technique; all art is technique. In this technique the artist is trying to be . . . hmm - I don't like to use the word ‘creative’ - the artist is innovative. He finds new techniques: he is modifying, altering, and so on. Like that fellow, Picasso, for example. He had tremendous guts to break away from the traditional thing; so he created an altogether new school of painting, as one creates a new school of thought in the field of science.
So it is a technique. And I am not very much interested in the technique of anything, whether it is music or some other art. That's why I don't go to all these concerts. I do listen to classical music sometimes; but as a rule I don't like that music, whether Eastern or Western style, because it's a perfection of technique. They play with excellent technique.
And there is no heart in it, you mean?
UG: Nothing! There is nothing there. They can't be emotional, so modern pop music is moving in the opposite direction, trying to rouse emotions in men.
That is more valuable?
UG: All music is the same; this is only the modern trend. Why should we bother about classical music, why stick to that? Really, I never go to any of these concerts. Sometimes I listen to music on the television or on the radio if it is playing. You see, I am not interested in poetry, and not in any technique either.
No, that's not your line, poetry. That has become rather clear to me.
UG: I don't read novels either. In fiction they preach about psychological problems and all that, and that doesn't interest me. Sometimes I read crime fiction, something where action is going on, that's all. Even then it takes so many days for me to read a book. The suspense doesn't interest me. Sometimes I see a movie and have some fun. Any movie that has a psychological theme doesn't interest me. It's not that I cannot appreciate beauty or anything. But you see, you have to learn the technique in art either through cultivation or through experience. That is to say, by living in a country you cultivate the habits of that country. These are all cultivated tastes and outside this cultivation you have no way of appreciating anything at all.
Every artist is aware of the fact that a certain technique is needed to express an idea. But the artist also knows that art flourishes far beyond technique. UG even dares to dismiss the highest expressions of art and the most sacred manifestations of human culture, calling them simply ‘technique’. UG consigns all spiritual heights and emotional depths of heart in the field of art to the obtuse and dull domain of ‘technique’, as though he refuses to see the distinction between ‘tracing simply after a model’ and ‘creating under divine inspiration.’
I remember the amusing conversation a Mexican painter had one day with UG:
You know, I have been struggling so hard; through painting, through writing I have searched . . . I put my whole life in this art, in trying to express my deepest feelings, my insights and my joys.
UG: You don't want to come to grips with this problem, because it is going to destroy the whole structure of your artistic ideas!
This will what? Destroy . . . ?
UG: . . . The whole artistic structure, which you have created for yourself. You will cease to be a painter.
I insist on being a painter.
UG: You will cease to be a painter. You will stop painting; you won't be able to paint anymore.
You know . . . this I will never find in my heart. (Other visitors roar with laughter.)
The reader might arrive at the conclusion that concerning art UG was just a rattlebrain. Far from it, he was rather a genius when it came to the sources of art. The highest inspiration all artists have in their work is the inspiration they directly receive from Heaven, Absolute, or God Himself. Of this source, this field of inspiration, UG knew the ins and outs; every trick and every method in this area was present in his awareness - reason enough for UG to settle for the shabby term ‘technique’.
UG: I see what is involved in the appreciation of music or poetry. But you don't have to go to any school to learn how to appreciate the beauty in nature, hmm? Some fellow writes some lines, some poetry, or throws some special paint on canvas, and then I don't understand it. So, he wants to teach me how to appreciate his painting or poetry. You see, in that sense I mean all art is technique.
You met that man? He was the head of some German school of art. Many students came to see me in Germany when I visited him sometimes. We had known each other for many years. I talked to those students about these things. They were all shocked.
Art is imitation of what there is in nature; to me it is. You may not be conscious of the source of your imitation, but it is similar to what Valentine does: she always picks up a clover with four leafs, always. She says she is not looking for it, but she is looking for a clover of four leafs. So in exactly the same way, you as an artist are always looking for something to imitate from nature. An artist is a good imitator.
In that sense you do not appreciate the art of Zen any more than you do other schools of art, hmm, the desolate mountains, the meditative pictures and all that?
UG: No, it's just a school of art; the Chinese school, the Japanese school, the Indian school and the Western school, each with its own techniques.
Let's take Rembrandt, for example, his paintings are rather concrete . . .
UG: Listen, that fellow is trying to project his own feelings in them, that's all; his own knowing. So, that is not an exact copy like the photo. It is also an idea of the model, what that person should look like. But that is not the way the model looks exactly.
And what do you mean by ‘not exactly like a photograph?’ The reason for my question is my doubting whether UG is still talking about Art. When people compare paintings and others pieces of art with photographs by saying, ‘It very much resembles a photograph,’ one should have more than a simple doubt about their art education.
UG: Photographs are the same. I see the photographer behind it.
(Thank God!)
UG: And I am also subjective myself: I don't like certain things: for instance, in photos where there is a smile on my face. To me smiling is so artificial in my case. But people say I am smiling all the time.
Yes, this very moment you are smiling.
UG: I don't know. I don't even know that I'm smiling. But they tell me that I am always smiling.
In art it's the same as in philosophy, hmm?
UG: Yes, it's all a structure of thought. It has no meaning to me.
There is no highest form of art?
UG: No, it's still within the field of thinking. There are no absolutes for me.
UG, I always wanted to create that divine piece of art which would really give people a thrill: ‘Yes, Life is grandiose!’
UG: You will probably succeed, I don't know, but not with me. I just look at it and see there are some colors and lines there, regular lines . . . You see, you want an audience; otherwise there is no point. When you sing you want an audience, somebody to appreciate you. There is a value for that, a marketable value for everything you do. Some people say: ‘we are creative, but we don't care for any audience: we don't want art shows and so on.’ But this is nonsense. If you show it to somebody, that means you want the appreciation of that person, even if you don't want to sell it and make money.
Yes, you want some recognition.
UG: Yes, even if you don't want money in return for that.
So . . . since art and philosophy have nothing to do with what you are talking about, I have the feeling, more than ever, that I can go on being an artist, feeling free to create whatever comes up.
UG: Yes, by all means. I am not saying anything against it. But anyway, you have to have a model. You see, you are perfecting all the time, but nature doesn't use anything as a model. That is the only difference between an artist and nature.
If you free yourself from the stranglehold of technique - because a model is always used as a model for a technique - when that is destroyed, you will cease to be a painter, in the recognizable sense. That doesn't mean that abstract things are any more creative than the others. They also are created after a model, you see. There is creativity only when a finished product is not modeled after anything.
Like you? You mean yourself? You don't have a model and you cannot yourself be a model!
UG: Yes, you cannot imitate this; it's finished.
That's real creativity?
UG: Yes, because it is creating all the time something new. Although you say that there is repetition, it is not repetition in that sense. You see the contradictions there, but they are not really contradictions. So, what I said before is now destroyed by the next statement. You don't have to stick to the logical thinking of people.
Let's take Einstein. If this ‘enlightenment’ had happened to him, do you think it could have made him into an even more brilliant researcher?
UG: No, he would cease to be a scientist.
That's what would happen?
UG: You see, there are two ways: or else a man is not ambitious, in the sense that he cannot put himself where he would like to be . . .
In the sense of working at a job?
UG: Yes, in the sense of fulfilling himself. So, he is either sick or he is finished with the whole thing. When he is finished with the whole thing, he wouldn't touch it anymore. He will not become a better painter; he will not become a better artist, a better musician or a better scientist, and he will not all of a sudden have a genius mind, inventing extraordinary things - because anything that comes out of thought is destructive, in the long run.
So all his research has resulted in destruction. And if not Einstein, somebody else would have done that. That's why I am not a great admirer of Einstein. The Jewish cause was behind his research. You see, there is no such thing as pure research. He was thrown out of his country and he flourished in America. All his work was made possible in the United States. So, he didn't want Germany to win the war. Not that I wanted Germany to win the war, but . . . The craving is absent. But I still have my prejudices, my likes and dislikes. They always influence, in the sense that, for example I don't see a movie. Why? Because I don't care for that kind of a movie, you understand? So what I am saying is antisocial, anti-culture and anti-everything.
You know, the day people succeed in fitting me into their religious framework, that is the end of me.
What do you mean by ‘the end of me’?
UG: If they understand this within the framework of their religious thinking or materialistic thinking, well, that's the end.
Yes, I understand. But what do you mean by ‘the end’?
UG: If at all there is any usefulness, that usefulness is lost.
Valentine was an emancipated Western, Swiss lady, and it's a miracle that she managed to live with a rather authoritarian Indian Brahmin man for more than twenty-five years. Even the Kaumara Nadi astrologer must have been surprised when reading aloud the predictions concerning UG and Valentine.
Valentine supported UG like a truly dedicated ‘Holy Mother’ would do and she indeed was ‘holy’ in her own right, and in a Western way.
Valentine was the eldest of the three daughters of the famous surgeon Dr. de Kerven.
UG: Her father was a great researcher here. He wrote nineteen or twenty books about surgery; in all American textbooks you find a reference to him under ‘de Kerven Syndrome’.
Can you explain what the syndrome is?
I don't know. They gave me a photocopy of the explanation, but I cannot make head or tail out of it. He was always invited by the most famous clinics in America for major operations. He was very well known. Even the doctor who came to see Valentine yesterday recognized her name, ‘de Kerven’.
Two days earlier, Valentine had stumbled and fallen down on the pavement, hurting her face. That evening, along with UG and a friend she went to the Gstaad Cinema, where the three of them enjoyed the film called First Blood. Valentine liked movies because she herself had worked in the film industry; and UG was fond of the devilish actions of Sylvester Stallone. When they walked home it was dark and Valentine did not notice some steps and she fell. Her face was bleeding and she had pain. A doctor was called in quickly; he agreed to come only upon UG's insistence. When he came to know of Valentine's family name, he offered his assistance.
Was de Kerven a brain surgeon, UG?
No, his specialty was some gland, here, said UG, pointing to a place on his neck.
UG: You can see his statue in the hospitals in Bern and Basel.
Between the First and Second World Wars, Valentine was a member of a group of revolutionary artists and film people. She was nineteen then; if they would have arrested her, they would have jailed her because she was distributing all kinds of radical pamphlets. She also had her own film company called de Kerven-Films in Paris. She was really a rebel and she was the first woman to wear pants, in Paris, after Marlene Dietrich.
Valentine: Yes, Dietrich and I were the first two persons to wear pants.
Did you also meet Marlene Dietrich, Valentine?
Valentine: She was not there; she was in the North and I was in Paris.
Valentine smiles over her far-away memory.
She crossed the Sahara on a motor-bike! UG swaggered about Valentine's adventurous past. Her friend drove. At that time he was not her husband.
Valentine: He was never really my husband, Valentine was quick to correct UG.
UG: Oh no, Valentine, come on, we don't get into that story again!
Valentine: It was a play, this marriage.
UG: She never changed her family name after the marriage. When Valentine and her husband divorced they showed to the judge the contract they had signed at the time of their marriage. The judge looked at it and said: ‘You call this a marriage? This contract, free to do what she likes, to sleep with whomever she wants . . . you call this a marriage? Well, anyway, you have been separated for so many years; so this marriage is of no significance.’
And in those times, they were forced to marry. In Switzerland unmarried people could never live together under the same roof. So the police were chasing them; they had to hide and move from place to place. So finally they decided to marry on the conditions of this contract. It was very different in those days, very difficult. I don't know, maybe I have the copy of that contract somewhere . . .
UG, this journey across the Sahara; did Valentine do this because of her film work?
UG: No, she was just going on a vacation. Yes, she made so many documentaries. I don't know what happened to her films. She gave a lot of them to the Bern University. She made most of them for her father: they were documentaries on medicine and surgery. She also made a documentary on the Gypsies; it was shown all over the world.
And what was the period of her film career?
UG: In the thirties, I think, before the war. Yes, just before the war. And she had this film company until the Second World War broke out. She came from abroad and got stuck here in Switzerland; she could not go out. She drove to Switzerland in her Chevrolet.
She had a Chevrolet then?
UG: Yes, and during the war she had to keep it in the garage as she had no petrol to drive it. And then, after two, three years - this story is interesting - they wanted her to pay duty, customs duty or something.
Valentine said, ‘I don't use this car, and the car has been sitting here for more than a year, two years, or even three years.’ She refused to pay: ‘You can do what you like with this car, but I am not going to pay this duty!’ And that was at a time when people were going around collecting nails and any small piece of metal. There was a shortage of everything. And they dumped this car into the lake. It was a big scene.
Valentine: Oh, it was a scene yes!
UG: Because she refused to pay the customs duty which amounted to more than what she paid for the car. And the seats in the car were new. They floated in the water and the boys there jumped into the lake and tried to salvage them. But the police made holes in them and destroyed them.
Valentine: Yes, they were horrible, because they could have taken the car; that was their right. But they brought it to the lake and, pffft, they dropped it into it.
UG: Stupid, at a time when metal was in shortage and everybody was collecting nails and so on.
UG: Oh yes! Valentine also wanted to fight against Franco in Spain. She obtained a fake passport and I think she probably learned how to shoot and such. Then, in the last minute, her boyfriend backed out, and she didn't want to go alone.
UG, you said that Valentine was never interested in the process of your Natural State. Is that really true, because I cannot imagine that she would not be interested?
UG: No, no, she was interested, but she never spoke about it. So many people have tried to draw her into conversation about this point, but I told her, ‘No, don't talk about it.’
During our journey across the Alps, of which I wrote in the beginning of this book, I asked UG how Valentine reacted to his ‘influence’ and whether she had at times experienced higher levels of consciousness. Of course, this was a risky question, to ask UG about ‘higher levels of consciousness’. But this time he surprised me by answering it in an affirmative way: Yes, she never talks about it with anybody, but it certainly happened that she had experienced higher levels of consciousness. But she has never made these things known to anyone.
Anyway, Valentine never showed a trace of vanity, pride, self-complacency or other egocentric attributes. She really was unselfish and she had a natural charm of her own. She was always interested in the people who came to visit UG and her.
Valentine's positive and humorous attitude to life was rather unique, especially when we think of her circumstances in life in respect to her age - she was eighteen years older than UG. But if we realize her busy daily life, her enchantment with UG becomes even more worthy of respect:
Living in the sublime company of an enlightened human being is of course the best life one could ever wish, but it might not be so easy. Many people who lived with UG for some time, said it was heavy to be in his company for such long time. Spending a few days or weeks with him is nice and interesting, but living with him for many weeks at a stretch can be tiresome. The effect of UG's Natural State on the ‘Unnatural State’ of people is exhausting. Our few exhausting weeks compared with Valentine's twenty-five years may show Valentine's traits of patience and endurance. Most people will find that, in the long run, they are deprived of their privacy: there is always the all-seeing eye of UG to correct every scrap of egoism. Valentine never had a moment for herself.
If her spiritual life with UG was not easygoing, Valentine's material life wasn't easy either nor was it ordinary.
During the last twenty years of her life, Valentine was UG's fellow traveler. In winters they flew to India, where they stayed in Bombay with friends who were prominent in the Indian film industry. A month later, they would go to Bangalore, again seeing many friends and sitting in a room which contained twice as many visitors as the room could comfortably hold - day after day. Next, they would leave the broiling weather of India for the fresh weather of Europe, mostly Rome. Here UG and Valentine would stay for some weeks with their Italian friends, till it was time to travel to Switzerland. In Gstaad they lived in a nice chalet built on a hill at the foot of the Hornberg. The terrace in front of the house offered a beautiful view of the village and the far-away snow-covered mountains of the Swiss Alps. Of course, Valentine and UG were not the only people who enjoyed this view; many visitors came to see UG and asked him questions, hundred days at a stretch.
In the mornings, when UG was answering the first questions of this day, Valentine went shopping (she liked walking down the hill), buying something for lunch and diner, and then walking back up the hill.
At the end of August, they might go to London or Amsterdam. It depended on their airline ticket - whether it permitted them to make a stopover. If a stopover was not possible, they might travel by car, driven by some friend. In later years, in the middle of September, the destination was the United States of America: a few weeks in New York, a few weeks in Mill Valley, a few weeks here and a few weeks there. Next in the itinerary was Brazil, then Australia and New Zealand. And at the end of their travel they would return to Bombay or Bangalore in India where a new round-the-world trip would start.
UG and Valentine traveled all over the world. And don't think that UG because of his Natural State and Valentine's old age brims over with gallantry towards Valentine, no! She always had to squirm to sit in the backseat of a taxi or a friend's car; UG always wanted to sit in the front seat.
All right, he would always give a helping hand when Valentine stepped into the car and he always said that she must watch her head when she got into it, but that was all; and Valentine prefers to agree with her ‘Patron Saint's’ suggestions.
Once in my Renault 16 TX, we were riding on the highway at great speed, from Amsterdam to Brussels. UG sitting next to me, and Valentine on the backseat, sitting right behind UG. One moment UG had to spit out some saliva . . . He opened his window and spat his saliva outside the car, he thought. But strong wind hit the spit back inside the car, straight onto Valentine's face. I saw the scene and told UG what happened. He didn't excuse himself really, and Valentine took the saliva away with some tissue . . . without any mockery.
Unfortunately, at the age of eighty-five, Valentine's memory started failing. She seemed to suffer the Alzheimer's disease. After a lifetime of traveling, rebellious initiatives and the courageous enterprises, she now was unable to keep traveling around the world with UG. Chandrasekhar and his wife Suguna, truly compassionate friends of UG and Valentine, tended her in their house in Bangalore. Although she forgot many events of her life, she still had her Swiss vitality. For some more years her health was extraordinary.
Some time ago, one evening in Amsterdam, after UG had had his conversation with visitors, UG and some of his friends were remembering Valentine, her character, her funny remarks, her tragic days and also her mysterious deeds:
UG: I tell you, Valentine was very clever. When she created this fund for my travels she said: ‘This money is only for the purposes of UG's stay in Switzerland and for his travels. It should not be used for propagating what he says and nothing should be added to the fund.’
When did she create this fund?
UG: A few months after she had met me!
UG, can you say how it is that Valentine created this fund for you, and why she was so convinced about you?
UG: Don't ask me, and don't ask anybody. You see, she never answered that question. One thing she said was: I have found a reason to live, and this man is the reason. She was about to commit suicide: she wanted to jump in the river the previous day but she didn't have the courage. This happened the day before she had met me.
That day we met we sat there, talking for two hours, and then, within a month she said: I have now a reason to live; everything I have is yours. I said to myself, ‘This woman, what can she give me? She is working in a consulate.’ She said to me: ‘I can make it possible for you to live in Europe. I'll open an account in a bank,’ she said, and the next day she came to me with a receipt, showing that she deposited all her money. This was in 1964. Everything she had - all the diamonds, gold and silver - she sold and she said, ‘When the time comes, I will sell my house.’
They have already made her into a Holy Mother. You have seen that in that movie. Yes, she is ‘the Mother’, like Aurobindo's Mother; they have made Valentine into that. But she has no illusions; she is not that type.
You see, two things kept us together: one, if you don't have any physical relationship, it's a lot easier. And that kind of a thing was absent; and second, Valentine knew all the time that I wouldn't give a damn for her or for her money, that I would drop her just like that. And she knew that I was not dependent; she was more dependent, psychologically, than I was.
Valentine never shed tears; I never saw her doing that, although Marissa (their Italian friend) says that one day, when I was very harsh and cruel with her, she cried, it seems. ‘It is too much for me, I can't take it anymore!’ Valentine apparently said to Marissa. I never saw her crying myself. If she had cried (snaps his fingers), then I would have thrown her out in one minute. You see, I would never tolerate crying. That's not a thing that will win me over. I used to tell Parveen too (a famous Indian actress who lived with UG and Valentine for half a year): ‘You just get lost! Your crying doesn't impress me. I don't know how good an actress you are. Your acting is not going to impress me, Parveen. Be careful! Don't do such things.’
In the years we were together, before my calamity, Valentine was interested in helping me write my autobiography: ‘That's my mission in life; he is an extraordinary man,’ she said. But I never talked to her about enlightenment; by that time it was all finished for me. But she insisted that I should write the story of my life. So, we prepared a book, a four-hundred-page book. When we finished the book, this thing happened, this calamity.
We were writing the chapters on Jiddu Krishnamurti, my encounters with Krishnamurti. So, we went to Paris; we went everywhere to collect material, to get hold of Krishnamurti's talks, my questions and articles that appeared in the Theosophical magazines and all that. I didn't want to go to Krishnamurti's talks - I was finished with that. But when we were in Montreux, Valentine said: ‘Look here, that man is giving talks here where we are going to stay. Why not we go and listen to him?’ Well, that sounded very reasonable to me, so we went. At the end of the talk Valentine summed up her impressions about Krishnamurti by saying something very interesting: ‘That man, Jiddu Krishnamurti, does not belong to our times; he belongs to the last century. What is he saying?’ She elaborated: ‘His analysis is interesting, but what is he saying? He belongs to the last century with all the poetry, romantic stuff and so on.’ Remarkable summing up; nobody ever summed up like that. She was intelligent, a very intelligent woman.
So, she managed this fund until four or five years ago. She was handling the whole thing. However, without my knowledge she never did anything. It's not mine anymore, she would say, ‘My Avis credit card is enough for me.’ But she knew, and I told her, ‘Any day, anytime you want, Valentine, you may go, and this money is yours.’ I was not in any way dependent on her. And we got along very well.
But sometimes you also were cruel to her . . .
UG: Very.
Yes, but why? . . . Why!
UG: I don't believe in all this sentimental nonsense. You see, you will do exactly the opposite. That's why people are surprised. What I have done, you see, you cannot do such things. That cruelty is necessary. Last year, I dragged her with me, you remember? And you were all shocked. She came running and she enjoyed the walking afterwards. But you are all sentimental people. You don't mean what you say. You are the most vicious people. There is nothing to your sentimentality; there is nothing to your feelings. Sentimentality - there is no reality to that. If everything else fails, you say, ‘I love you darling.’ What the hell are you talking about! ‘You must do this for me darling, because if you love me, you should do it.’ What the hell!
So a perfect relationship is a relationship of people who do not need each other?
UG: But you need! You use them; that's all - nothing wrong with it. And if you put it on that level, then it's simple, very simple.
Did Valentine ever say that she loved you, UG?
UG: No. What is that love you are talking about? She was attached to me; that was obvious. She was psychologically dependent on me. But I didn't exploit it.
But wasn't this attachment colored by love or tenderness?
UG: What tenderness? Nothing. I did not have that kind of a thing. She could go!
Yes, about you we know, you told us already.
UG: What?
That you don't have these feelings.
UG: You see, if I do, whatever I am doing, it is not because I feel for it, but because it has to be done. I don't do it because I think she is a weak, helpless woman and she has been with me. I don't do it because she did anything to me; no reciprocity there. She could take her money and go. That was my line always: ‘Valentine, take your money and run!’ (Laughter)
That was your way of shedding tears for her?
UG: Not my tears. They are disgusting, tears!
Oh yes, I remember UG, when Valentine was angry at you in Switzerland. Valentine and I were walking arm in arm, and I said to her: ‘Well, you know how they are, men.’ And Valentine said with a touch of pathos in her voice: ‘Yes, I know, Margreet . . .’
UG: You know, the most interesting thing was this: we were about to leave for the United States. Parveen Babi also was there. I told Valentine: ‘If you bring any more luggage than what this small suitcase can hold, you are not coming with me. I am leaving you here and I am going.’ She jumped up and down and did all kinds of things. This was four or five years ago. And then Parveen interfered; she said: ‘Don't listen to UG, I will help you. We will both pack up. He is horrible, isn't he?’ And then Valentine's answer was very interesting. She said: ‘You know Parveen, I have met lot of men in my life; he is the kindest man I have known in my life. And you can imagine the rest!’ Parveen was flabbergasted: ‘What is this woman saying? I have known lot of men in my life, but he is the kindest man I have met in my life; you can imagine the rest!’
Even later when people asked her, Valentine, do you think UG is kind? Is he nice? And if you pushed her she would say: ‘Yes, yes, he is very nice, very kind.’
Omniscience, a Matter of Knack
Buddha never answered questions concerning the world. UG's answer in these matters often sounds like: ‘I don't know; I really don't know!’
In philosophical circles people very well know, or at least take it for granted, that realized or enlightened people often have the power of omniscience. This means they have the power to know anything they want to know.
Once I read in a book about a sage who, if he just had that wish, could come to know the quality of the weather in New York while sitting in his room in Bombay, without using the telephone or radio. Of course, no sage is interested in any weather, but if it should be of any importance, he would have some way of obtaining the knowledge about it.
Although we are convinced that this superficial information is not very useful, at the same time, it intrigues us why this strange power has not been used to predict catastrophes or other mundane matters. Why don't sages use this wonderful quality to solve problems such as famine, incurable diseases, the threat of nuclear war, pollution, worldwide financial crises and all the malicious worldly pleasures?
All right, a sage, a real holy man might have this power of omniscience and at the same time, by an invisible law not have the authority to enlighten the whole of mankind. For the time being we will settle for that. But why doesn't he use his power for anything at all? Why does UG, for instance, reply so many times with the words: ‘I really don't know?’
When a realized man is no longer separated from the One Universal Life, it's easy to imagine that he is able to know anything merely by wanting it. We, unenlightened people, only have to open our eyes to perceive the whole world around us; we don't have to create that world, it's already there. Like in this example, the sage only has to ‘open’ his wish (book) to know and he has the knowledge he asked for.
Inviting UG to speak about this all-knowing faculty, someone asks him whether there might be a form of not-knowing as an equivalent of knowing.
Listen to why, according to UG, this all-knowing mystery is only a matter of knack:
UG: . . . The statement ‘I do not know’ is not a logically ascertained conclusion or premise. There is an assumption, as you put it, that the so-called realized men, enlightened men or twice-born men have this all-knowing faculty. But that is one of the mistaken assumptions on the part of people who assume in the first place that somebody is a twice-born man. And if any claims are made by those people strongly believe that someone is twice-born, then it is very important for us to understand what exactly is meant by ‘knowing’. You see, they also use ‘all-seeing’. ‘All-knowing’ and ‘all-seeing’ are misinterpreted terms.
When you are looking at something, what is there? The object out there is demanding your total attention. That is the one that is demanding your total attention. It is not that you are totally aware of it or that you are trying to see that object out there totally - it is the other way around . . . because whatever is happening there is demanding your total attention. And at the same time everything that is happening there is also distracting your attention. So, everything that is happening is demanding your attention, total attention, at that particular moment in that frame of your seeing. You see, that is all that is there. So it is in that sense the term ‘all-seeing’ means ‘I see whatever is there.’ Because in that situation all that you know about that thing is absent. The knowledge you have about what you are looking at is absent. I don't know if I make myself clear?
When I say, I don't know anything beyond that, I mean (what I know is) not any different from what you know about it; (I mean that) you have no way of knowing something other than this knowledge. It's not that you say to yourself, ‘I don't know it,’ but there is nothing to know other than what you already know about that particular object out there or about the objects inside of you. (Actually there is no inside or outside.)
So the object out there is a microphone, a tape recorder and a man sitting there - he wears an ochre robe. He is a man and not a woman. That is a woman and she is not a man. And see, when the eyes are focused on the objects out there - I want you to look at it, please look that side - there is a reflection of the light on that watch there. Do you see it? So your whole attention is drawn to, focused on the reflection of that particular object there. Now you are nodding your head, so that movement is now demanding my attention and so my attention has moved away from the previous object. Even if you are looking at an extraordinary sunset, the movement of some red rag somewhere is drawing your attention. It is in that sense one is not involved in any movement of pleasure. If you say, ‘It's an extraordinarily beautiful object,’ and continue to look at it, and get involved and absorbed in it, it does not mean that there is something beautiful there, because that (your statement) is only an expression of sensual activity. It is a movement of pleasure. You don't want to look at anything else. You are concentrating on that through your effort and will. I don't know if I make myself clear? It is very difficult.
Other than this (knowledge) I don't know anything (else) about it, and there is no way of knowing anything about it!
So, in exactly the same way, you have a certain experience: you feel happy or unhappy. That is also an object there inside of you. If the knowledge you have of those feelings and sensations is absent, what that particular feeling is or what that particular sensation is you have no way of knowing. You know that there is some sensation, and you give it a name and call it boredom, happiness or unhappiness - you call it this, that or the other. But when that knowledge is absent, you have no way of knowing what that particular sensation is. In other words, you really don't know whether you are happy or unhappy.
So, if somebody asks me the question ‘Are you happy?’ that question is a ridiculous question, because I really don't know what happiness is. If you don't know what happiness is, there may be a happy feeling there, yet you don't know what that feeling is because the knowledge that you have about that feeling is absent. Since you really don't know what that is, you don't say that you are happy and you don't say that you are unhappy.
Since you don't know what happiness is, you will never be unhappy in your life, because the two go together.
It is in that sense that other than what I have been told and what I have experienced through the help of that knowledge I have no way of knowing what that is. It is not that I am ignorant, because when there is a demand for that - for example when you ask me the question ‘What is that?’ - I would immediately say ‘That's a microphone.’
The information, the knowledge you have about all that is locked up there in your memory cells. But since there is no demand for that knowledge to be in operation, what is going on is only the sensory perception: the light is falling on that and the reflection of the object throws an image on the retina here - that's the physiological explanation. So that light is activating the optic nerves here and automatically your memory cells are also activated. But because you are constantly moving from one object to the other, there is no possibility of the memory cells being activated simultaneously with the activation of the optical nerves.
It is not that you are moving from object to object, but the things that are happening out there are constantly making your attention move; not just your attention, your total being is involved in whatever you are looking at. It is not that you are trying to look at it, but that particular thing is demanding (your attention). So, it doesn't matter whether it is the beautiful face of a woman or a beautiful sunset or the ugly thing that is there, that garbage bag. It doesn't matter what it is. Of course, you never say that the beautiful sunset and the ugly garbage can are the same. But in a particular situation your eyes are focused on that garbage can; in another situation your eyes are focused on the sunset; and in a third situation the moving of that tape recorder is demanding your attention.
So, when I say, ‘I really don't know and I have no way of knowing it,’ I mean that what all you know is all that is there and beyond that you have no way of knowing anything about it, and there is no need for you to know anything. It is in that sense that I say, ‘I don't know, I really don't know what that object is.’
‘How can you be that dumb?’ you can ask me. It's not that I am dumb or that I don't know. All the knowledge I have about things is in the background and there is no demand for that knowledge. If there is a question, automatically the answer comes: ‘That's a microphone, that's a tree, that's an ashtray, that's a beautiful flower and that is . . .’ whatever the color is, you know.
So, that's all that is there. ‘All-seeing’, ‘all-knowing’ mean: All that you know is all that is there, and beyond that there is no need for you to know anything. It does not mean that there is something extraordinary to know about the things.
Yesterday, we were discussing the same question: if you want to know the reality of anything, you have no way of knowing it. The only way you can know anything about anything is to use the knowledge you have, and with the help of that knowledge you abstract something and experience it. That is all that you know.
It is in that sense that I say ‘I don't know.’ That does not mean that it is still in the field of knowledge, but that other than what I know, I have no way of knowing anything about it.
Is there a stopping of learning?
UG: No. If I don't know, I would ask somebody ‘What is that?’ and so I learn. That learning is not in operation all the time. The next moment the knowledge I have about that object is pushed into the background and I really don't know what I am looking at, because the thought about that or the knowledge about it is not in operation, and you are not separate from what you are looking at. Only when the knowledge comes in there, that knowledge separates you from what you are looking at.
Otherwise, there is no division between these two; there is no space between them. Just the way the reflection of an object in the mirror gives you the feeling that there is depth. When the object is reflected on the retina, it also creates the depth there, but that depth or space, or whatever you want to call it, is something which cannot be experienced by you except through the help of the knowledge. That knowledge is the information you have about those things. It's not something mystifying or mysterious. That's all that is there. There is nothing else there other than the knowledge you have about yourself and the knowledge about the things around you. So that is the ‘I’, that is the ‘you’, that is the self, the mind or whatever you want to call it.
Since you have a feeling that there is a totality of all this knowledge, a totality of all these experiences, there is an illusion that there is somebody who is looking at it.
So, the answer I am giving to your question is your answer, it is not my answer. I am not giving any answer to your question. It is not that I am mystifying it, but your answer has activated certain things here and what is coming out of me is not my answer, but the answer out of which your question has arisen. I don't know if I make myself clear.
I am pointing out that the question has no meaning, that the question is irrelevant, because that question is born out of the knowledge you already have about whatever you are asking me about. So, I am not giving any answer to your question at all. What I am trying to say is that there is nobody who is talking here; this is an automaton. You are playing the ‘tape recorder’ yourself, because you are interested in finding out the answers to all those questions. If there is any recording of those answers, in other words, if the knowledge is available there, then it comes out; otherwise, it is an empty tape, it doesn't know what it (the answer) is. It has no record of anything you are asking about. You are playing the tape recorder: you are stopping, you are listening, and you like particular statements and you don't like other statements that are recorded on the tape. It is your business and I am not in any way involved in it.
There is an instrument here, a highly perfected instrument, a very sensitive instrument, if I may use this metaphor. You come here and you play it. The tune is yours, the lyric is yours, the music is yours - everything is yours. And the instrument that you are playing is not in anyway interested in what you are doing with it or involved with what you are doing.
So there is no need for the knowledge to operate all the time. If the continuity of the knowledge is not there, then the knowledge as you know yourself and as you experience yourself is not there. That means that you are not there. That is a situation which is very frightening to you. That is why you maintain all the time the constant movement of the knowledge you have about yourself and the knowledge you have about the things around you. They are one.
This is not something mysterious. It's just like a computer, that's all - an extraordinary computer with an extraordinary sensitivity. You put in this knowledge there and what comes out of it is the printout. If the information is not there, you don't get any answer. But the answer that comes out of it is really not the answer, because you don't want an answer to your question.
The answer should put an end to your question which is born out of the answer. This is what I am all the time emphasizing, namely, that ‘You are asking questions for which you already have answers.’ So, if you look at the question which you frame, you already have the answers, the answers given by others. At the same time, my statements are intriguing to you because you ask, ‘How can you say that you don't know?’ or ‘Is that not part of your knowledge?’ That's your question. If I say, ‘I have no way of knowing it’ or ‘I really don't know,’ then that answer is intriguing to you, because you know that within your logical and rational thinking there cannot be any answer like ‘I don't know’ unless you know that you don't know.
So you know, and I don't know (people chuckle) . . . because what there is in that situation is something which cannot be known by me. When the knowledge is absent, what is there, what is happening and what is the activity that is going on there at that particular moment are things about which I have no way of knowing. That's all that I am saying: ‘I really don't know.’ And I know what this is all about; that's all that I know.
You ask me the question ‘Is there anything other than that?’ They say that there is something other than that, but I say there is nothing more than that, because when that movement is absent, what there is you will never know.
You cannot accept my statement because it is not part of your experiencing structure. Your question is a legitimate question: How is it possible for that man to say ‘I don't know’? Where does that statement come from, if the knowledge is absent there? So (you think that) it (the statement) must necessarily be part of his knowledge. The knowledge is ‘He does not know.’
I can sit here and talk for two hours, four hours, six hours, but you have no way of knowing anything about this statement for the simple reason that there is no reference point there. And so you have necessarily to reject it; you don't know what he is talking about. This statement should put you also in a state of not- knowing. Then there wouldn't be any more questions.
If you say ‘I understand,’ all questioning mechanisms should come to an end. Since the questions are continuing, it only means that there is no understanding.
When that questioning mechanism is absent there in you, there is an understanding that such questions have no answers. Not that you understand through the answers given to the question or through asking more and more questions, but when there is an understanding that such questions have no answers and that all questions are born out of the answers you already have, then that is the understanding that I am talking about. It is not something that can be brought about either through questioning or through discussion or through any other means. When that situation is already there, there is nothing to understand. That's the reason why you are not asking the question, except the questions that you need to ask to communicate, to function in this world.
Have you not noticed a child when he or she asks questions: ‘What is that?’ ‘What is this?’ ‘What is that?’ (You answer by saying, for instance) ‘That's a typewriter,’ ‘That's this,’ and so on. They go on and on and on, and gather all the information. So, every time they see the same object they repeat, ‘That's a typewriter,’ and so on.
You are also doing that. This is an infantile, immature activity that is going on all the time.
Why do you have to tell yourself that you are happy, that you are not happy, that you are miserable, or that you are bored? Or that this is a tree, that's a woman, that is this? Or you are thinking about something that happened in the past, or you want to think about something in the future, what is going to be your future.
This is going on all the time. You have no future at all because there is no present there; you are all the time living in the past.
So, to talk of ‘now’, ‘here and now,’ ‘this moment’, ‘you must live in this moment,’ all that is absolute rubbish! Because the ‘now’, this present moment is something which can never be experienced by anybody. When there is no present, there can't be any future. Sure!
So this is the present, hmm? We are all here and at this moment the present is in operation here. So tell me what exactly you mean by ‘now’?
Anything you say about this ‘now’, anything you experience about what you call ‘now’, is the past. What you know about that is the past. The past is in operation, and as long as the past is in operation so long the present is absent. Since there is no present at any time, there can't be any future. There is future (in the sense that, for example), tomorrow is Sunday, and probably you go ahead and plan for a walk. But there is no guarantee that I will go for a walk: maybe I will be knocked down by a car. So you have no way of being certain about anything in the future.
What kind of a future does anybody want? ‘I want to be enlightened, I want to understand what this chappie is talking about.’ But you are not going to understand this at all, because you are not here and now. You are all the time thinking of the past. The instrument which you are using to understand is a movement of the past. So what is in operation at this particular moment is the past. The future you are projecting is a fantasy. You don't have health, so you want to be healthy; you don't have a job, so you want to get a job; you don't have money, so you want to have money. This is the extension of the past into the future; that's all that you are doing all the time.
Therefore you use effort, you use will, and probably you will succeed sometimes, but the instrument which you are using is always the instrument you have been using all the time. There is no ‘now’ at all. This is not a dogmatic statement, but you can test for yourself how you are functioning at this particular moment here, which is the present, which is the now. That flower that is sitting there in front of you is (in) the present. So look at that and tell me what exactly you mean by ‘present’. If you say it is a flower, it's the past knowledge you have about it that is in operation. So tell me, apart from all you know, is there anything to be known?
After this challenging invitation of UG, there were a couple of minutes of utter silence. UG, being bombarded by billions and billions of anonymous moments of ‘now’, speaks:
UG: So when the movement of the past is absent, what is happening there is something you will never know. You have no way of knowing it at all. It is in that sense that I say: ‘I don't know.’ The ‘now’ can never be experienced by you; much less can you talk about it. You can say that it is bliss, beatitude, love, and all that kind of stuff. But you see, that is poetic, romantic stuff which really doesn't mean anything. The moment you capture that within the framework of your experiencing structure, it's already (in) the past. So you must know what is happening and you must know what is there, because if you don't know, you are not there. That is you; there is nothing else there but the knowledge you have about yourself. So this knowledge you have built up into a tremendous structure, through years - twenty, fifty years - and this structure is not going to let that happen (to let go the of framework of this knowledge); it is a self-perpetuating mechanism.
If you don't know what you are looking at, that is a very dangerous situation. So there is a tremendous fear that what you know about yourself is finished.
It (the knowledge) doesn't go that easily. It's not something that you can experience as an ecstatic, blissful and pleasant thing. It will have a shattering effect on you. The sudden disappearance of something that has been there all the time - like a car moving with a tremendous speed suddenly stopping - will give a tremendous jolt and breaks everything that is there. It blasts everything, every nerve, every cell you have there in that body . . . Because it is that that has been controlling everything that is there all these years. So it is not going to let this go, this whole thing. It has to capture that. It must know!
This is why you are asking the question. This movement of knowledge can continue only when you add more and more to it. You want to know. It wants to know ‘What will be that ‘now’ when this movement of the past is absent?’ That is why it is asking the question. And through the answer it gathers momentum: ‘Wanting to know!’
If I say: ‘You have no way of knowing it at all,’ that means this is the end of the whole search, the end of the whole inquiry, the end of the whole questioning mechanism that is interested in this knowing.
UG, before your calamity, you were once totally clairvoyant and clairaudient, hmm?
UG: Like an X-ray I could see through the whole of the physical body, as it were. It really doesn't mean anything, because when thought becomes more and more refined, it is like a sensitized medicine. But it's the same thought that is playing tricks with itself. So like a computer it projects the future, which is a projection of your own thought. It doesn't mean that it is so. It's just the projection of refined thought into what it calls the future. But basically it is only an extension of the past.
That was a trick, you see. I realized the absurdity of what was going on and I paid no attention to it. It may be your own wishful thinking sometimes, so what value does it have? Even assuming for a moment that there is something to all those things - clairvoyance and clairaudience - they are worthless, they are all instincts of human beings. There is nothing spiritual about them. Animals have these tremendous instincts which we have lost. The so-called psychic powers are essential for the survival of the living organism. It is a physical phenomenon which has no spiritual content in it at all.
When I walk in the streets, thought is never in operation. I am only guided by my sensory activity. All the senses are extraordinarily sensitive. The eyes are measuring distance without your doing anything (about it). The olfactory nerves are detecting the smells of the fumes. Sounds are measured by the listening mechanism. The sense of touch also measures distance, because the vibration of that object behind you is the same as the vibration of your body. So it (the organism) is in a very mechanically way protecting itself, by measuring all these things without the interference of thought. These instincts are only there for the survival of this living organism, and they have no spiritual value at all.
To look into the future or your future lives or into the past or your past lives is all just fancy stuff, fantasies!
They indulge in such fantasies and make you believe that there is something to them. And you share those fantasies; that's all.
One burning question: what about love?
UG: What love?
Well, people feel . . .
UG: Do you know about love or are you asking me?
What do you think about it? People are attracted to one another and feel good when they see someone in particular . . .
UG: Yes, and if you don't get what you want out of that relationship, what is there in its place?
Nothing.
UG: Oh no! Then there is hate. Sure! And if you don't want to call that hate, call it indifference or antipathy. So, love and hate go together; they are one and the same. Instead of calling this sex activity ‘love’, leave it alone, you see, and it falls in its rightful place. The sex relationship - why cover it up with high-sounding words like ‘love’? It is always related to something: you love your country, you love your family or you love your neighbor. You know, it is always in relationship to something. When there are no two, there is no love there.
You are interested in creating perfect and loving relationships in this world because all the relationships are terrible, painful. And we superimpose on that the divine love, cosmic love or god knows what. You want the relationship to be permanent, but there is no permanence at all. There is that demand for permanence because of man's sorrow. Permanent pleasure, permanent happiness, permanent bliss, permanent relationships - but things are constantly changing.
Somebody asked me the question about some guru who says that ‘Sex is the means of putting yourself into a state of samadhi.’ Neither the man who suggests that technique as a means of putting yourself into a state of samadhi is an enlightened man, nor is the one who is practicing sex as a means to put himself into a state of samadhi going to be enlightened.
As a matter of fact, sex is not necessary for the body; the body can survive without sex, but without food it cannot. I am not saying anything for or against sex.
You see, they have done lots of experiments. Not only the sex act, but the very thought of sex is disturbing the chemistry of the whole body. They have observed how it is disturbing the whole chemistry of the body. It is essential for reproduction, to recreate, to carry on life. That's all. It is not intended for your pleasures.
It has become possible for men through the help of thought to have sex any time they want. But that is not possible for animals. Through the help of thought it has become possible for humans to have sex any time they want it. And it is the very same thing that has created the problem. You know, sex becomes a bore. It's a bore, so you have to invent thousands and thousands of ways and techniques of having sex, hmm? You turn that into a problem. It is not a problem! For what has sex to do with you? It has a life of its own. What has the heart to do with you? It is functioning in its own way. What do the pancreas and the liver have to do with you? And what have you to do with them?
UG and Margreet were having the next conversation together with some friends around, while I was installing my cassette recorder. The subject was that ‘Sex is never peaceful.’
UG: Whenever or wherever there is the sex, the ‘better’ is also part of that situation.
The what?
UG: If there is sex, if there is any relationship, a better relationship and a better sex, more kicks and more sex also are part of that situation.
There is a book called The Happy Hooker. Do you know that book UG?
UG: The Happy Hooker, yes I have heard of that book. What's the name of that woman . . . It begins with ‘X’. Yes, I remember, she has written two or three books and ultimately she comes to the idea of living with one person (laughs). After years, at last, she talks of love; and, you see, she has had sex with everybody she could imagine - all the kicks. In the end she says there is some beauty in living with one person. Beautiful relationship! (Laughing again.)
I know that situation, but when I meet a man for the first time I have a kick, hmm?
UG: That is natural.
Yes, that's natural, and so I am jolly well interested in sex. But I have living together with my friend now for one and-a-half years already, but I am not so enthusiastic about him every day because he is not such a kick for me anymore. Please, don't laugh UG! This is serious.
UG: No, I am not laughing. This is only natural.
Yes, but then I thought: well, it is so easy for a woman in The Happy Hooker - everyday another man, everyday a new fresh kick. So, I am wondering what is more natural - to live with one lover and reach to an ever-deeper relationship with him, or to live the way your impulse seduces you and perhaps live a more superficial life? Actually to me it seems more natural to do what your feeling tells you to do.
A very long conversation follows about ‘What is a more natural, better and healthy thing to do in the field of sexuality and relationships?’ One of the conclusions arrived at is that ‘Anyway, it's not really a question of sex.’ Margreet says in this conversation that she likes to have sex with the nice people she meets, yet, at the same time, she doesn't want to risk her relationship with me, her boyfriend. The problem concerning sexuality and relationship turns out to be a moral problem.
UG: The fear is the fear of ‘losing what you have.’ That is really the fear. You are not sure of the other man you want. There is the fear of ‘losing what you have’, of ‘losing what you know’ and you are uncertain of the situation here. So, it doesn't matter whether you sleep with your own boyfriend or with someone else.
If that morality is absent, then sex goes! When you really can come to a point that it really doesn't matter, then you will not sleep even with this fellow, your own boyfriend, let alone others. But you are still caught up in the moral problem. You can't say that you are free from the moral structure of the society; not at all! That's humbug. You see, you can fool yourself; but it's still a moral problem. The very questioning that is going on there, the discussion within yourself, the dialogue, the pros and cons means that you are still in the moral framework. When that is finished, there is no question of living with him or with anybody. It's finished once and for all.
The whole sex?
UG: The whole thing is finished. Not only sex, everything is finished: looking at sunrise or sunset, climbing the mountains or swimming in the oceans, crossing them on rafters, sitting there and looking at the tree, the flower - all of that is sensual activity, not different from sex. I am not condemning sex, you see, but the whole movement of pleasure is finished for you. And that is not what you really are interested in; so you will be miserable, no matter what you do. Always!
You are bound to be miserable. As long as you are caught up in this moral framework, you are still part of it. Don't tell me that you are above all this morality!
No, but I also thought that the highest possible way of relating is . . .
UG: Whether you have sex with one person or ten persons, it really doesn't matter. You are not free from these moral problems. If you are free from the moral problem, you are free from sex too - they go together. You can't separate the two. This is why you are bound to be miserable, no matter what you do.
Yes, but perhaps we should practice this: first try with one partner, and then two, then three, then ten . . . and so on.
UG: Like this holy hooker (UG's Freudian slip of the tongue?) . . . you will come back to the same.
But I thought that was the highest possible way of relating . . .
UG: You go and try it; there is no end to it.
You always say that there is no relationship possible. But I always thought that the highest relationship is not talking about something superficial like that but . . .
UG: Through sex, hmm?
Yes, sex, making love. But afterwards I realized, ‘No, that's not true.’
UG: It's not true. What you are saying is not true. It is not the highest.
Then . . . what is the highest?
UG: There is no highest.
There is no highest; yes, but, of course, we mean ‘highest’ in this practical day-to-day life of . . .
UG: No relationship is the highest. Finished, you see. No relationship at all. You are looking for a perfect relationship, ideal relationship and the highest. Temporarily you feel good. Go ahead, I am not a moralist. But why you are separating sex from the other activities of your life? You are still moralistic. That's why you want to put sex on a different level. It's like anything else. Any action of yours, the whole thing, is a series of reactions; you cannot isolate yourself. This is not an isolated action at all.
But, how do you say we separate sex from the other activities?
UG: You are discussing sex as if it is something different from other human activities. The society has made it into something special. You are not free; you are still caught up in that moral framework of the society. Yes, you can get away now with free sex - the pill you can take. So the credit goes to the pill. Otherwise, you should bear children, and there are the laws and so many other problems; it is not such a simple thing as you imagine. You should thank those who have invented this birth control thing.
UG, when you were 18 or 16, you said to yourself: ‘Why should I meditate when there is this urge for sex?’ and you had wet dreams and so on.
UG: I did not rush and have sex.
No, but later on you did have sex. Did you experience or did you find out what exactly the sex wish is, what it consists of, or where it comes from?
UG: Sure. Meditation and sex, they go together. As long as you meditate, so long sex is there. So, I was not able to look at it that way in those days. I separated them. Now I know that both are the same. Thought is there, and as long as the thought is there, sex is there. The continuity of thought, the buildup you are talking about - you want to shake hands and then you want to embrace the man, kiss him and then so on and on and on - this is the buildup. It's all bound to end up in bed. Sorry to say that. But what prevents that is your moral problem: you are not free from the moral problem at all. As long as you have this moral problem, so long sex is there. And whether you have sex with one person or with a thousand persons, it really doesn't matter.
So when you are free from that moral problem, once and for all, not only in sexual relationships, but relationships in any human activity, then sex goes. Not only sex, the whole thing: the search, God, Reality, transformation - everything is washed out of your system.
You see, you don't have the search and at the same time free yourself from sex. The search for something must come to an end. The search for happiness, perfect happiness - that is all you are interested in - perfect relationship or ideal relationship. That doesn't exist at all.
So the search includes everything?
UG: The search includes the search for truth and God. God must go, not only the God that people believe in and all the variations of that, but you see, your moksha, your liberation, freedom, mutation, transformation - all that must be thrown out of your system. And not through any volition of yours.
At this moment I can't see what it is to live without morality.
UG: Until then you will have sex in some form or the other. You can suppress it, sublimate it, do what you like; but it's still there. Your wanting to free yourself from that is sex!
Even awareness is sex?
UG: Yes, wherever there is awareness, there is sex; wherever there is self-consciousness, there is sex.
But I don't see anything wrong with sex.
A visitor who has just arrived joins in the conversation.
UG: I am not saying there is. It's their problem. She asked me the question ‘What's wrong with sleeping with ten men; why should I sleep with one man?’ I said, ‘It's all right with me.’ But she is afraid of the consequences. You don't give a damn whether your boyfriend will be happy or unhappy. That's a fact.
And he will find other girls as well.
UG: Yes, he can find other girls and she other boys.
Yes, I am worrying about that too.
UG: Oh, already jealous too! You don't mind going around, but if he does, you are going to object to that. Sure! No doubt about that. Until you are sure of the hold on the other branch, you don't want to let go of this branch.
Yes. When I am looking at someone, some woman, and I see she is not a rival, I can look at Robert or her with ease. But if she is a real rival, I feel it in my stomach and I can't look at that girl.
Really? Hmm, strange!
Oh, come on, you are jealous too!
UG: If you don't feel that jealousy, there is something wrong; you are sick!
Well, maybe something is wrong, yes.
UG: That's all. If you don't have jealousy, envy, greed or any of those things, that means something is wrong; you are sick!
UG, when there is a beautiful woman walking by, and we are sitting at Chez Esther, the restaurant, and Robert has not yet seen her . . .
UG: What do you mean, ‘He hasn't seen her?’
Then I quickly start a conversation or I say, ‘Look at her,’ or I get shy and I blush.
UG: Even before you were looking, he was looking!
Sometimes not; then I see her first.
UG: No, no. Perhaps he is looking at some other girl even more beautiful then the one you saw! Anyway, feeling jealous is very natural. There are people who say they never feel jealous; they want to prove that they are something different. That is a sign of sickness. They think that they are spiritual or in some way different from other people; but they are not different.
Well I am surprised when you say that because I don't have these reactions of feeling jealous or feeling something in my stomach, the non-jealous lady says in a jealous tone!
UG: Yes, you are a chicken anyway; you don't even know that, come on!
Well, I am it; I am jealous one hundred percent! says Margreet proudly, because she feels UG agrees with her.
The non-jealous lady says: Yes, that could be in a different situation; then I can imagine that . . .
UG: Not in a different situation! You see, if you had a boyfriend and that boyfriend runs after another girl, boy, that would be the thing! Your spirituality and all that would be finished at once.
Oh yes, I would kill him, says Margreet.
UG: Kill him . . . or feel miserable. I know that. I don't pay any attention to all those people who brag saying ‘I am not jealous.’ If you are not jealous, you must be sick. Or the situation has not yet arisen where your involvement is at stake. That will be the time!
You know, I was in an ashram and there they said: ‘When you feel jealous or angry, you have to drink five glasses of water and then it will go away.’
UG: And then it will come back and you will have to go to the toilet five times an hour. And that is why you don't have time to be jealous; you will just run to the toilet!
And once I was in an acupressure centre and there I was very angry at somebody. Then the reaction was: ‘Oh, when you are angry, you just have to push here, and then the anger will go away.’
UG: You give so much importance to it because the whole approach to the problem is based on false morality, guilt! You have been fed on that kind of thing by these religious people all the time. You are being angry and yet you condemn it. That's the strangest thing and that's why you are all sick, neurotic. You can't even look at it without these guilt complexes, guilt feelings. You can't look at anything.
Is that only because of our education?
UG: Education, culture, religion, all of them are responsible. The god men say: ‘You can become a god man only when you free yourself from sex.’ That is not correct: that must go, your search for truth, your search for reality. Your sex and these things, they always go together. You can't separate the two and put one on a higher level and say the other is something to be avoided. Not at all.
Your transformation, mutation or whatever you want to call it is a variation of the same thing.
Sex cannot be used as a means. Denial is not the way. You can have sex until the last moment, but still this kind of thing (enlightenment) can happen. That's why I said they were all furious with me; I said: ‘A murderer, a thief, a con man or a rapist has as much a chance, if not a better chance, as all the spiritual seekers we have in the world put together.’ So, it's not because of what they do or what they don't do.
UG, you never feel jealous? When, for example, I look at Valentine now, you have no problems with it? (Joking)
UG: What do I care? (Everybody laughs) . . . even if I had a beautiful young wife! But the chances of my having a beautiful wife are none.
Well, maybe your interest is none, but your chances are very good.
Oh yes, I remember something from last year, UG. There was a film actress; she was coming here and you kissed her hand!
UG: Come on! I kissed her hand? Nonsense!
No, we saw you kissing her hand!
UG: Not I. She forced herself on me, but I didn't allow her.
Oh no! She did this . . . (Makes a sound of kissing.)
UG: Never! She took my hand, she did. I'd never do that.
No, but then you let it happen?
UG: I had no choice.
Yes, she was rather aggressive, hmm? Very strong.
UG: Yes, ‘I am a Mexican’, she said. Also, once there was a girl in California. She always wanted to hug me, you see. So, she waited, waited and waited, and then, on the last day, just before I got into the car, she came running.
And she hugged you?
UG: Yes! I didn't have a chance; I couldn't get out! Such things do happen. But I don't care.
UG, you are not propagating any teaching; you say you don't have to offer any solution to the world. So, actually your purpose here is just to have a vacation?
UG: My purpose here is to ask you to go! I'm sorry, ‘Nice meeting you . . . and goodbye.’ It's not that I am rude or anything, but that's the reality of the situation. I am no savior of mankind. Who am I? Who has given me the mandate? What I am saying has no social content in it at all. What can I do? I am so helpless, totally helpless.
So, if I see the misery there, I sit and cry with them - it's not that I literally cry. But, as you said, the world is in a very sorry mess - that's true. You see, we are going to blow up everything. We have set in motion the forces of destruction that nobody, no teacher, no God walking on this earth and no Bhagawan can stop.
They can make all kinds of plans but they have set in motion and they are progressively pushing the whole thing into the direction of the destruction of everything. It does not mean that I am a prophet and that it is going to happen - not that I see the future or predict it - but it's moving in that direction. Maybe some miracle will happen and everything will be saved. I don't know. I think it will continue; it cannot go. Man is not that foolish and stupid to destroy everything he has created with his own hands. But you cannot rely on the wisdom of man, or the wisdom of all the sages, saints and saviors of mankind which we have had and which we still have in the marketplace. That wisdom which they are dishing out cannot be of any help. They are creating more discord, more and more discord. Every teacher says he is the one who has the answer for all the questions. So, but it seems to be going on.
Nobody has given me the mandate to save mankind. I am not the savior of mankind. Who am I? And first of all, what's wrong with this world? The world can't be anything other than what it is. Nobody is really interested in solving the problems. You are always talking of changing the world because there is a drive inside of you to change yourself. When this urge, the demand, the urgency to change yourself into something other than what you are comes to an end, the talk of changing the whole world for your own reasons will also come to an end. They go together. There is nothing to be changed here, so there is nothing to be changed around you. What is wrong with this world? How can it be different? How can it be different, man being what he is? It is not going to be different.
You can talk of love - ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ - and talk of universal love, universal brotherhood. But nothing is going to work. It hasn't worked. It is not that I am pessimistic, but in the very nature of things it cannot work.
There are solutions for our problems, but nobody wants those solutions. These are all man-made problems: the starvation, the misery, the wars. You know, as long as you are creating frontiers around you here, so long there will be frontiers there.
If the demand for ‘more’ is absent, then all the goals - including your spiritual goals - are finished. There are no goals. There are only needs and the needs you are left with are the needs for physical survival. Finished!
Then the goals and needs become one.
From summer 1967 until the summer of 1983, UG answered all of people's questions most willingly, sometimes even in the middle of the night!
Everybody must be able to see me, whosoever and whenever. It's not your business to send people away, no matter for what reason! UG once said to a landlord who had sent away a UG-visitor, explaining that UG was resting for a while.
For sixteen years UG exhausted himself talking to thousands and thousands of people who visited him. Since the summer of 1983 he became rather quiet in the verbal expression of his natural state. He still allowed people to visit his place, but ‘preaching his teaching’ had slowed down.
UG: What use is it, hmm? You just read these books about me and then you know everything. I don't have to say anything more, and I don't see any point in saying to these people the same things over and over again.
Since the end of summer, 1988, UG had minimized his conversations with visitors. Several video recordings have been made in several countries and by different institutes. Some of them were interviews broadcast by American television stations; another one was the 20 minutes documentary made by members of a Dutch academy of video art. And there are many more these days on UG's websites and on YouTube.
UG: If people want to know what I am talking about, they can watch these video recordings.
UG's life seems to be governed by sequences of seven-year periods. Seven is a sacred number, and seven times seven years makes forty-nine years, the age at which UG was ‘born again.’
Three also is a sacred number, and three times seven years makes twenty-one years. This is the number of years in which UG had been traveling all over the world expressing his natural state.
In the year of 1988 he had fulfilled ten periods of seven years.
If UG really wanted to cease sharing his paradoxical wisdom, merely his ‘wishing it’ might not be sufficient; his physical attunement should be adjusted: When there were no people around UG or when he could not speak to his friends and answer all their questions, the normal and smooth functioning of his ‘instrument’ seemed to be in trouble. In summer 1983 in Gstaad, Switzerland, after a month of retirement and no people around him, UG told this surprising story:
UG: . . . At no time do I make the distinction between outside and inside. It is not that I cannot make the distinction, but, you see, this is very strange. My explanation is, ‘Maybe the eyes are distorting the light.’ When you close your eyes, light is still penetrating through the porous skin, you know? Here, the gland here, if I close this, it is dark. If I don't close this, there is more light inside than with the eyes opened. If I close my eyes, it is not pitch dark. But if I close this spot on my forehead, the light is completely gone. It's very strange. I sometimes play with this kind of thing. I haven't found any satisfactory explanation. I asked two or three physiologists, but they really don't know. This gland, the pineal gland, is the one that is the most painful. It started again!
You know, when I don't talk, when I don't do anything, the trouble starts. Today I was in bed all day. If I am not active, I have to stay in bed and then go through these horrible pains . . . miserable situation! I was in my room most of the time today. And then, when I come out, you see, you are like a drunkard, tipsy. What it is, I don't know. You go off, and then, when you wake up, you feel as if you have walked hundreds of miles: pain in your legs - a horrible situation . . .
Perhaps, if a real teacher cannot teach for some time, because for some reason there are no people around him, his inner energy runs wild. In the same way, a powerful engine may get broken when the tools it has to move or rotate are suddenly disconnected. It seems that UG's powerful ‘revolutions’ were in trouble when there were no ‘disciples’ near him to be ‘turned round’.
This is the traditional reading. However, when UG was asked why he wanted to help people, he exclaimed:
UG: I don't want to help you. It is your sitting here that creates the motive in me (to ‘help’ you). That's all.
Goodbye
‘Stop UG, you cannot go out of my house now!’
UG quotes the helpless cry of one of his friends who could not bear the fact that he would have to live a long time without UG and UG's wisdom.
UG: I went there to say goodbye to him. ‘No,’ he said, ‘I won't let you go out of this house, unless you . . .’ (UG laughs)
What did he want? Did you give it to him? (Laughing also)
UG: What is there to give? It was a funny scene this morning . . . I went back because I forgot my pullover. He didn't want to give me back my pullover, you see. I said, ‘You can have that pullover and anything else you want; but this is the one thing I can't give to you. Nobody can give truth to you. Try your luck somewhere else!’
